EDIT: NINJAed!Fear my Ninja skills
It's because I'm a gnome, we're naturally inclined to the art of Gninjitsu
Fixed. The G is very important to remember there.
Here is a situation that I was faced with. I had a player who had lost almost all their strength to strength damage. I wanted to grab and toss them aside. Their not resisting because I am friendly and all, and want to get out of there.
What should be the mechanic for this, it should take at must a full round action, but probably only needs an attack action because I can see a person running up and tossing someone like this in combat rather quickly if they are not resisting. They are not grappling, they are not lifting them up onto their shoulders, they are just grab and toss.
So I was thinking about this, for this specific situation, that can probably be modified for an offensive combat maneuver.
Grabbing is a free action, and the toss is an attack action if they are not resisting. Otherwise this should be part of a grapple.
So why are you needing to throw your ally around? You can move right through his space just fine as long as you don't end your move there.
So why are you needing to throw your ally around? You can move right through his space just fine as long as you don't end your move there.
Becaue the shadow that drained his str were about to drain him completely and the caster that summoned them was about to finish him off when he was helpless.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Here is a situation that I was faced with. I had a player who had lost almost all their strength to strength damage. I wanted to grab and toss them aside. Their not resisting because I am friendly and all, and want to get out of there.
What should be the mechanic for this, it should take at must a full round action, but probably only needs an attack action because I can see a person running up and tossing someone like this in combat rather quickly if they are not resisting. They are not grappling, they are not lifting them up onto their shoulders, they are just grab and toss.
So I was thinking about this, for this specific situation, that can probably be modified for an offensive combat maneuver.
Grabbing is a free action, and the toss is an attack action if they are not resisting. Otherwise this should be part of a grapple.
I would have them use a 'throw' mechanic from this list but add no CMB and maybe give them a circumstance bonus.
And you could not have just killed the Shadow, or got him to back off or whatever? Or kill the caster instead?
Well, Grab should ~ Touch Attack part of "Grapple" Maneuver,
so if they're not "resisting", just like Touch Spells, it should be automatic. (Free Action as part of rest of "Maneuver")
Then, like Tarren said, you can just have some sort of roll to find out how far you "throw" them with minimum being one 5' square...???
(i use quotes since they don't need to be literally thrown thru the air)
You can even just base this off of the CURRENT Grapple rules,
the "Initiation" being Free, like I said (since they're not resisting),
and a Successful Grapple check able to MOVE them 5'. You can sex that up with "beat by 5" = 5' extra throw distance...?
(but since they're not resisting, the base DC should probably be lower, and their STR/BAB not count against you...?)
|
Here is a situation that I was faced with. I had a player who had lost almost all their strength to strength damage. I wanted to grab and toss them aside. Their not resisting because I am friendly and all, and want to get out of there.
What should be the mechanic for this, it should take at must a full round action, but probably only needs an attack action because I can see a person running up and tossing someone like this in combat rather quickly if they are not resisting. They are not grappling, they are not lifting them up onto their shoulders, they are just grab and toss.
So I was thinking about this, for this specific situation, that can probably be modified for an offensive combat maneuver.
Grabbing is a free action, and the toss is an attack action if they are not resisting. Otherwise this should be part of a grapple.
I honestly would just make this a str check, for every 5 you get on the roll the character moves 5'.
The situation is that you're using a round to toss a willing ally, but you're just doing a momentum toss. The problem though is no matter what you do, the enemy gets the AoO's for him leaving their threatened area. So keep this increadibly rare situational thing easy, no resistance and no actual pickup means it's just your strength on a shove, I'd just make it a standard action str check.
And that AoO means he goes down anyways. So I'm not sure what this is actually intended to accomplish.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The problem though is no matter what you do, the enemy gets the AoO's for him leaving their threatened area.
Even if he is being tossed backwards and not through another threatened square? The square he starts in does not count as a threatened square for withdrawing ... I would probably consider this to be equivalent to a withdrawal and rule that as long as the ally is not tossed through a threatened square (other than the square he starts in) there would be no attack of opportunity.
|
|
The problem though is no matter what you do, the enemy gets the AoO's for him leaving their threatened area.Even if he is being tossed backwards and not through another threatened square? The square he starts in does not count as a threatened square for withdrawing ... I would probably consider this to be equivalent to a withdrawal and rule that as long as the ally is not tossed through a threatened square (other than the square he starts in) there would be no attack of opportunity.
A withdrawl action is one where a character using his attention and focus to keep his defenses up while moving carefully out of a threatened area. Getting grabed and slung is completely different, no way to have that done that doesn't leave an opening for a quick jab.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
A withdrawl action is one where a character using his attention and focus to keep his defenses up while moving carefully out of a threatened area. Getting grabed and slung is completely different, no way to have that done that doesn't leave an opening for a quick jab.The problem though is no matter what you do, the enemy gets the AoO's for him leaving their threatened area.Even if he is being tossed backwards and not through another threatened square? The square he starts in does not count as a threatened square for withdrawing ... I would probably consider this to be equivalent to a withdrawal and rule that as long as the ally is not tossed through a threatened square (other than the square he starts in) there would be no attack of opportunity.
