|
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.
Yeah, attacking doesn't have to be, but there are many times that you are relegated to just a standard action and not all of them are by choice.
And since my mechanics are options that are available in a grapple they are things that have to happen after you've already been grappled, thus even making the comparison to a weapon attack is a false one because I'm pretty sure in the new version of grappling you can't attack with a light off hand weapon anymore (can someone verify this or not) especially since its not always up to you whether or not you're in a grapple.
So really the only correct comparisons are the other things that can be done in a grapple, that is, pin, move, or deal damage with unarmed strike.
Pin is good completely negates a foe for your allies to kill them, but is situational in that if your allies aren't able to focus on it then it's just eating rounds that you could be doing other things.
Move, meh, take an entire round to reposition the creature but if you try to position them into something bad like a fire they gain a bonus making it a positioning tactic, same possible situational benefit
Damage, okay here we go but it's unarmed strike, not very impressive.
Compared to mine
Throw, no more difficult then the grapple itself, moves them, leaves them prone and deals damage. and potentially damages the another creature and leaves it prone as well. I'm sorry, but compared to your other options I prefer this.
Momentum toss, okay this just moves them as well, but it leaves you free from the grapple and you could have moved them into one of those "bad places" without them getting a bonus.
Flip, okay not as much umph as throw, but since it counts as a grapple manuever and resolves as a trip you get two bonuses to your action and bigger potential damage.
EDIT: Whether or not it was a good idea in the first place to be in the grapple is another discussion and one I think we'd actually agree on.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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.
The second part exhibits aa 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.
Hey, CoL. If you want to argue that the CMB section of the Beta rule make it difficult to do fun maneuvers, you'll hear no argument from me. it should be easier to grapple or throw someone than it is under those rules.
(And charging opponents ought to be a gift to the skilled grappler / thrower.)
Isn't True Resurrection a 9th Level spell? I think it's disingenuous to get around PC death by assuming that the party can find a 17th-Level Cleric with this spell handy. (There's nobody in Eberron, for example, who can cast this spell. There was a discussion on a few threads about whether there's anybody in Golarion who could cast a 9th-Level Cleric spell for the benefit of the PC's. The answer seemed to be: there are, but they wouldn't be inclined to do so.)
Parties that include a 17th-Level Cleric are probably beyond fighting Medium or Large-sized humanoid creatures in normal gravity, anyways.
Therefore, advocating the thing that is literally a fate worse than death is immensely stupid on your part.
What you mean to say is: "Therefore, I can't see how thowing an opponent would be a wise course of action."
Again, I'm presuming that you don't understand that your language choice is aggressive and insulting.
CoL: so you still haven't come out one way or the other whether you think Expected Wealth per Level is "Fail" or not, given the variable usability of Creature-Looted Items (ill-sized, wrong alignment, etc) which leads to a variable amount of the loot needing to be sold off at half-cost once returning to a large enough market to sell it...?
(though if you FOLLOW Expected Wealth, then it DOESN'T matter if you destroy specific Loot... RAW)
Anyhow, I think you were just banned recently, if I'm not mistaken, but I doesn't look like you've changed your attitude. What is your personal need to "win" over other posters here? I mean, personally, I might also think many of the mechanisms either new to Pathfinder, or carry-over from 3.5, need a total over-haul, whatever, and I express that, but I manage to seem not to get into school-yard fights over it. Since there's MANY other RPG-systems out there, are there any that you might consider more to your taste? Or is "winning" discussion board topics what the game is about to you?
|
|
c'mon guys can we please move past crusader of logics abbrasive posting style, every thread he gets into becomes the same thing, he says something abbrasive the people who don't like that kind of thing respond, he responds with something abbrasive. the people who don't like that kind of thing respond but start to get abbrasive. the thread deliniates into a crapfest.
Yes Crusader of Logic has an abbrasive style of posting. Either just ignore his posts or look at his posts, accept that they are going to be abbrasive, fish in there for what you can respond to without paying attention to his choice of words and style.
This thread so far has been interesting, but it's quickly becoming one I'm about to stop coming too. And while Crusader of Logic has a part in that, he isn't solely to blame. In fact while for the most part its aparent to me that I can't make mechanics that would make him happy that are at the same time stomachable to me, I have however been able to take from his input and make improvements.
