Even though I dislike the direction that 4e took, I must say that there are a few things that I wouldn’t mind adding to 3.5
So my question is, is it possible to somehow include the ability to move (Push/Pull) enemies during combat. I feel that this adds a lot to the strategy in combat and makes the players work as a team to succeed.
in addition, The marking system appeals to me, but there is already a thread for that.
I can see a benefit to adding some combat feats that can be used in conjunction with other attacks. Charge a swift action for them so they can't be stacked together (only get one swift action per round and all that). The tough part is figuring out prerequisites and how they might tree together and with other feats.
I could easily see one that allows the attacker to push his opponent 1 square directly back. I could see one that allows the character to take 1 extra 5 foot step in addition to the one normally granted. I think there's a lot of room for this sort of thing.
I'm just not sure I want to be the one to crawl through all the current feats and find good niches to exploit without overshadowing what's out there or being too weak. I don't have the time right now...
There is currently already a way in a 3.x supplement, but only if you're Large size or you have Powerful Build (like a Goliath). There's a feat called Knockback which gives you a free Bullrush attempt everytime you hit someone if you are using your Power Attack feat. It's awesomeness in a can.
We need something like that in Pathfinder.
Y a can throw stuff at me after but it has to be said
4E has good parts?
Y a can throw stuff at me after but it has to be said
4E has good parts?
4E does have some good parts problem is I can't get past the bad parts. Basically I can't stand the at will, daily, and encounter power system. Drives me nuts. Because of it a fighter can't use bow. Silly.
But I do like that they changed saves to defenses and liked much but not all of the healing surge concept. Better than reserve hit points but they took it too far. I did like the push, pull and slide concept. So yeah it has some good stuff but the rest of the game is kind of dull.
Y a can throw stuff at me after but it has to be said
4E has good parts?
4E does have some good parts problem is I can't get past the bad parts. Basically I can't stand the at will, daily, and encounter power system. Drives me nuts. Because of it a fighter can't use bow. Silly.
But I do like that they changed saves to defenses and liked much but not all of the healing surge concept. Better than reserve hit points but they took it too far. I did like the push, pull and slide concept. So yeah it has some good stuff but the rest of the game is kind of dull.
We're using 'passive perception'. Makes life much easier.
I haven't got a problem with knockback/pushback/trip and flip etc. as long as you don't start 'sliding' people around in too abstract a way using just the force of your personality :)
Even though I dislike the direction that 4e took, I must say that there are a few things that I wouldn’t mind adding to 3.5
So my question is, is it possible to somehow include the ability to move (Push/Pull) enemies during combat. I feel that this adds a lot to the strategy in combat and makes the players work as a team to succeed.
I assume you mean with physical, melee type tactics? Should be easy enough to find some spells that can move people around, or make some up, without having to incorporate 4e rules.
As for moving people around during combat, 4e implemented it fairly badly, in my opinion.
It is much harder to move someone around than you might think. Just ask any NFL lineman, or any pro wrestler (not that WWE junk). For kicks, ask a Sumo Wrestler about moving an opponent around.
4e made it automatic. If your attack succeeds, your opponent is forced to move.
This lets halflings hit a dragon and move him 15' on the field of battle. Preposterous!
Automagic success just because an attack with a fancy shmancy name happened to exceed a target's AC is silly.
Now, work it into the grapple system and I'm fine with that. But wait, it already is.
Work it into a bullrush or overrun system, and I'm fine with that. It would need a DC to succeed, and this DC needs to take into consideration the size difference between the attacker and the defender. Likewise, the distance the target moves needs to be a factor of how much you succeeded on the roll, making it hard to move colossal dragons around the battlefild just by smacking them in the toe with a sword.
If we're going to do it magically, say with wizard spells, then all bets are off. We don't need to worry so much about size or strength of the victim. If he saves, the spell has no or reduced effect. If he doesn't save, he is magically moved. Easy enough to write spells like that.
in addition, The marking system appeals to me, but there is already a thread for that.
Marking was totally silly; one of the worst things about 4e (which, in my opinion, did have a few plunderable ideas - just not this one).
I call out your name and claim you as my marked target. Now if you attack my friend who is next to me, I can hurt you. Why? I dunno, just some random gamey silliness.
