Great use of a Cohort...
Director of Game Design
|
Hmm...
Well.. I can see this being an issue, but I am honestly a bit perplexed. It seems to be a pretty big risk to me, since the guy you would want to bull rush into an attack position would have a pretty good CMB, meaning that the guy who pushes has to have an even better CMB, which means that a good combat character has to waste and action moving another character to pull this off.
I mean.. maybe it might happen, but I am more concerned about Bull Rush, and other forms of involuntary movement, being used to trigger a host of AoOs...
But, then again, maybe that does not come up to often either (I have only seen it a few times).
More data is needed. Is there any playtest feedback on this front? What is your play experience with Bull Rush?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
There is the choice of two evils behind that: either you can position one ally with a hole standard action without provoking an attack of opportunity or you can make an enemy running the gauntlet through an espalier of AoOs. Maybe there's a way to fix that.
Let's see: The rushed opponent isn't subject to AoOs. The combatant who did the bull rush attempt provokes AoOs for moving.
Let's see: The rushed opponent isn't subject to AoOs. The combatant who did the bull rush attempt provokes AoOs for moving.
Bingo.
I don't want to see:
1} PCs bull-rushing foes through squares threatened by allies just to provoke,
2} PCs bull-rushing each other to create movement that doesn't provoke,
3} Enemies bull-rushing PCs through a bunch of other enemies to get the PC smacked around,
4} Enemies bull-rushing each other to deny PCs AoO.
The goals are twofold; someone needs to provoke and that someone shouldn't be the recipient of the bull-rush action. 2 and 4 require some form of AoO and 1 and 3 tells us who should get the AoOs.
If I shove someone around, I provoke. If I'm shoved around, I'm either shielded by the brute doing the shoving or I've got enough wherewithal as I'm being shoved to block incoming attacks at me. There's your rationalization.
What is your play experience with Bull Rush?
Bull Rush? What's that?
Bull Rush suffers from the same problem as just about every non-full-attack action: it's not a full-attack.
Anyways, setting up friends for full-attack actions is not new, even to core books:
-Dimension Door
-Telekinesis - bullrush your friend.
Or my personal favorite:
-Have your familiar/animal companion do it for you: Cape of the Mountebank.
So being able to bull-rush your friend into full-attack range isn't so dangerous.
-Matt
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
My Play experience with Bull Rush, at least in the last two campaigns I've ran is it can be a pain in the tuches! Of course I've had a player with a Goliath Barbarian with the Knockback and Rampaging Bullrush feats. It's been a while since he's BullRushed an enemy for the express purpose of gaining AoO's as he's been using it to trip multiple foes with Shock Trooper.
The races of stone feat Knockback is seriously broken adding in the damage from the power attack as a modifier to the Bull rush attempt. It quickly outstrips the abilities of opponents to compete especially when the attacker also has massive str &the Imp. Bullrush bonus.
So yes using Bull Rushes for AoO's is a tactic used at my table, especially since with Knockback the Bbn doesn't have to move with the foe. I imagine my player(s) whill whine about this change, as they are quite tactical but I'm all for it.
And to all you who decry any attack option other than a full attack a trap or whatever... zip it. Some people like playing more dynamic encounters.
--Vrockback
Combine Bull Rush with Overrun and people won't be Bull Rushing their Allies to spare them an AoO anytime soon, I'd imagine. It might be neat to move your ally five feet without provoking AoOs, but it's going to be less tactically useful if he ends up on his ass at the end of the manuever...
I like this.
I would tend to allow Bull Rushing a willing Ally WITHOUT a Maneuver Roll,but in this case, I would still call for a roll to see if the Ally falls over at the end.
Nice!
What's wrong with a bullrushed character incurring AoO?
It's a battle. Doesn't this come under group tactics? Shouldn't a bullrushing player be rewarded for corralling an opponent into a nest of his allies? Is that not the second logical excuse for choosing this action in lieu of full attack, or is this action only for pushing people off cliffs?