For whatever reason if you don't like his behavior, take the high road and just move on please. I'm tired of threads becoming a flamewar between people with his aggressive tendancies and people trying to keep paizo like its heydays. Don't like the way he posts, don't post like him, maybe state it once, move on. I think half the problem is that we get so caught up in the my way is right on both sides that it just becomes an ideological arguement that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
|
|
lkl, why don't you just ignore them?
Because they are hijacking the thread to keep it off topic and then in order to find posts actually relevant you have to read through all the back and forth. For the most part I try to ignore it, but its getting to the point that the past few pages have had more argument on playstyle and flaming than discussion of mechanics. Anywho, from here on out I plan to, that was a last ditch plea to get things back on topic. If it continues on, I'll just step out with my current versions and resubmit them for consideration when the combat section comes up.
EDIT: it's a lot easier to ignore one poster shooting his mouth off, it's a lot harder to ignore 12, even if you agree with the 12. But we've had a moderator step in so I hope that solves things.
Senior Software Developer
|
Troll squad has came out of the woodworks to give me more issues. Therefore, smiting is required. Refrain from attacking or get burned.
Hey Crusader of Logic, this isn't a battle, nor is it a campaign. There's no smiting (though there are warnings and timeouts, but those are given out by Paizo staff, not you).
I think you might be better off if you backed off a bit with the aggressive language since it's clearly rubbing people the wrong way. And probably making them less likely to give your ideas serious credence. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want.
LastKnightLeft: See that comment I made on Ad Hoc adjudication for the throwing, and that was using an enemy corpse (at least I remember it being a corpse) under my light load, which qualifies under the improvised weapon damage rules. :)
Still an Ad Hoc thing though.
TarrenDei: If the combat maneuver doesn't restrict or penalize the foe in some sort of way, it's useless. Situational potentially useful does not mean "useful". There's a reason why everyone can bull-rush/overrun/grapple/whathaveyou without needing a feat. It's too situational to ever spend a feat on.
Currently, bull-rushing is good if you need to knock a guy into a pit or into spikes or something else, perhaps if you need to knock him back a square or three for flanking benefits or something like that. Overrunning makes getting out of trapped corridors/corners possible, but rare in success unless they really don't care and allow you to provoke AoOs against them and step aside. Tripping was heavily "nerfed" down to be much less effective (and you aren't flat-footed when prone. Rogues don't get SA unless there is something else going on that strips their dex mod/flanks them. Which means the trip was pointless anyhow.). Grappling, if it weren't for the way CMB works in pathfinder, would still be the most useful of the maneuvers, especially since you can already move people while grappling as-is. Just not multiple squares while you don't move too. Sundering the opponent's gear is, as pointed out again by CoL and others, self-hindering unless you happen to be one of those lucky gamers where the DM makes up for the fact that you've just shot yourself in the foot against that treasure, unless it's a mundane weapon, holy symbol, spell component pouch, etc. AKA, something that doesn't have a lot of resale value/use out of it.
Nonspecific poster response: That whole "Not every creature carries blah blah" argument I've seen used multiple times by various people in this thread and similar ones makes little sense to me. I can understand if it's an animal or something similar where the spoils of their victories lie rotting in their lair, but if it's an intelligent, reasoning creature (read: Int 3+), then why would they keep around a bunch of highly valuable crap they can't use? If I've got npc wealth because I'm a "regular guy" and not someone blessed enough to be a full-time adventurer, I'm going to damned sure make it so what I do own is useful to me. Imagine a paraplegic getting a free Stairmaster. What's he going to do with it? Sell it and get something more useful to him/put the money in the bank until he can afford said more useful item.
In fact, there were a series of articles on the WotC boards at one time, iirc, on intelligently outfitting NPCs. Sure, there's a lot that's just useless wealth sinks, depending on the situation ("art" objects and the like), but when a guy has 5 grand in wealth laying around, do you honestly think he's going to own just a regular weapon? Unless it's just not available to him, he's going to at least want to make it masterwork. Why use a passable weapon to defend yourself when you could have a well-made one instead? Yes, there's always exceptions to the rules, but if you're only fighting animals, there's going to be a damned good reason, and it won't be "I want 2 mke lotz ov monies". That's why Sundering things shouldn't always be the first response answer to every attack against you. Now, in pathfinder you can just damage the object, inflicting the -2 and the like, which is a much better option than previously, where you had either "Break it entirely, or it doesn't really matter".