If a player asked me for the text to support this understanding of withdraw, where would I find it?
And you could not have just killed the Shadow, or got him to back off or whatever? Or kill the caster instead?
I didn't have a chance to attack the shadows because they were reaching through a solid wall with a look hole. The caster was out of my movement, but not out of the finish with her spiked chain for my friend. My friend could only craw 5 ft, and that is just barely, but his action was just before theirs so this was not good as that too would have had an AoO. This way even if they did drain him, he could still be taken care of by the cleric. This was OK, because these shadows didn't reproduce when they drain a target to 0 str.
|
|
If a player asked me for the text to support this understanding of withdraw, where would I find it?A withdrawl action is one where a character using his attention and focus to keep his defenses up while moving carefully out of a threatened area. Getting grabed and slung is completely different, no way to have that done that doesn't leave an opening for a quick jab.The problem though is no matter what you do, the enemy gets the AoO's for him leaving their threatened area.Even if he is being tossed backwards and not through another threatened square? The square he starts in does not count as a threatened square for withdrawing ... I would probably consider this to be equivalent to a withdrawal and rule that as long as the ally is not tossed through a threatened square (other than the square he starts in) there would be no attack of opportunity.
Okay I can't tell if this is snarky or being nitpicky with me or not, but I get that impression reading it so take this response with a grain of salt.
I have said several times take these manuvers and make changes the way you want. With withdrawl It's the simple fact that a normal move and even a double move provoke unless you specify your action as a withdrawl that implies tactical defensive movement. If you want withdrawl to be the player stands on his tip-toes and pirouettes away singing, "not it, not it" more power to you. There's no supporting texts for grabbing and throwing someone because the mechanic doesn't exist. Withdrawl has never specified flavor wise how it works, but I've stated how I interpret it and how I see it from a simulationist perspective. I can't see a way to grab someone, yank them in some random direction (to them) without them opening up their defense. I would allow characters to train to perform something like that in character and then if the situation arose they wouldn't provoke, but it didn't sound from the question given like something the characters trained to do, but rather something spur of the moment. In that case, no I do not see a way to do so without provoking an AoO.
Also you want to be careful with things like that because it can lead to annoying tactics like a rogue using full round sneak attack two weapon fighting and then having the fighter or bard or someone slings them away. In essence giving the rogue full attack and movement in the round.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Okay I can't tell if this is snarky or being nitpicky with me or not, but I get that impression reading it so take this response with a grain of salt.
I wasn't feeling particularly snarky or nitpicky but saw it could be taken that way, so I tried to word my question as neutrally as possible. I also think of withdraw as a tactical defensive movement but that is only implied in the rules, not made explicit.
There's no supporting texts for grabbing and throwing someone because the mechanic doesn't exist. Withdrawl has never specified flavor wise how it works, but I've stated how I interpret it and how I see it from a simulationist perspective. I can't see a way to grab someone, yank them in some random direction (to them) without them opening up their defense.
I keep picturing some dumbass halfling standing up to Death himself before being grabbed by his belt and thrown to safety before Death can react. I actually can visualize it.
Also you want to be careful with things like that because it can lead to annoying tactics like a rogue using full round sneak attack two weapon fighting and then having the fighter or bard or someone slings them away. In essence giving the rogue full attack and movement in the round.
True enough, though at the cost of the fighter's action and the rogue's next round action.
But, okay, fair enough. An AoO would probably be called for.
|
|
Also you want to be careful with things like that because it can lead to annoying tactics like a rogue using full round sneak attack two weapon fighting and then having the fighter or bard or someone slings them away. In essence giving the rogue full attack and movement in the round.True enough, though at the cost of the fighter's action and the rogue's next round action.
But, okay, fair enough. An AoO would probably be called for.
Why would it cost the rogue it's next action, If that were the case, bullrush would cost the creature moved it's next action? It would cost the fighter his action. There are other ways it can be abused though that might actually be worth the fighters action, think of all those nasty touch attack spells a wizard can cast (that have no save), only to be yanked away. If the players wanted to train and invest in a feat for it, I'd allow it (they paid for the expenditure) but otherwise, I'd have to have an AoO.
Also, in the example of the halfling standing up to death itself, in that one death hasn't moved yet and is therefor flat footed. It would be more apt to say that the halfling is actually already fighting using his weapons to deflect deaths scythe when sudenly his belt gets yanked and death gets the scythe across the stomach as the halfling is flung away now disembowled, but YMMV that's just my way of looking at it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Why would it cost the rogue it's next action ...
Also you want to be careful with things like that because it can lead to annoying tactics like a rogue using full round sneak attack two weapon fighting and then having the fighter or bard or someone slings them away. In essence giving the rogue full attack and movement in the round.True enough, though at the cost of the fighter's action and the rogue's next round action.
But, okay, fair enough. An AoO would probably be called for.
I'm using my own version of 'throw' here which had an acrobatics check to avoid landing prone (DC = to distance thrown). So, it could cost the creature thrown a move action.
Anyway, an AoO does seem to be required to avoid abuse. I really did want to hear how you would justify it to a player who said it shouldn't be.
|
|
Why would it cost the rogue it's next action ...