Further, if you are standing next to a friend whom I didn't mark, he can hit the guy next to me and I can't do anything about it. Why can I punish you for attacking my friend, but I cannot punish your friend for attacking my friend? I dunno, just more random gamey silliness.
I'm here, playing Pathfinder, staying with 3.5 ruleset (with PF changes) because 4e is a silly video game without the video part.
However, I totally support feats or class abilities that do some of what marking does.
Give me a feat that says "if my foe attacks my friend, I can use an AoO to attack him after he resolves his attacks". Call it Combat Avenger because I am avenging my injured companion by attacking his attacker. This could make sense. And if his friend provokes me again, I can attack that friend with a second AoO, if I have Combat Reflexes. Now we're talking. That would seem like a valid feat. Not because of some silly gamist marking ability. And we would make sure the feat is worded that it is clear I can do this because I am positioning myself close to my friend and looking out for him, not because I have made a special announcement that a certain enemy is "marked".
So my question is, is it possible to somehow include the ability to move (Push/Pull) enemies during combat. I feel that this adds a lot to the strategy in combat and makes the players work as a team to succeed.
There are several spells in the Spell Compendium that move targets around. I recommend checking it out. Baleful Transposition comes to mind. There is another one, that works for willing allies, but I can't remember the name. Its <blank> Transposition, I'm just having a brain-fart and can't recall what <blank> is/was.
...in addition, The marking system appeals to me, but there is already a thread for that.
Ugh. Please. No. No marking. Please.
|
I kinda like the bloodied concept, although not it's precise implementation. I've always found it a bit wonky that a 1 hp Red Dragon fights just as effectively as an 88 hp Red Dragon, with no penalties for injury, etc.
The condition track from SAGA edition comes to mind.
As you take damage over a certain amount (Roughly equivalent to your fortitude saving throw in dnd terms, sort of) you drop down in the condition track as you're physically weakened. You start normally, drop to -1 on attack rolls and skill checks, then -2, then -5, then -10, then fall unconscious without dying (unless it goes over your HP total).
I really liked this in star wars and seemed to eliminate the wonkiness of a badly beaten enemy still ready to fight at 1 hp.
I like the saga damage track myself. Not sure how it work within another system though
|
|
I like the saga damage track myself. Not sure how it work within another system though
It would have to be severely tweaked, but should still be recognizable. It, however, would require many additions to characters sheets and explanation of how it works. Simplicity is usually good for a system, and I'm not sure if Pathfinder is ready for Condition Track.
With the weapons from D&D/Pathfinder a lower number may be the target for the system's damage threshold. You wouldn't necessarily want it as high as SAGA makes it, so I'd suggest trying just the fort save at first. If that's too low then I'd suggest adding 5 before going strait to adding 10. SAGA adds half level to damage rolls, so their CT and DT start pretty high. I don't think that needs to be the case for PFRPG. I'd suggest (as well) that only spells that deal force damage or create a physical effect (like hail stone erwhatevs) cause CT movement.
This is one I wouldn't mind playtesting, but I don't know if I'll have the opportunity in the future.
A buddy of mine did say he liked the Condition Track system and was thinking about implementing it in a 3.5 game. Perhaps I'll persuade him to give it a try for a session and report back if we do it.
|
Well and esy way to build forced movement into the system is;
1. improved shield bash(or maybe shield bash mastery) as a standard action, at your full BAB, make a shield bash attack. if you hit, make a CMB to bullrush your oponent. If you succeed CMB, resolve normally, except move opponent Backword or sideways in a diredtion of your choice i.e. left, right, Straight back, or back at a 45 degree angle.
2. Shoulder Bash(New Feat)
You are an expert at useing your size to push opponents around the battlefield.
Pre Req. Str 15, Medium or larger size.
On a critical hit. make a free Bulrush. make a CMB to bullrush your oponent. If you succeed CMB, resolve normally, except move opponent Backword or sideways in a diredtion of your choice i.e. left, right, Straight back, or back at a 45 degree angle.
Other feats could follow a similar concept. Grapple is already taken care of. trip doesn't have the right mechanics, nor do sunder, or disarm.
(...)
As for moving people around during combat, 4e implemented it fairly badly, in my opinion.It is much harder to move someone around than you might think. Just ask any NFL lineman, or any pro wrestler (not that WWE junk). For kicks, ask a Sumo Wrestler about moving an opponent around.