More forum glitches. Luckily I predicted this and prepared accordingly.
Last Knight: The fact you have to be in a grapple first means it needs to be even better than a normal attack as it requires a minimum of two actions to set up and not one. In other words, the correct comparison is between throwing the enemy once and throwing an axe at the enemy twice. Which means even if you only have Strength and not enhancement, special properties, and whatever else, the throwing axe comes out ahead. This is despite the fact all throwing weapons are automatically suboptimal. Therefore, the grapple > throw is worse than an already bad option.
Chris: You are still missing the point. Breaking your own stuff is still a fate worse than death. That means don't break your own stuff, not nitpick over the semantics of my example.
Also, don't weaken my language. My words are carefully selected tools designed to accomplish a specific purpose. Strong words are meant to make strong points. Don't break your own treasure is a strong point, because taking steps to actively weaken yourself when things are trying to kill you is an absolutely horrid tactic.
Do not put words in my mouth. I say what I mean and what is. Simple as that.
Quandary: I have not been banned from these forums. Why would you think I have, and why are you still continuing to pick a fight despite the warning to calm yourself directed at those that were instigating?
Also, WBL assumes you are selling most of the stuff for half price and buying what you actually want. Maybe you'll keep something, then it counts for full. This should not come as a surprise seeing as triple standard treasure aka dragon hordes and humanoid NPCs still have far less wealth than you and therefore have lower pluses than you. So having to drag items back to town in order to buy what you want is nothing new. Why are you presenting it as if it were?
If you actively chose to lower your own treasure levels then... you do. Simple as that. It's not like missing a treasure horde because you couldn't find it, that isn't your fault. You chose to break your own stuff, therefore you have less stuff. If the DM makes your actions not matter it has exactly the same effect as buying your very young child a Nintendo DS only for them to get mad and break it in the checkout line and instead of saying 'That was your Christmas present you just broke, too bad' then pay for it and leave you buy them another one because they're 'supposed to get a Nintendo DS'. The former results in them learning from their mistake and not behaving irrationally and irresponsibly in the future. The latter encourages sheer and utter douchebaggery. Next they'll start throwing **** at you because the hill giant killed them with a crit until you relent and say 'no, it didn't kill you even though the openly rolled dice say it did'.
As for systems... this one has potential, but so far it has completely wasted it. Pathfinder in its current incarnation is worth a Wiki for personal house rules. It is not worth publishing and selling as a commercial product. It hasn't done enough to qualify for that. I've written more extensive, and better house rules by myself in a few hours of my free time. I would never even consider my work worthy of a commercial release. So why then would they consider this work ready when it is clearly so premature?
I just know one or more people are going to straw man the blue **** out of me for that, saying things like 'if you don't like it leave' or whatever... except that if those that don't like it just leave without saying anything, the employees here have no way of knowing what aspects of their work need improvement. Which brings me to my next point.
As long as the forum atmosphere remains as Super Happy Fun Time group think it will continue to remain as such. Nothing will get done or fixed because all is buried under an obfuscating haze. Pathfinder will fail horribly, resulting in the death of 3.5 and a certain nameless Aberration will be free to rampage now that real D&D (every edition prior to 4.0) is dead.
I figure if I light a fire under the right people's asses, I can do something to make this system still realize its potential. Alone, it's not much. Together with those who also espouse Logic and Reason, it might work. However, I am thwarted at every turn because the 'fans' of the system seem to want said system to die a gruesome death in front of its family and children. Yeah, that made as much sense to me as it did to you. Which is precisely the point.
With all that said... it amuses me quite a bit that most involved, including the mods are singling me out when the thread did not begin devolving until my personal hate squad followed in my foot steps.
Nonspecific poster response: That whole "Not every creature carries blah blah" argument I've seen used multiple times by various people in this thread and similar ones makes little sense to me. I can understand if it's an animal or something similar where the spoils of their victories lie rotting in their lair, but if it's an intelligent, reasoning creature (read: Int 3+), then why would they keep around a bunch of highly valuable crap they can't use?
Of course you're right -- in the majority of situations it's probably not very useful to use combat maneuvers like sunder or bull rush. But it makes no sense to argue: "Since sunder/bull rush/grapple is only useful in a minority of situations, you should NEVER use sunder/bull rush/grapple." That's just gibberish, or "LOGIC FAIL".