Also you want to be careful with things like that because it can lead to annoying tactics like a rogue using full round sneak attack two weapon fighting and then having the fighter or bard or someone slings them away. In essence giving the rogue full attack and movement in the round.True enough, though at the cost of the fighter's action and the rogue's next round action.
But, okay, fair enough. An AoO would probably be called for.
I'm using my own version of 'throw' here which had an acrobatics check to avoid landing prone (DC = to distance thrown). So, it could cost the creature thrown a move action.
Anyway, an AoO does seem to be required to avoid abuse. I really did want to hear how you would justify it to a player who said it shouldn't be.
Glad to be of service. Balance and flavor wise for a simulationist like me, it just doesn't work. Now as I said when countering your example, I might allow it to work if the enemy was flat-footed.
Read through most of the thread.
There are a few issues to consider in the "throw" rules.
1) Simplicity of use. Over-complicated rules make people confused and disinclined to use them (except for people who want to take advantage of obscure rules).
2) Effectiveness of use. Actions that are "useless" (or at least less useful) tend to be marginalized.
3) "Reasonable". The actions described should be realistic enough that players would agree "That is how it would work in real life."
Easiest item to address is the "effectiveness". We want distance, damage, possibly an effect (other than damage).
>Distance thrown = 5', with (up to) an additional 5' for every 5 points you beat the DC.
>In a line. You don't throw at a target, you throw in a direction. You can decide to throw something a shorter distance than your maximum, but this avoids the "grenade" rules.
>Damage done = 1d6 (nonlethal) for each 10' the opponent is thrown: minimum 1d6, maximum 20d6 (same as with falling). If something prevents the creature from traveling the full distance, they still take the damage as if they had moved the full distance. (IE: hit a wall)
>If thrown towards an object/creature, it is a ranged attack roll as if with an improvised weapon at the same BAB as the grapple check. Prevents abuse of people using "I throw 20 kobolds at the opponent."
>Throwee must make a fort save, DC = 10 + nonlethal damage done via throw, or else be stunned for 1d4 rounds.
Throwee also ends their "movement" prone.
Next is "reasonable":
Throwing a person involves a) having some sort of hold on them and b) managing to throw them either by strength of guile. IE: overhead or judo-style. Throwing a person is usually a matter of size/strength, although training could make up some difference. So characters with enhanced size/strength should have an advantage. Grapple rules already reflect this. CMB=BAB+Str+Size. If throw was made a simple strength check, that would ignore the idea of judo tosses, where a smaller person could throw a larger person.
Simplicity of use:
CMB check. Why make it more difficult than that? Characters with martial training (higher BAB) -should- be better at grapples than characters with less (or no) training. Throws are a part of grappling, so Improved Grapple should improve the throws.
Finally, regarding throwing "willing" targets: (PRG p150) "If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds." To determine the distance of a willing or inanimate object, it should be "Opposed DC = 20 + Size modifier", which prevents silly things like picking up a willing iron golem and throwing it without some sort of effort.
DC 20 + Size Modifier seems pretty steep to throw a willing halfling (DC 19), I'd say...?
And that would just be 5'? Each 5' would be +5 on top of that DC?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Read through most of the thread.
There are a few issues to consider in the "throw" rules.
1) Simplicity of use. Over-complicated rules make people confused and disinclined to use them (except for people who want to take advantage of obscure rules).
2) Effectiveness of use. Actions that are "useless" (or at least less useful) tend to be marginalized.
3) "Reasonable". The actions described should be realistic enough that players would agree "That is how it would work in real life."
4) Completeness. The rules must cover the variety of relevant situations likely to come up during their application.
These rules are very similar to others proposed in this thread. Looks like we are mostly in agreement on this with minor differences.
The reason I mentioned a DC of 20, is that the base DC of any maneuver is 15+opposing CMB.
At first level, it is fairly easy to get 8+ or so with CMB (goliath, 18 Str, imp grapple). If you took 10, that would be enough to guarantee throwing the halfling. As the levels progress, it only gets higher. Perhaps allowing it to go down to the usual 15+size difference is alright... would have to playtest it to see how it goes.
Just wanted to avoid the issue of someone rapid-throwing chickens or some other silly "willing object" at opponents. Worse is the idea of someone deciding to just "grapple-throw" these inanimate tiny objects (daggers).
The other idea of the "thrown halfling" is just make it an "aid another" action on a jump check. Add your Str bonus to their jump check. Completely ignore grapple and throwing if it is a willing (and assisting) creature.
Someone previously mentioned the "why bother throwing someone" bit alongside arguments for throws to deal massive damage at some point. I suggested the "fort save or be stunned" as an alternative to the throw itself doing more damage.
Nothing to prevent someone from using a featherfall or tumble to reduce the "falling" damage, either... makes sense regarding both deal with flying through the air.
|
|
so has anyone managed to playtest my rules, in my last game the only reason a halfling PC didn't get thrown was his brother using aid another to give him a bonus to escape the grapple. but the momentum toss worked well, I had people getting thrown into other tables and turned it into a whole bar fight.