4e made it automatic. If your attack succeeds, your opponent is forced to move.
(...)
I think the 4e idea of pushing opponents after damage is more like forcing your adversary to loose ground from your superiority in swordplay (or whatever weapon you wield) rather than a NFL lineman tackle maneuver (which is well covered as a bullrush maneuver).
Much like in a fencing competition, adversaries in a combat move back and forth, and a "leading the dance" mechanic that has nothing to do with brute force is appealing to me.
As for the halfling forcing the gargantuan dragon to move back, certainly there is no physical contact! I see it as the dragon moving back to protect its vital and more vulnerable areas from the advancing halfling. The only lack in this 4e principle is the "what if I refuse to be pushed back?" option. Sometimes, exposing yourself to a more serious blow is still preferable to a 50 ft fall... in a fire-resistant shark infested lava pool!
'findel
As for the halfling forcing the gargantuan dragon to move back, certainly there is no physical contact! I see it as the dragon moving back to protect its vital and more vulnerable areas from the advancing halfling. The only lack in this 4e principle is the "what if I refuse to be pushed back?" option. Sometimes, exposing yourself to a more serious blow is still preferable to a 50 ft fall... in a fire-resistant shark infested lava pool!
'findel
I like both ideas: losing ground and an option for standing ground. I'm gonna try them out in my game, see if they help...
The reason is, it's a simple way to make the game feel less static. I hate stand and hack. I might just make it happen on all attack rolls, hit or miss — if you choose to stand your ground, you lose your dex bonus to AC.
Iron heroes has an option for this. I think the mechanics behind it are simply that you take a penalty to your attack and if you still hit, you also drive your opponent back by 5 or 10 feet, depending on how great an penalty you took.
So my question is, is it possible to somehow include the ability to move (Push/Pull) enemies during combat.
The 3.0 Improved Shield Bash, while having heavier requisites, allows you that each Shield Bash attack counts also as a Bullrush.
Likewise, there's the Large and In Charge monster feat from Sword and Fist. As a GM I'd allow you to take it under the Virtual Feats rule, even if the only times you could use it were the times you were under an Enlarge spell.
Likewise, to pull or move there is the "Move opponent" action during a Grapple.
But yeah, while I can't stand 4E's videogamey nature, it still has a couple of things worth salvaging, its magic rituals feel ironically more magical for example.
I'd love to see movement of this sort added to combat. One thing about fights that is unsatisfactory is the stand-and-whack aspect of it.
So my question is, is it possible to somehow include the ability to move (Push/Pull) enemies during combat. I feel that this adds a lot to the strategy in combat and makes the players work as a team to succeed.
There's already bullrush (to push people around) and grapple (to move people). So it's there. I don't want 4e's silly board game mechanics in my D&D, though, so 4e's system is out of the question.
I'm generally not against mining other games for ideas, but the stuff has to work with D&D without turning it into a different game, or different sort of game, and it must be worth it.
There's already bullrush (to push people around) and grapple (to move people). So it's there. I don't want 4e's silly board game mechanics in my D&D, though, so 4e's system is out of the question.
Yet, those are rather brawny ways to move your opponent around. So yes, these are in the game, but as far as I know, neither 3.5 core rules Pathfinder offer a way to force your opponent to move without involving any slam, tackle or similar physical contacts regardless of your superiority in combat prowess .
This leads to rather stagnant combats, which I personally find ill suited to be a believable simulationist game OR for a narrative combat approach OR for a pulp action-packed combat system.
So maybe this is all a question of semantics on the bullrush maneuver or a niche for a new tree of feats, I don't know. But for all I that I dislike about 4e, their combats seem a lot more dynamic for all the same and that is a good thing IMHO.
'findel
New Combat Maneuver:
Drive Back
You can drive an opponent back as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. You can only drive back an opponent that is one size category larger than you or smaller. If you do not have the Improved Drive Back feat, or a similar ability, attempting to drive back an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to drive back an opponent unarmed imposes a -4 penalty on the attack.
If your attack is successful, your opponent is forced to retreat 5' straight back. If the opponent cannot move straight back due to an obstacle, or if doing so is dangerous, (such as into a wall, another combatant, or over a cliff) the opponent may move into any available space adjacent to the square it would have normally been forced into. You cannot drive back an opponent that has no available space to move into (an opponent who is trapped in a dead-end tunnel for instance).