The point is that someone, somewhere is going to want to know if they can push an enemy off a cliff -- whether it's a PC wanting to do it to an enemy, or an NPC wanting to do it to a PC, it doesn't matter. So it's a good thing to have rules to adjudicate those situations notwithstanding the fact that they aren't very useful in most situations.
It is NOT the case (IMO) that you should be able to select randomly between combat maneuvers every round and be just as effective in defeating enemies as someone who picks and chooses the appropriate time to do so. So you don't need a 17th level fighter to do 100 points of damage with his bull rush just because he can do 100 points of damage with his normal attack. That's silly.
|
|
Isn't True Resurrection a 9th Level spell? I think it's disingenuous to get around PC death by assuming that the party can find a 17th-Level Cleric with this spell handy.
Not entirely relevant, but the permanent level lost in PF Resurrection can be Restored, so assuming Resurrection will do the job the level hit is recoverable.
Throwing people does come up a lot, and it usually isn't explicitly covered in games that I've played. If there is room for it in the combat maneuvers, I highly suggest the inclusion of a specific ruling.
Except that for a given maneuver to even begin to be considered an option, you must torch two feats on it. This is a permanent resource expenditure, and a pretty damn big one seeing as that is 20% of your total unless you sacrifice all meaningful class features, then it is still 10% of your total. If you aren't going to level 20, it obviously represents a greater ratio of the whole.
If the investment is almost never justified, you've just fallen into A Trap. Of course, then you have to consider breaking your own stuff is counterproductive at best if not outright suicidal which rules out all uses of Bull Rush that don't involve Dungeoncrasher. It also rules out all uses of Sunder once you consider the things cheap enough so that you don't care about them getting broken are either not worth the time to break (random peon's weapon, just hit him once, for nonlethal if you don't want him dead), not possible to break (stuff bigger and stronger than you using manufactured weapons), or that breaking seems like a good idea until you realize it's so cheap there's no reason not to have multiple back ups (holy symbols, spell component pouches, whatever) so they aren't meaningfully affected at all.
Then there's grappling. At best this means you are limiting your options to limit one enemy's options while leaving yourself wide open to everything else. More likely it outclasses you in that department, or simply cannot be grabbed for one reason or another. There are no core PCs that can possibly qualify as good grapplers now that Wild Shape is nerfed so that the 'turn into an animal with Improved Grab to make grappling suck less' option is removed.
Lastly, trip. Tripping was alright if you specialized in it. You were a one trick pony, but you were also one of the two melee builds that worked and wasn't from the ToB. Except... trip nerf. Fail.
Except that for a given maneuver to even begin to be considered an option, you must torch two feats on it.
That's evidence that the maneuver should be made easier to perform (which I think most people are in agreement with), not evidence that it should be made more powerful.
Except that for a given maneuver to even begin to be considered an option, you must torch two feats on it.That's evidence that the maneuver should be made easier to perform (which I think most people are in agreement with), not evidence that it should be made more powerful.
No it isn't. If it is evidence of anything other than 'it needs to be better than your free options' it is evidence that it should not require Improved whatever which in turn requires (insert likely junk feat) as a prereq thereby making it require two feats for basic competence. See, even if you would auto pass the check, without Improved whatever you get auto hit by an AoO and the attempt still fails. Not that you will get it to auto pass levels, just that even if you did it would still be garbage without the two feat tax in its current incarnation. And unlike most of the points I raised about maneuvers here, this was also true in 3.5 (just then, trip was worth a damn so the two feats were justified).
If it were also a free option, then the next step would be making it actually work sometimes. Likewise, if it were already a superior option the next step would be unnerfing the success rate.
No it isn't. If it is evidence of anything other than 'it needs to be better than your free options' it is evidence that it should not require Improved whatever which in turn requires (insert likely junk feat) as a prereq thereby making it require two feats for basic competence. See, even if you would auto pass the check, without Improved whatever you get auto hit by an AoO and the attempt still fails.
(a) Your attempt does not automatically fail if you get hit by an AoO.
(b) There's no rule saying that AoOs automatically hit.But I don't know why I'm discussing this with you; you've already stated your opinion that every combat maneuver has to be as useful as a normal attack almost all the time (which I'll never agree with).