Really, why are we worried about that? It doesn't seem "imbalanced" to me in the least. If you get bullrushed into a pile of enemies, you should get hurt. Furthermore, I would buy a beer for the bullrusher who pulls it off. To me, that seems like one of the coolest payoffs for spending a feat on improved bullrush... and I've never had a character who did.
If this game is even the least bit tactical, as implied by the presence of a battle grid and rules, then you should suffer if you put yourself in a bad position. If you can be bullrushed through a threatened area, that means you're surrounded, and "flanking" aside, being surrounded in a fight is bad. I don't think anyone deserves a break in that situation.
Amen!
|
What's wrong with a bullrushed character incurring AoO?
It's a battle. Doesn't this come under group tactics? Shouldn't a bullrushing player be rewarded for corralling an opponent into a nest of his allies? Is that not the second logical excuse for choosing this action in lieu of full attack, or is this action only for pushing people off cliffs?
Really, why are we worried about that? It doesn't seem "imbalanced" to me in the least. If you get bullrushed into a pile of enemies, you should get hurt. Furthermore, I would buy a beer for the bullrusher who pulls it off. To me, that seems like one of the coolest payoffs for spending a feat on improved bullrush... and I've never had a character who did.
If this game is even the least bit tactical, as implied by the presence of a battle grid and rules, then you should suffer if you put yourself in a bad position. If you can be bullrushed through a threatened area, that means you're surrounded, and "flanking" aside, being surrounded in a fight is bad. I don't think anyone deserves a break in that situation.
So far I haven't got the setup yet, as you need the improved and greater feat. But I have taken the improved feat so that I can use the Barbarian knockback without incurring the AoO.
I frequently charge the minion line, smash through the first one knocking him back, then next round knockback/5ft step until I reach the "boss" I leave the rest for the rogues and mages to clean up. (I also take a lot of damage each round, but thats okay, I'm GALNORAG!!!!! *I will die in a glorious way, or win :)
My end game is of course to set up so that my rogue friends who flank a powerful foe strike with AoO as I push him around.
See, there's already a penalty built into being bull-rushed; involuntary movement. Being where you want to be on the battlemat is hugely important. It's bad enough to be relocated against your will. To take (potentially lots of) damage at the same time is just adding injury to insult. Yeah, there's some damage associated with a grapple or a trip, but it's (probably) not the same degree of bad news that a couple AoO might earn.
See, there's already a penalty built into being bull-rushed; involuntary movement. Being where you want to be on the battlemat is hugely important. It's bad enough to be relocated against your will. To take (potentially lots of) damage at the same time is just adding injury to insult. Yeah, there's some damage associated with a grapple or a trip, but it's (probably) not the same degree of bad news that a couple AoO might earn.
Yeah, this is a matter of preference, I think.
You seem to be viewing it as "the benefit of the action is too great if the AoO is included."
Myself and others are viewing it as "you shoved that guy into a bunch of your heavily armed and waiting friends. That's gonna hurt."
Advantages of bullrush are so highly situational, I can't personally condone the removal of an obvious opportunity for its use. Reasonable geeks may differ.
This would mean one free attack from all of your allies just for the price of one Bull Rush. And, when doing the timing well, that's a full attack for everyone of them before the poor guy even knew what hit him.
A Bull rush is potent enough when timed well, so don't give it unnessecary boost.
Further, it isn't that unrealistic to assume that a bull rushed opponent doesn't provoke AoO's but the attacker does, since it's quite a raw act to perform but a rather defensive one to resist. And only allies aware of your maneuver, waiting for it should get an advantage, by performing the Delay or Ready Action.
I repeat: Bull rush is potent enough without giving it the AoO possibility when used tacticly clever.
|
In 3.x creatures moved by bull rush did provoke attacks of opportunity.
