|
So, something that has bugged me about many RPGs is the lack rules for closing on an opponent, to a distance where their longsword, their great axe, their flail is not effective. Real World fighters both in the past, as well as the present carry secondary weapons (Indeed, the Romans made a point <No Pun intended> of their primary weapon, the Gladius, capitalizing on this tactic) to exploit such close distances. Why does your fighter bother to carry a dagger? Why would someone choose a short sword over a longsword in D&D? (To DM) What do you mean there's not enough room to swing my Greatsword in the tunnel!?!
Her are some rules/options that I am going to try out in my Kingmaker game.
Please feel free to comment, discuss, help out if something looks imbalanced, or even try with your fellow gamers.
Combat Maneuver- Close.
When withing 5 feet of an enemy, and wielding a weapon designated as a 'close' weapon, as a Move action (Considered the combatant's 5 foot step), the combatant may Close with the enemy.This requires a CMB vs. the enemy's CMD. Weapons without the 'close' designation are -2 to hit in these circumstances. Failure to beat th CMD provokes an Attack of Opportunity (Without the penalty for fighting close).
Breaking the Close condition is a Move action (Also part of a 5 foot step or a normal Move, as the combatant chooses) requiring a CMB check vs. the opponent's CMD.Breaking the Close condition does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
Example:
Krogar the Wily is facing off against a Bugbear, wielding a Flail,and they are currently 5 feet apart. Krogar (Declaring his Full Attack) uses Close,
(Rolls a total of 23, vs. the Bugbears 19, thus Closing) and now may utilize his short sword at no penalty, while the Bugbear fights with a -2 penalty to his attacks. Should the Bugbear wish to break the Close condition, it will require him to break Krogaar's CMD.
Confined Spaces- Terrain (Sort of)
Fighting anywhere that does not allow full movement (A tight tunnel, etc...) gives a -2 negative to attack rolls with any weapon not designated 'close'. This penalty stacks with those from the 'Close' condition.
Example: The Bugbear from the previous encounter has broke from Krogar's attack, and run off down a corridor. Chasing him, Krogar corners him in a small room.Krogar spots a narrow tunnel behind the bugbear, and Bull Rushes him back into it. Now, while Krogar is fine with his short sword and dagger, the Bugbear is facing a serious disadvantage with his flail, as there is no room to swing it properly...As well, Krogar has a nasty habit of getting in very close.
******************************************************************
Feat - Pass the Guard
Dex 13 required
Base Attack +1 required
You are skilled at making the most of getting in under the guard of an enemy, where longer weapons have less effectiveness.
When taking the 'Close' action, you receive a +2 to your CMB. Likewise, you receive a +2 to your CMD when an enemy tries to break the Close condition.Regardless of success of a Close Maneuver, you do not provoke Attacks of Opportunity when you attempt a Close Maneuver.
Normal: Failing a Close Maneuver provokes an Attack of Opportunity.
********************************************************************
List of weapons designated 'Close'.
Axe,Throwing
Battle Aspergillium
Bayonet
Brass Knuckles
Cestus
Chakram (In melee)
Club
Dagger
Dagger (Punching)
Gauntlet
Gauntlet (Spiked)
Hammer (Light)
Hand Axe
Kama
Kukri
Mace (Light)
Pick (Light)
Sai
Sap
Shield, Light (Bash)
Short Spear
Shortsword
Siangham
Sickle
Spiked Buckler
Starknife (In Melee)
Swordbreaker Dagger
Wooden Stake
Thoughts?
-Uriel
This has always bothered me, too. The lack of diversity in weapons (or special qualities thereof) has always resulted in players with whom I have gamed to choose weapons like the greatsword over all others. It gets pretty bland when every character hefts one around. I'd like to see other weapons made useful enough that they are at least viable.
|
|
Edited for Es... my danged Laptop has a feisty 'E' key. Added Bucklers and Shields (Light).
I utilized something similar years ago, in my homebrew, as well as unorthodox weapon attacks while in said Close condition.
Sure, that Longsword isn't at it's best, but how's your enemy gonna like that pommel across his nose...? It made combat very fun and exciting. My players would go out of their way to be not always be at sub-optimal 'weapons-ready', just to get to do things like smash mugs into their enemy's faces, headbutts (One guy used a spiked helmet in a very unsportsmanlike manner...Ouch), I won't even get into the Rogue-Type who used armored knees to hit you in the...er. Ahem.