No it isn't. If it is evidence of anything other than 'it needs to be better than your free options' it is evidence that it should not require Improved whatever which in turn requires (insert likely junk feat) as a prereq thereby making it require two feats for basic competence. See, even if you would auto pass the check, without Improved whatever you get auto hit by an AoO and the attempt still fails.(a) Your attempt does not automatically fail if you get hit by an AoO.
(b) There's no rule saying that AoOs automatically hit.But I don't know why I'm discussing this with you; you've already stated your opinion that every combat maneuver has to be as useful as a normal attack almost all the time (which I'll never agree with).
Attacks auto hit. AoOs are attacks. The rule is called offense scales faster than defense, therefore your AC is hit on a 2 regardless.
Show me where the AoO hits you = your attempt fails rule has been changed. After that, show me why letting the enemy get a free shot to do something minor with a nil success rate is a worthwhile use of your actions.
My actual statement is that combat maneuvers need to either be free options as good as attacks for the same action costs or actions that have costs to be able to use, but are better than your free options to justify these costs. This is called efficiency. Efficiency is quantifiable, therefore it is not subject to the position weakening known as being 'just an opinion'. Because see, opinions are worthless. They cannot be debated, and have no meaning out of a single, very narrow set of circumstances aka your mind. Except the scope is a bit broader than the inside of one person's head.
It is flat out impossible to do anything with opinions. Doesn't matter whose they are. Mine, yours, the moment you say 'it's just my opinion' you completely negate your own argument, and when you try to play off someone else's facts as opinions you're unzipping yourself and taking a piss on their arguments. Naturally, the target of your grievous insult is going to be a little annoyed with you... To get stuff done, you must have facts. You must have math, and you must have science. Period.
My actual statement is that combat maneuvers need to either be free options as good as attacks for the same action costs or actions that have costs to be able to use, but are better than your free options to justify these costs.
Or else...what? You'll refuse to play the game? You'll write an angry telegram to your congressman? You'll say the word "FAIL" again?
If you don't like a particular combat maneuver, no one is making you use it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
TarrenDei: If the combat maneuver doesn't restrict or penalize the foe in some sort of way, it's useless. Situational potentially useful does not mean "useful". There's a reason why everyone can bull-rush/overrun/grapple/whathaveyou without needing a feat. It's too situational to ever spend a feat on.
|
|
Or else...what? You'll refuse to play the game? You'll write an angry telegram to your congressman? You'll say the word "FAIL" again?If you don't like a particular combat maneuver, no one is making you use it.
I think that he's arguing about game design, not whether he will still be able to play/DM the game and get something out of it.
For what its worth, I have some actual in game experience with this, as I had a player that constantly used combat maneuvers.
I have no problem with combat maneuvers having a base difficulty of 15 + the normal modifiers, or that combat maneuvers are trickier to pull off than normal attacks. I do have a problem with punishing someone twice for the same thing.
In other words, if they try a combat maneuver, something that has a good chance to fail, why allow the target to attack them AND effectively negate the character's action as well?
Malhavoc's Book of Iron Might had a system for combat maneuver style options, and one of the things that your character could do to make themselves more likely to perform a maneuver was to accept more risk. In other words, if you allowed your opponent an AoO and allowed the opponent a chance to negate your entire action if it hit, you got a bonus to hit. Without that kind of commensurate reward, all this rule does is dangle a carot . . . the CMB rules are a lot more straightforward than the old rules, but if they never seem like they are going to succeed, it doesn't matter how simple they are.
The character in my campaign that used these all of the time wore light armor, but could hit like a maniac (he was a goliath rogue/barbarian), and it was only his high strength (especially when raging) that allowed him to pull maneuvers off.
This system kind of says that if you wear full plate and carry a shield you are better with combat maneuvers, which seems kind of a strange idea to reinforce.
All of that having been said, if this does manage to get into the game, I'll probably houserule it. I dislike it, but somehow it doesn't strike me as something that must be address with the dire importance of cease fire agreement, else poor gamers that don't know any better might have fun playing an unbalanced system, and that can only lead to pain and suffering.
My actual statement is that combat maneuvers need to either be free options as good as attacks for the same action costs or actions that have costs to be able to use, but are better than your free options to justify these costs.Or else...what? You'll refuse to play the game? You'll write an angry telegram to your congressman? You'll say the word "FAIL" again?
If you don't like a particular combat maneuver, no one is making you use it.
You, like many others here misrepresented my position. I gave you the correct position. If content is useless, it is a waste of ink. Wasting ink = bad. Therefore, when I see things that are wastes of ink I attempt to correct them to be worth their space.