As per the feat greater bullrush, Jason seems to want to make it so in Pathfinder RPG they don't provoke attacks of opportunity through this movement. (Breaking the convention of movement provokes attacks of oppotunity.)
Removing this from the normal way bull rush opperates opens the door for you to bullrush allies into places so they can avoid taking attacks of opportunity. Tack on the fact that they haven't used up any of their own movement, and we have a potential full attack without taking an attack of opportunity delivery system.
Please revert to the 3.5 model, and keep with the convention that movement provokes attacks of opportunity.
Neither the Beta rules nor the 3.x rules allow you to bull rush an ally - both descriptions specifically state that bull rush applies to opponents. Is my interpretation wrong?
|
|
Neither the Beta rules nor the 3.x rules allow you to bull rush an ally - both descriptions specifically state that bull rush applies to opponents. Is my interpretation wrong?In 3.x creatures moved by bull rush did provoke attacks of opportunity.
As per the feat greater bullrush, Jason seems to want to make it so in Pathfinder RPG they don't provoke attacks of opportunity through this movement. (Breaking the convention of movement provokes attacks of oppotunity.)
Removing this from the normal way bull rush opperates opens the door for you to bullrush allies into places so they can avoid taking attacks of opportunity. Tack on the fact that they haven't used up any of their own movement, and we have a potential full attack without taking an attack of opportunity delivery system.
Please revert to the 3.5 model, and keep with the convention that movement provokes attacks of opportunity.
True it does say opponent, says nothing about ally at all.
OK, thinking about it some more, it would seem to me that the pusher and the crackhead- err person being pushed that is- should both be susceptible to AoO. Both people are very much focused on the Bullrush itself. Both people are potentially moving through spaces that normally would provoke AoOs.
Should someone be able to arrange a Bullrush to push an opponent into position to have them chopped at then that is just good planning. But let's face it, if a fighter is pushing a bad guy to be adjacent to the wizard, the rogue and the cleric that is just plain dumb. That wizard and cleric are now limited in their activities. At the least they have to cast defensively, at the best they make melee attacks. I prefer my casters to cast spells rather than play wanna-be fighters.
On the other hand if the PC is being pushed into a mob of attackers, then by golly that PC should not have been that vulnerable to begin with and deserves a good thumping. Maybe he'll learn better.
Honestly if this occurs more than once or twice in a campaign then someone is not paying attention and needs a good thumping until they learn better. This is a great tactic that MIGHT work once during a BBEG fight, but otherwise not likely to occur many other times.
And as for pushing an ally into position... seems like an awful big waste of combat to me. So, let's see, we have the Fighter push the cleric pass the bad guys so the cleric can then do... what? Cast defensively again and hope and pray? Or use his puny 3/4 BAB to scratch someone? Makes more sense for the Fighter to grapple the bad guy then let the cleric move through. Or sheesh, just man up and take the AoO attempt and move on with combat. If you are afraid of being attacked then combat is the wrong place for you to be in the first place.
Keep the AoO on Bullrushing. If someone gets AoO to death so be it. It would almost be like saying if you get hit too many times you might die, so we are going to change that too. Now on, no one can be hit more than twice cause we don't want a chance for PCs to, you know, ACTUALLY die.
Please, please, please, do not wussify the game.
|
|
Hmm...
Well.. I can see this being an issue, but I am honestly a bit perplexed. It seems to be a pretty big risk to me, since the guy you would want to bull rush into an attack position would have a pretty good CMB, meaning that the guy who pushes has to have an even better CMB, which means that a good combat character has to waste and action moving another character to pull this off.
I mean.. maybe it might happen, but I am more concerned about Bull Rush, and other forms of involuntary movement, being used to trigger a host of AoOs...
But, then again, maybe that does not come up to often either (I have only seen it a few times).
More data is needed. Is there any playtest feedback on this front? What is your play experience with Bull Rush?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason, the few times in 3.5 that this situation surfaced, it did make the "bullrush" too powerful; it didn't happen very often - especially since you would need to win the bullrush significantly to really move one past several threatened squares.