-Uriel
I think this works better when you have a press of people around you, like in an army or large battle. In an open field with 10 or so people fighting, i cant figure out how someone could stand so that you can't lean back a bit and whack them with a long sword, and two handed swords had design elements that allowed them to be wielded in close like a quarter staff.
The back up weapons for for grappling, and because weapon breakage (something largely left out of the D&D system for good reason) was very common, as was slipping and loosing your weapon.
|
|
I think this works better when you have a press of people around you, like in an army or large battle. In an open field with 10 or so people fighting, i cant figure out how someone could stand so that you can't lean back a bit and whack them with a long sword, and two handed swords had design elements that allowed them to be wielded in close like a quarter staff.
So, perhaps using Close would require that the enemy had nowhere to go, or was Flanked, etc...?
How does this look, revised, change in Italics.
Combat Maneuver- Close.
When withing 5 feet of an enemy,who is either Threatened or lacks a safe distance to retreat to , and wielding a weapon designated as a 'close' weapon, as a Move action (Considered the combatant's 5 foot step), the combatant may Close with the enemy.This requires a CMB vs. the enemy's CMD. Weapons without the 'close' designation are -2 to hit in these circumstances. Failure to beat th CMD provokes an Attack of Opportunity (Without the penalty for fighting close).
Breaking the Close condition is a Move action (Also part of a 5 foot step or a normal Move, as the combatant chooses) requiring a CMB check vs. the opponent's CMD.Breaking the Close condition does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
And, you can lean back and wham them with the sword, by beating their CMD in breaking the Close condition. Or, swing with a slight negative (-2).
-Uriel
Maybe I skimmed too quickly but isn't this already what "grappling" does. You get them held up giving penalties on attack rolls. Then you can attack with light weapons instead of trying to pin them? Though many people think of grappling as being brought to the ground, that isn't always the case.
I think PF handles infighting fairly well. If you have a sword and want to get inside a polearm, step forward 5 feet. If you have a knife and want to get inside a sword, grapple. In either case, your weapon still works and your opponent's weapon has been negated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to say that Grappleling seems to already cover this.
"Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll."
"Damage : You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal."
A modification would be give a "Close" weapon property to various kinds of Light weapons. Like other special maneuver weapons it should grant a +2 to grapple checks (net -2) for the advantage of being able to more effectively pressure your foe with a weapon. Like wise Close weapons should recove only a -2 penalty when fighting in tight spaces.
You could also build a feat into Improved Grapple to further offset penalties or enhance the attack. Something that replaces Unarmed Strike as the prerequisite for Improved Grapple.
*edit*
I would further point out that in a strict reading of the rules you can Grapple without any free hands, you just take a -4 penalty for not having two free hands :P
If anything, the romans all had the swarm fighting feet, enabling them to pile multiple people into one square.
I like your suggestions, mostly because I am fond of special attacks and grappling.
It might be simpler to allow characters -- without pulling out combat maneuverer rules -- to move in to share a square with an enemy, causing both of them to be subject to the "squeezing" rules.
Then one could have a feat that allows a character to share a square, and not suffer the penalty for squeezing. That would allow the person to freely attack at full advantage while disadvantaging her/his adversary to the tune of -4.
A follow-up feat might be to allow the person to take an AoO on a character that does a five-foot-step out of the squeeze.
Perhaps if someone had both the close-fighting feat and improved grapple, they could be eligible for a feat that lets them ignore the -4 penalty for grappling without both hands free, and which doubles the damage that they can do with a light or off-hand weapon during a grapple.
So, something that has bugged me about many RPGs is the lack rules for closing on an opponent, to a distance where their longsword, their great axe, their flail is not effective. Real World fighters both in the past, as well as the present carry secondary weapons (Indeed, the Romans made a point <No Pun intended> of their primary weapon, the Gladius, capitalizing on this tactic) to exploit such close distances. Why does your fighter bother to carry a dagger? Why would someone choose a short sword over a longsword in D&D? (To DM) What do you mean there's not enough room to swing my Greatsword in the tunnel!?!
Her are some rules/options that I am going to try out in my Kingmaker game.
Please feel free to comment, discuss, help out if something looks imbalanced, or even try with your fellow gamers.Combat Maneuver- Close.