Based on your wording there I believe you are misrepresenting my position because you are a member of the Troll Squad and not as an honest mistake. Feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating accurate reading comprehension skills.
In summary, your approach fails.
Show me where the AoO hits you = your attempt fails rule has been changed.The new rule is on page 150 of PRPG Beta: "If you are hit by the target, add the damage to the DC to perform the maneuver."
So in other words, unless the attack does like... 1 damage it just makes the DC impossible. Which is the same as 'you automatically fail', but requires an entirely pointless die roll on top of it. What has changed here again? Seriously, even an utterly pathetic hit is enough to auto negate the attempt without Improved whatever. Even if maneuver success were improved, 1 damage = 1 DC still means the above holds true.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The CMB rules are a lot more straightforward than the old rules, but if they never seem like they are going to succeed, it doesn't matter how simple they are.
I agree but I thought this thread was supposed to be about how to adjudicate a throw.
It seems every thread about improving combat maneuvers gets sabotaged by people who think they shouldn't be in the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The new rule is on page 150 of PRPG Beta: "If you are hit by the target, add the damage to the DC to perform the maneuver."Interesting (I had missed that, myself) but it's probably going to end up closer to the same thing, given that the success chances are already pretty low...
I agree. I have proposed a lower base DC plus increases in the benefits for improved maneuvers, consolidation of the improved maneuvers or of consolidated greater improved maneuvers, and feats that allowed monks to add their wisdom bonus to their CMB on top of strength in other threads.
This thread, however, is supposed to be about how to handle throws.
I agree but I thought this thread was supposed to be about how to adjudicate a throw.
True, but if you can never pull off a combat maneuver in the first place, having a mechanic for throwing a character doesn't make much of a difference.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I agree but I thought this thread was supposed to be about how to adjudicate a throw.
True, but if you can never pull off a combat maneuver in the first place, having a mechanic for throwing a character doesn't make much of a difference.
Which is why dozens of threads have been started since the first release on how to make them more feasible.
Yeah, they should have a rule for throwing folk.
You should only be able throw a creature that weighs less than your "Lift over Head" rating. I'd avoid summary rulings about size, because this is sort of a superhero game when magic items come into play, and some characters seem fine hurling larger creatures about.
Maybe: You can throw any creature you can lift a distance of 5 feet per point of strength bonus. Add your Size modifier to hit to this total, and subtract the size modifier of the opponent.
So a dude with Str 16 can throw another dude 3 squares, provided said dude and his gear weight less than his "Lift over Head". A halfling with Str 22 can throw a horse 3 spaces.
Just a suggestion, correct it if desired. Anyone have thoughts on damage?
|
Here's what I have typically done in the past, adjusted for PRPG rules:
1) Grapple check to engage grapple.
2) Subsequent rounds make a special Bull Rush attempt with a +5 bonus for grappling, choosing the direction of the move. You may move with the target, or you may remain in place while the target moves. In either case, the target ends prone in the direction of your choice. If you have one or both of the Improved Grapple and Improved Bull Rush feats you gain those benefits on the throw.
OR
If the target weighs less than your lift-over-head maximum, you may throw the target as a ranged weapon by making a grapple check while grappling. If you succeed on this check, you can throw as part of the grapple action. You take a -4 nonproficiency penalty on the throw (unless you are naturally capable of throwing large objects, such as a Giant's rock-throwing). You can throw the target as a thrown weapon with a range increment of 10 feet. The thrown creature deals 1d6+Str damage (adjusting damage per target size as weapon size) to itself and anything it is thrown into. If you miss a target, roll miss direction as per splash weapons to see where your throw lands. In all cases the thrown creature ends up prone.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Yeah, they should have a rule for throwing folk.
You should only be able throw a creature that weighs less than your "Lift over Head" rating. I'd avoid summary rulings about size, because this is sort of a superhero game when magic items come into play, and some characters seem fine hurling larger creatures about.
This makes sense to me. I used a 'no more than one size greater' clause, but you've made me rethink that.
I wonder though, would the size modifiers take the weight into account already? Do we need any limit on a throw in terms of weight, particularly since a throw could include using an opponent's size and momentum against them, e.g., pulling them forward off-balance, while spinning around and placing a hip below their balance point?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Here's what I have typically done in the past, adjusted for PRPG rules:
1) Grapple check to engage grapple.