All that being said - I agree with your concern, and feel that the capability of setting up so many povoked AoOs is a little unfair.
On the other side of the coin, I can see players trying to abuse the rule as is, to help their allies get moved into a better position without provoking AoO's that would have ordinarily provoked had they chosen to walk on their own.
Furthermore, the person doing the bullrushing provoking the attack as opposed to he who is being bull-rushed (as someone suggested) just doesn't make logical sense at all.
May I propose a different approach; omit from the game completely the ability to have the bull-rushed (or bull-rusher) provoke AoOs from 3rd party whatsoever. Instead Greater Bullrush allows the bullrusher to make the bullrush in conjunction with an attack.
GREATER BULLRUSH
Prereq: Imp. Bullrush
Benefit: When you attempt to bullrush an opponent, you can make a single attack at your highest BAB against your bullrushing target. If you were charging for your bullrush, include the +2 charging bonus to your attack roll as well. Regardless if the attack succeeded or not, adjudicate your bullrush seperately.
This addresses the potential of so many AoOs making the bullrush too lucrative - but it doesn't yet address allies being bullrushed into better positions without worrying about AoOs.
Perhaps there's a better way to indicating this; worst-case scenario, there can just be a gamists fiat in the bullrushing rules that stipulates "You cannot perform this maneuver on an ally." Even if it breaks some semblance of verisimilitude; logic need not apply to help make things balanced.
Robert
|
|
All that being said - I agree with your concern, and feel that the capability of setting up so many povoked AoOs is a little unfair.On the other side of the coin, I can see players trying to abuse the rule as is, to help their allies get moved into a better position without provoking AoO's that would have ordinarily provoked had they chosen to walk on their own.
Furthermore, the person doing the bullrushing provoking the attack as opposed to he who is being bull-rushed (as someone suggested) just doesn't make logical sense at all.
I just don't see this as a real problem that should nerf the underlying rules system. Remember if you make an exception to the basic rule then you have set precedent for all kinds of weirdness.
OK, if I am pushing an Orc twenty feet back, and during that pushing I enter a space threatened by another Orc and then I keep pushing and leave that threatened square and enter another square threatened by that same Orc, why does he not get an AoO on me? (barring a special feat for it-special feat is fine)
If I had just been walking along and focused all of my attention on him, the Orc would get an AoO. Why does it matter that I am focused on pushing someone else that I can deny him that AoO?
This makes absolutely no sense at all that an attacker cannot provoke an AoO.
And how is it unfair to set up AoO using Bullrush? OK, the PCs are setting up their group, moving into position. And what is the GM doing? "Mmmm the PCs are moving to surround my Orc. I could take advantage of the next two rounds that it will take them to move into position to move the Orc out of being ganked. Nahhh I think I will let the Orc stay there and get butchered."
If that is what the GM wants then so be it. If the GM didn't see it coming too darn bad. The PCs used their brains, set up a tactical situation to give them the advantage.
We could just set up a fiat rule that PCs and NPCs can never try to outsmart their opponents and get an advantage in the game. That way it is fair for everyone. No one has to worry that they might actually get hit and damaged.
If we want to keep it all nice and fair then let's just alter all the weapons so they are heavily padded and only do 1 point of subdual damage. That way it is nice and fair to everyone and no can get hurt.
To me this is a game about combat. Blood spurting, bone breaking, flesh erupting in flames. Let's not make it game about making sure combat is fair so no one can get an advantage for good thinking and no one can be made to move against their will and get hurt- cause golly gee gumdrops that is just not very fair at all.
I mean seriously is that what people really want to play? Chutes and Ladders with paper and pencil?
|
|
I mean.. maybe it might happen, but I am more concerned about Bull Rush, and other forms of involuntary movement, being used to trigger a host of AoOs...