When withing 5 feet of an enemy, and wielding a weapon designated as a 'close' weapon, as a Move action (Considered the combatant's 5 foot step), the combatant may Close with the enemy.This requires a CMB vs. the enemy's CMD. Weapons without the 'close' designation are -2 to hit in these circumstances. Failure to beat th CMD provokes an Attack of Opportunity (Without the penalty for fighting close).
Breaking the Close condition is a Move action (Also part of a 5 foot step or a normal Move, as the combatant chooses) requiring a CMB check vs. the opponent's CMD.Breaking the Close condition does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity.Example:
Krogar the Wily is facing off against a Bugbear, wielding a Flail,and they are currently 5 feet apart. Krogar (Declaring his Full Attack) uses Close,
(Rolls a total of 23, vs. the Bugbears 19, thus Closing) and now may utilize his short sword at no penalty, while the Bugbear fights with a -2 penalty to his attacks. Should the Bugbear wish to break the Close condition, it will require him to break Krogaar's CMD.Confined Spaces- Terrain (Sort of)
Fighting anywhere that does not allow full movement (A tight tunnel, etc...) gives a -2...
In the UFC you see more wrestlers than kickers because...
...the rules that prohibit more dangerous strikes encourage people to grapple.
|
|
If anything, the romans all had the swarm fighting feet, enabling them to pile multiple people into one square.
We aren't talking about swarming, however. We are talking about the ability of a combatant, armed with a close-fighting weapon, being able to get under /inside the reach of one armed with a weapon that requires more reach.
0Uriel
Yeah, they definitely need a rule for this.
Also, what about if there is a fight between 6 people in a 5 foot by 5 foot elevator?
Well there used to be a limit (4 vs 1) as to how many could grapple at once in 3.5. I can't find those limits in PF, so I guess it's a 6 way grapple madness.
Otherwise none of them can fight and they will need to make Escape Artist checks if they try to exit the elevator at the same time, by the squeezing rules in a space less then 1/2 their combat space. Personally I would not want to brawl in a 25 sq ft. space with 5 other people.
I would only include this in my game if there was an opposite cmb and feat chain along the lines of 'keep at bay'. Remember that the advantages smaller tighter weapons get in close, longer bigger weapons have at a distance. That should be reciprocated. The system is bastracted assuming the balance out and thus you dont need specific rules for it, but if you start creating them for one side, you need to do it for the other too. The question is, how far do you go.
Couldn't the desired game effects be largely emulated with the existing grappling and/or dirty trick maneuvers?
|
|
Howdy folks
I am joing this discussion a little late, and I admit that I haven't read all the posts. The problem with closing with an opponent has been overlooked by most gaming systems. The suggestions I did read here are all good. What I have done with this problem is not to provide someone with a "close" weapon a bonus to hit, but giving them an AC bonus if they managed to get inside a larger weapons effective area.
So Polearm guy is attacking shortsword boy, shortsword boy deftly slips in past the effective range for the polearm. Shortsword boy gets a bonus of +2 to AC.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
I would only include this in my game if there was an opposite cmb and feat chain along the lines of 'keep at bay'. Remember that the advantages smaller tighter weapons get in close, longer bigger weapons have at a distance. That should be reciprocated. The system is bastracted assuming the balance out and thus you dont need specific rules for it, but if you start creating them for one side, you need to do it for the other too. The question is, how far do you go.
I agree. I think you could apply (or adapt) the existing Stand Still feet to keep people from squeezing into your square. If they leave an adjacent square (that you threaten) to enter yours, they provoke an AoO and you could use Stand Still to stop them.
|
|
I would only include this in my game if there was an opposite cmb and feat chain along the lines of 'keep at bay'. Remember that the advantages smaller tighter weapons get in close, longer bigger weapons have at a distance. That should be reciprocated. The system is bastracted assuming the balance out and thus you dont need specific rules for it, but if you start creating them for one side, you need to do it for the other too. The question is, how far do you go.
This isn't creating a brand new sort of rule, but rather (As you have suggested) more of a response to the already existing rules where longer weapons (Reach) get an advantage. Reach weapons have an advantage, we accept that, they were designed to hit from a distance. However, some weapons were designed to be used close up.
I do agree that perhaps there should be as CMB penalty to initially close inside the guard of someone wielding a longer (Not a Reach) weapon from adjacent. Trying to get inside an enemy's reach with a dagger, when he is using a longsword is dangerous,but once you do, then you should have the advantage.