Improved Drive Back
follows in style to other improved combat maneuver feats
|
I really do not see the problem with a feat alowing a free bull rush on cerain attacks. Like a standard attack, or a shield bash, etc. Not exactly a game breaker, and has lots of flavor in my mind.
The Shield Slam feat does exactly that - a free bull rush attempt on a successful shield bash maneuver.
Benefit: Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see the Combat chapter). This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance.
But I agree, another feat chain that mimics a swashbuckler's style of maneuvering opponents around the grid would be a welcome addition.
Even though I dislike the direction that 4e took, I must say that there are a few things that I wouldn’t mind adding to 3.5
So my question is, is it possible to somehow include the ability to move (Push/Pull) enemies during combat. I feel that this adds a lot to the strategy in combat and makes the players work as a team to succeed.
in addition, The marking system appeals to me, but there is already a thread for that.
There is a supplement by Enworld publishing that works well with pathfinder and fixes my major concerns with the CMB and grapple.
It's quite simple, working off of level of which you passed your grapple. if you barely pass you grab the person, allowing you to pull or push him in batle but no grapple. by 5 you tradditonally grapple the character. by 10 you pin the character (traditional).
While we're talking 4e, the only thing i'd like to add is conditions for different types of elmental damage. Fire creatres burn, ice creates freeze. I think it adds a bit of flavor to elemental damage that is gravely missing in 3.5. I often find myself saying sonic damage and my players sya8ing so what does it matter what type of damage it is outside of flavor.
I often find myself saying sonic damage and my players sya8ing so what does it matter what type of damage it is outside of flavor.
Now that's an interesting observation, and might even offer a way to salvage the Evocation school, effects that required additional saving throws to avoid, like setting you ablaze for fire, Dex damage from frostbite for cold, blance-derived penalties for sonic, etc... yup, another thing worth salvaging from 4E.
I will restrict myself to 4e push/pull/slide effects. I am not sure whether these options are best served through Feats or Combat Maneuvers, but I would enjoy the following:
Exchange place with enemy (Ya missed me!)
Exchange place with friend (Get over here!)
Pull your enemy towards you as you move back (Lock blades and pull!!!)
Push (We already have Bullrush so this is covered)
Slide (maybe a feat that gives a sideways effect to a Bullrush?)
Movement w/o AoO beyond 5' free step (Tumbling sort of covers this)
I think this whole concept also needs to be worked in with Full-Round Iterative Attacks. I think that is what really makes the battlefield static. To help that, I wish certain certain Feat Trees allowed more movement with multiple attacks. Power Attack Tree sort of has it with Greater Cleave. [Attack (and kill), 5' step, Attack]. Give the Combat Expertise the ability to exchange places. Create a Charge Tree (Charge/Overrun/Bullrush) that allows you to knock someone down on the way to a second opponent and give you silde effects. Expand the Spring Attack Tree to allow moving between opponents (even if that means moving through one of them). Basically give more options. Isn't that what 3rd Editon is about?
Well, it doesn't look like I'll get a chance to check out the Condition Track with D&D before the playtest ends. I'll be out of town for several days and unable to do it before the end. This thread will be lockarino'd before then. Drat.
Didn't Trued20 have some sort of saving throw for damage effects? I think this is what you are describing where you get physically worse as you fail savings throws from damage.
At the risk of being slightly off-topic, there's a lot of really tragic misrepresentation of 4th Edition going on in this thread. Criticizing a game system is fine, but claiming (for instance) that something is a silly gamist mechanic with no plausible explanation when it has a completely plausible explanation that you have, for whatever reason, chosen to ignore is not okay. I'm going to set a couple things straight here so that people reading this thread who are unfamiliar with 4th Edition don't receive false impressions of how the system works.
As for moving people around during combat, 4e implemented it fairly badly, in my opinion.
It is much harder to move someone around than you might think. Just ask any NFL lineman, or any pro wrestler (not that WWE junk). For kicks, ask a Sumo Wrestler about moving an opponent around.
4e made it automatic. If your attack succeeds, your opponent is forced to move.
This lets halflings hit a dragon and move him 15' on the field of battle. Preposterous!