Why, I don't get this, why is it so terrible to have that be something that happens? I understand that monsters can do it too, and that monsters tend to have the strength needed to make this kind of thing succeed regularly, but honestly, that's something that could happen. It makes sense as a tactic and actually makes those feats worth the investiture of 20% of your feats as opposed to right now where taking two feats to have the ability to move someone 5-10 feet is kind of ludicrous especially at the rate of failure you are looking even without monsters having high strengths, 4 legs, etc. I've haven't played 3.5 that long but the only time I've seen bullrush used is for pushing people off cliffs or into traps etc.
Howsabout this, everyone in the bullrush takes AoOs as normal for moving through threatened squares, attacker and defender.
I say keep the AoO, but make it like grapple's 50%/50% chance to hit the wrong person (the two are likely entangled anyways). You won't want to try and bullrush a friend, because either way one of you two is likely to get smacked. You can *try* to bullrush an enemy through your friends, but it might be painful to yourself. You can bullrush enemies through their own ranks and the enemy's gotta decide if hitting their own guy is worth trying to take you out.
|
I say keep the AoO, but make it like grapple's 50%/50% chance to hit the wrong person (the two are likely entangled anyways). You won't want to try and bullrush a friend, because either way one of you two is likely to get smacked. You can *try* to bullrush an enemy through your friends, but it might be painful to yourself. You can bullrush enemies through their own ranks and the enemy's gotta decide if hitting their own guy is worth trying to take you out.
BINGO! I like this! Also, like the poster (lastknightleft) before you said, keep the AOO for both the attacker and the defender. Neither one is going to be able to defend himself....the attacker is too busy trying to "grapple" and push....and the defender is trying to avoid the "grapple" and stay on his own two feet.
Problem solved IMO. This should be a viable (albeit risky) tactic for both monster and PC's.
|
|
I say keep the AoO, but make it like grapple's 50%/50% chance to hit the wrong person (the two are likely entangled anyways). You won't want to try and bullrush a friend, because either way one of you two is likely to get smacked. You can *try* to bullrush an enemy through your friends, but it might be painful to yourself. You can bullrush enemies through their own ranks and the enemy's gotta decide if hitting their own guy is worth trying to take you out.
I like this, but where in the beta does it say that trying to hit someone in a grapple has a 50% chance of hitting the wrong person? I'm asking because I didn't know about that rule.
|
|
I like this, but where in the beta does it say that trying to hit someone in a grapple has a 50% chance of hitting the wrong person? I'm asking because I didn't know about that rule.I say keep the AoO, but make it like grapple's 50%/50% chance to hit the wrong person (the two are likely entangled anyways). You won't want to try and bullrush a friend, because either way one of you two is likely to get smacked. You can *try* to bullrush an enemy through your friends, but it might be painful to yourself. You can bullrush enemies through their own ranks and the enemy's gotta decide if hitting their own guy is worth trying to take you out.
That 50/50 rule in grappling applies to ranged attacks.
That being said - I can get on board with the bull rush 50/50
With the Greater Bullrush feat removing the 50% chance of those aroudn him hitting the wrong guy...
Robert
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
No there is a 25% chance of hitting the wrong target when making an AoO against either the attacker or defender.
Initiating a Bull Rush
First, you move into the defender’s space. Doing this provokes an attack of opportunity from each opponent that threatens you, including the defender. (If you have the Improved Bull Rush feat, you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender.) Any attack of opportunity made by anyone other than the defender against you during a bull rush has a 25% chance of accidentally targeting the defender instead, and any attack of opportunity by anyone other than you against the defender likewise has a 25% chance of accidentally targeting you. (When someone makes an attack of opportunity, make the attack roll and then roll to see whether the attack went astray.)
Has anyone actually seen the "bullrush an ally" loophole at work?
I'm happy with both parties incurring an AoO.
I would be unhappy to see any exceptions added to the AoO rule, because it is complex enough as is.
|
|
Has anyone actually seen the "bullrush an ally" loophole at work?