2) Subsequent rounds make a special Bull Rush attempt with a +5 bonus for grappling, choosing the direction of the move. You may move with the target, or you may remain in place while the target moves. In either case, the target ends prone in the direction of your choice. If you have one or both of the Improved Grapple and Improved Bull Rush feats you gain those benefits on the throw.
OR
If the target weighs less than your lift-over-head maximum, you may throw the target as a ranged weapon by making a grapple check while grappling. If you succeed on this check, you can throw as part of the grapple action. You take a -4 nonproficiency penalty on the throw (unless you are naturally capable of throwing large objects, such as a Giant's rock-throwing). You can throw the target as a thrown weapon with a range increment of 10 feet. The thrown creature deals 1d6+Str damage (adjusting damage per target size as weapon size) to itself and anything it is thrown into. If you miss a target, roll miss direction as per splash weapons to see where your throw lands. In all cases the thrown creature ends up prone.
The first part (the bull rush) is similar to what I came up with. The second part I may steal and add into my throw. ;-)
|
|
Yeah, they should have a rule for throwing folk.
You should only be able throw a creature that weighs less than your "Lift over Head" rating. I'd avoid summary rulings about size, because this is sort of a superhero game when magic items come into play, and some characters seem fine hurling larger creatures about.
This makes sense to me. I used a 'no more than one size greater' clause, but you've made me rethink that.
I wonder though, would the size modifiers take the weight into account already? Do we need any limit on a throw in terms of weight, particularly since a throw could include using an opponent's size and momentum against them, e.g., pulling them forward off-balance, while spinning around and placing a hip below their balance point?
I'm of the mind that size should not be as much of a factor as weight. If you can't lift it you can't throw it, and that should be enough for most situations. If you link Throw to Grapple, then the bigger creatures are getting BAB, Str, and Size bonuses to their CMB that should make them very hard to throw anyway.
Aside: I'm wondering, since CMB uses an "attack roll", can you score an automatic success with a natural 20?
Aside: I'm wondering, since CMB uses an "attack roll", can you score an automatic success with a natural 20?
If I remember correctly, that is implicitly stated in the Combat section of the Beta.
|
|
I'm of the mind that size should not be as much of a factor as weight. If you can't lift it you can't throw it, and that should be enough for most situations. If you link Throw to Grapple, then the bigger creatures are getting BAB, Str, and Size bonuses to their CMB that should make them very hard to throw anyway.
I agree with you, the issue is (as was pointed out to me) that not every creature in the MM actually has its weight listed. Also when creating monsters or making shorthand notes of a monster, you rarely put down the weight, therefor people attempting these manuevers would litterally slow the game for book checking to make a comparison of weight.
It's easier to apply penalties to larger sizes (since for the most part size can be used as a fair determinant of weight) so that it gets increasingly difficult to throw larger creatures. And then just rely on DM adjudication of whether something is just too heavy (like an iron golem) for the character to throw
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I'm of the mind that size should not be as much of a factor as weight. If you can't lift it you can't throw it, and that should be enough for most situations. If you link Throw to Grapple, then the bigger creatures are getting BAB, Str, and Size bonuses to their CMB that should make them very hard to throw anyway.
I agree with you, the issue is (as was pointed out to me) that not every creature in the MM actually has its weight listed. Also when creating monsters or making shorthand notes of a monster, you rarely put down the weight, therefor people attempting these manuevers would litterally slow the game for book checking to make a comparison of weight.
It's easier to apply penalties to larger sizes (since for the most part size can be used as a fair determinant of weight) so that it gets increasingly difficult to throw larger creatures. And then just rely on DM adjudication of whether something is just too heavy (like an iron golem) for the character to throw
Hmmm, ... see this is where I end up. When I first started using this I didn't have a rule for size at all as there is a size modifier in the CMB. Then, my players suggested capping it at size+1. Jal correctly points out though that magical items can increase strength so size caps don't work. LKL, points out that weight becomes inefficient because weights aren't listed and would need to be looked up or figured out.
Is it best to just go with the existing CMB?
|
|
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.
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.
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.
this is supposed to look like an entry on the weapon chart
Body - 1d6* 2d6* x2 5ft special bludgeoning
*deals non-lethal damage
Compiled for your convenience :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Nah, it's best to go with the manuevers and body rules I already designed to account for them upthread :D
Is it best to just go with the existing CMB?