Automagic success just because an attack with a fancy shmancy name happened to exceed a target's AC is silly.
Let's start here. Forced movement in 4th Edition is, as has already been pointed out, usually not about actually bodily pushing someone. It is an abstracted concept that involves any manner of careful lures, brash attacks that cause your enemy to lose ground, or deliberately wide swings that necessitate that your enemy move in a specific direction. It can be explained in whatever way is most applicable to the situation, but it's not preposterous just because your narrow imagining of how someone could force someone else to move doesn't explain a halfling moving a dragon.
By the way, for that specific example that you decided to bring up, imagine the halfling squaring off against the dragon. The beast rears back to take a swipe at the pint-sized adventurer when suddenly the halfling lashes out with a dagger, sticking the dragon between the softer scales of his open claws. Roaring in pain and caught off-guard, the dragon stumbles backwards for a few moments before regaining its composure and scowling at the nuisance.
Marking was totally silly; one of the worst things about 4e (which, in my opinion, did have a few plunderable ideas - just not this one).
I call out your name and claim you as my marked target. Now if you attack my friend who is next to me, I can hurt you. Why? I dunno, just some random gamey silliness.
Marking is usually associated with a character class, so this usually depends on the class in question. Fighters, for instance, are capable of marking a foe so that when that enemy takes a swing at an ally, the fighter can strike first. This isn't "some random gamey silliness". A fighter's mark represents the focus of his attention on that round - his martial training has given him the ability to single out a foe and pin him down. Not only is he harried by the fighter's onslaught (penalizing his attack roll whenever the marked creature attacks someone else), but he is also able to exploit weaknesses in that target's defense, so that when his target moves away or attacks someone else, the fighter is able to use that opening to land a blow.
A paladin, on the other hand, calls down the wrath of his deity on his foe, challenging him to engage in combat with the paladin. This divine brand smites his opponent for refusing the challenge, dealing radiant damage if the target of the paladin's mark attacks someone other than the paladin.
Further, if you are standing next to a friend whom I didn't mark, he can hit the guy next to me and I can't do anything about it. Why can I punish you for attacking my friend, but I cannot punish your friend for attacking my friend? I dunno, just more random gamey silliness.
Again, not "more random gamey silliness". Your friend is simply not the target of my attention this turn. The fighter can keep an eye on the whole battlefield, and can make opportunity attacks against anyone who provokes them as normal, but his extra martial prowess is focused on one enemy at a time. It may be possible, with more training (and levels), to eventually mark multiple enemies simultaneously, but unless the fighter is actively harrying the enemy in question he doesn't have the ability to monitor that enemies defenses closely enough to get those finesse attacks in.
Think of it this way: there are a lot of ways that people in combat provoke opportunity attacks for being careless in melee. These actions leave significant openings that provide prime opportunities for nearby foes to get a hit in. Some actions don't provoke opportunity attacks, because the hole in the actor's defenses they create is so small that most are unable to take advantage of it. Fighters, however, are able to use these openings, allowing them to strike at targets they are focused on when they take actions that normally would not leave them vulnerable.
I'm here, playing Pathfinder, staying with 3.5 ruleset (with PF changes) because 4e is a silly video game without the video part.
Not only is this statement vitriolic (and arguably hypocritical), but it serves no purpose in this discussion except to draw fire.
I now return you to your regular, 3.P-flavored programming.
|
|
Didn't Trued20 have some sort of saving throw for damage effects? I think this is what you are describing where you get physically worse as you fail savings throws from damage.
Sort of, more or less, could've been very similar, not sure. I didn't play True20, but if there is already something like this and you've played what was your experience with it?
Thanks
Didn't Trued20 have some sort of saving throw for damage effects? I think this is what you are describing where you get physically worse as you fail savings throws from damage.
Sort of, more or less, could've been very similar, not sure. I didn't play True20, but if there is already something like this and you've played what was your experience with it?
Thanks
I have no experience. I just meant that someone else might have experience or even a review. Also it was designed for d20 so no adaptation would be needed.
|
|
I have no experience. I just meant that someone else might have experience or even a review. Also it was designed for d20 so no adaptation would be needed.
I noted something that SAGA does that D&D doesn't, and that is incorporate disease, poison, and many of the conditions like exhaustion and fatigue into the condition track. This could be optimal over dealing with so many different conditions.