I'm happy with both parties incurring an AoO.
I would be unhappy to see any exceptions added to the AoO rule, because it is complex enough as is.
I think as a "unit" the two of them provoking 1 AoO from each threatened person they move Into AND out of a sqare (not just move from, or move towards - only if the movement is at least 10ft, and only if the movement takes them into a threatened square and out of it (perhaps into another), with a 50/50 chance of hitting the wrong guy.....
The point is: it makes the threat of an AoO still there, so that no one has to worry about it being a means of tactical movement done to allies, it doesn't let AoOs get ridiculously out of hand since theres an even-steven chance of hitting your ally, and it only allows AoOs on restricted criteria (defined by the movement above). I think it'll still allow for the AoOs, but wont' let it get carried away.
Since both combatants are considered to be occupying the same square while bull-rushing (you have to enter your targets sqare to initiate a bullrush) it makes sense that "both" targets dont provoke - the square as a unit provokes with an even chance of hitting one or the other.
EDIT: And like I said, the Greater Bullrush feat can be changed to read that "when you successfully bull-rush you eliminate (or reduce to 25%) the chance to be hit when bull-rushing"
Robert
Why, I don't get this, why is it so terrible to have that be something that happens?I mean.. maybe it might happen, but I am more concerned about Bull Rush, and other forms of involuntary movement, being used to trigger a host of AoOs...
I have to admit that I don't understand why Jason is actively nerfing various melee maneuvers (like power attack, combat expertise, bull rush, grapple, etc.). It's as if melee fighters are "not allowed to have nice things".
Personally, I like it when my players use clever tactics and flashy maneuvers. I want to encourage things like that. The only caveat I would have is that I think it's a little dull when 3.5 melee fighters who robotically trip their opponents over and over and over again. But bull rushing + grappling + sundering + disarming? Hell, yes -- bring it on!!
|
|
Why, I don't get this, why is it so terrible to have that be something that happens?I mean.. maybe it might happen, but I am more concerned about Bull Rush, and other forms of involuntary movement, being used to trigger a host of AoOs...
I have to admit that I don't understand why Jason is actively nerfing various melee maneuvers (like power attack, combat expertise, bull rush, grapple, etc.). It's as if melee fighters are "not allowed to have nice things".
Personally, I like it when my players use clever tactics and flashy maneuvers. I want to encourage things like that. The only caveat I would have is that I think it's a little dull when 3.5 melee fighters who robotically trip their opponents over and over and over again. But bull rushing + grappling + sundering + disarming? Hell, yes -- bring it on!!
I agree there is some kind of prejudice against martial combat types. For some reason it is feared they can get out of hand, but it is OK for casters to have Timestop, Wish, Miracle... That obviously is not as powerful as Power Attack.
Honestly, if these nerfs actually are used I think it will end up hurting the PFRPG in the end, because it will simply mean nearly EVERYONE will have to make major houserules to fix the nerfs.
That of course will cause a cry for either a revised PFRPG (Lord Forbid) or open up the market to competition to come out with a better version, which I think would be disastrous for everyone.
If Pathfinder RPG cannot meet the demands of players and yet another game comes on the market, it will likely spell the end of 3.x rules and drive the majority over to 4E or another ruleset entirely.
I don't want to see:
1} PCs bull-rushing foes through squares threatened by allies just to provoke,
2} PCs bull-rushing each other to create movement that doesn't provoke,
3} Enemies bull-rushing PCs through a bunch of other enemies to get the PC smacked around,
4} Enemies bull-rushing each other to deny PCs AoO....If I shove someone around, I provoke. If I'm shoved around, I'm either shielded by the brute doing the shoving or I've got enough wherewithal as I'm being shoved to block incoming attacks at me. There's your rationalization.
1) is the reason for bull-rush
Most of these "tricks" can be done without taking the feat, at a penalty.