You're really going to make me read the whole thread to find it? Give me a hint. In fact, give everyone a hint so we can carry on the now-back-on-topic conversation.
If max. weight, how do you solve the lack of info problem?
If max. size, how do you account for magical strength?
EDIT: NINJAed!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
EDIT: NINJAed!Fear my Ninja skills
It's because I'm a gnome, we're naturally inclined to the art of ninjitsu
Looking at your mechanic and mine, I think we are fairly close on this. I'll draw up a point-by-point comparison tonight. Mine is easier to do, but I'm assuming all things stay the same regarding the DCs. I'm hoping they won't.
|
|
Looking at your mechanic and mine, I think we are fairly close on this. I'll draw up a point-by-point comparison tonight. Mine is easier to do, but I'm assuming all things stay the same regarding the DCs. I'm hoping they won't.
EDIT: NINJAed!Fear my Ninja skills
It's because I'm a gnome, we're naturally inclined to the art of ninjitsu
Bingo, I'm assuming that when the combat section rolls around, we can actually fix CMBs so mine are harder by expedience of all CMBs being too hard in the first place.
...rules...
I like these a lot. I will use them as a temporary measure until the combat chapter patches come out.
Well, since there are scads of opinions on this, here's mine.
Hurl: In order to hurl an opponent, you must first successfully grapple them. Once you have grappled your opponent, you can attempt to throw them. Throwing an opponent is difficult and can only be done against opponents who are one size-category larger than you or smaller.
You have a -2 penalty to your grapple check if the opponent is larger or a +2 bonus per size category if the opponent is smaller. The foe may also apply any bonuses it may have against Bull Rush attempts (such as the Improved Bull Rush feat or a dwarf's Stability). Success indicates you deal unarmed damage to the target and he is moved 5 feet away and knocked prone. For every additional 5 you make your check by, the target is thrown an additional 5 feet.
For every 10 feet you hurt the opponent, they take an additional 1d6 bludgeoning damage, as if they had fallen that distance. Certain skill checks and abilities can reduce this extra damage (such as a successful Acrobatics check or a Monk's Slow Fall ability) the same as actual falling damage
Improved Grapple and Improved Bull Rush each grant you a +2 to grapple checks when using the Hurl maneuver.
Like I said, those are just my thoughts on it.
That sounds very balanced, it's SOMEWHAT possible without super-magicked-Strength,
but you're not likely to throw someone SUPER-FAR without such aids.
The Size Category works well, I almost thought the Large penalty could be more...
Alternately (or in addition), it could work off of the standard Encumbrance Penalty: Medium / Heavy/ more than that = no no
|
|
Well, since there are scads of opinions on this, here's mine.
Hurl: In order to hurl an opponent, you must first successfully grapple them. Once you have grappled your opponent, you can attempt to throw them. Throwing an opponent is difficult and can only be done against opponents who are one size-category larger than you or smaller.
You have a -2 penalty to your grapple check if the opponent is larger or a +2 bonus per size category if the opponent is smaller. The foe may also apply any bonuses it may have against Bull Rush attempts (such as the Improved Bull Rush feat or a dwarf's Stability). Success indicates you deal unarmed damage to the target and he is moved 5 feet away and knocked prone. For every additional 5 you make your check by, the target is thrown an additional 5 feet.
For every 10 feet you hurt the opponent, they take an additional 1d6 bludgeoning damage, as if they had fallen that distance. Certain skill checks and abilities can reduce this extra damage (such as a successful Acrobatics check or a Monk's Slow Fall ability) the same as actual falling damage
Improved Grapple and Improved Bull Rush each grant you a +2 to grapple checks when using the Hurl maneuver.
Like I said, those are just my thoughts on it.
Ooh yeah, I should add the caveat to my ability that slow fall can negate the damage, thanks for that.
That sounds very balanced, it's SOMEWHAT possible without super-magicked-Strength,
but you're not likely to throw someone SUPER-FAR without such aids.The Size Category works well, I almost thought the Large penalty could be more...
Alternately (or in addition), it could work off of the standard Encumbrance Penalty: Medium / Heavy/ more than that = no no
I'd considered encumbrance, but I thought it would over-complicate the mechanics. Plus, leverage and momentum are involved in martial arts tosses almost as much as brute strength.