-Uriel
|
|
Yeah, they definitely need a rule for this.
Also, what about if there is a fight between 6 people in a 5 foot by 5 foot elevator?
At Gencon this year, I got into an elevator with a group of rather LARGE fellows (I myself am 'Medium' by Gencon standards,but still not svelte).
W stood there, going up a dozen flights, all fit in...And I finally said 'So much for WotC's rules on one person/5 foot...' And they all burst out laughing (Well, OK, one guy had his nose in a new book, and wasn't paying attention, but still...).-Uriel
|
|
Howdy folks
I am joing this discussion a little late, and I admit that I haven't read all the posts. The problem with closing with an opponent has been overlooked by most gaming systems. The suggestions I did read here are all good. What I have done with this problem is not to provide someone with a "close" weapon a bonus to hit, but giving them an AC bonus if they managed to get inside a larger weapons effective area.So Polearm guy is attacking shortsword boy, shortsword boy deftly slips in past the effective range for the polearm. Shortsword boy gets a bonus of +2 to AC.
I didn't suggest a bonus with a Close weapon, but rather a negative with one that wasn't, once the Closing had been accomplished.
Cheers,-Uriel
|
|
I think there is a big problem using grapple to emulate this feature for a number of reasons:
1) when you attempt to grapple without 2 hands free (ie if you are wielding a weapon) YOU get the -4 to grapple, not the enemy, so "closing" with a small weapon would already be considered a negative for you, not a positive.
2) Lets say you do successfully grapple, you can then do damage equivalent to a single strike with your light or one-handed weapon (aka a sword, flail, dwarven waraxe, etc). That does not mean you roll a to hit roll and see if you hit and/or crit, but just automatically do damage = to your weapon damage once a round.
3) they can full attack you back with the same types of weapons at no penalty. The idea of closing would be to make it harder to attack you with said weapon, grappling means its harder for them to hit everyone else BUT you.
4) as i just noted, they can full attack, you cannot.
5) the other "as noted" would be they can still use a 1 handed weapon like a long sword to attack you in Pathfinder rules, which is what you are trying to make harder.
The other point about slipping past reach weapon-wielding opponents to get their +2 ac... if you slip inside the wielders reach, they cannot attack you at all with that weapon unless they have a feat (which gives them a -4 to attack rolls still), or have the alt class feature, so an additional +2 ac isnt really necessary there, whereas if you had a feat like "Close" you could have a potential advantage when going against someone wielding a large sword (aka great, bastard, long, or falcata) or other larger weapon while carrying a "closing" weapon.
Moving into an enemies square is unnecessary, I would think, and violates the updated rule of never finishing movement in another persons square. (remember even when grappling you move into adjacent squares)
The way PF handles a fight in a 5x5 square with more than 1 person is as follows: you can't. It might be silly, but you cannot fight with another person occupying your...
I agree that Grapple isn't really the same thing.
Regarding 2 people occupying the same space and violation of existing rules for it. Simply put, the 'No 2/square rule is silly and unrealistic.Once you have begun a Grapple, you have started to occupy someone's space, or at least once you have them in your grasp. Pinned? You are definitely in their space. How about using a Rear-Naked-Choke, where you are on their back...
Situation: Feldar the Humble, good meaning Fighter offers an old woman a piggyback ride across a small river. He has failed to see through her disguise (She is actually a dastardly Rogue, and not so old as she seems). Suddenly, she starts a Grapple, trying to choke him.
(Yes, yes, a simple Sneak Attack with damage is easier...but our Rogue wears a Necklace of Adaptation, and wants to Pin him in the river, drowning him).
Anyways, 2 people,same square. Just an example of where the rules don't work as written.
-Uriel
|
|
I actually agree that each combatant in their own square makes things easier, if a bit unrealistic. I am going to try some example combats tomorrow, before my Kingmaker game starts, using what I posted? As well ad some alternate options that other folks have. Thanks for the reply.
And, for the record, my games are very miniatures/battle grid heavy, no worries, I performed no slight, thanks for the consideration in your statement. Civility is never a bad thing.
-Uriel
While visually the rule doesn't work, as per your example, mechanically it does... the rule that doesn't work is the single person per 5 ft square period... but anyways...
In your example, the rogue piggybacking on the fighter works just fine with the rogue 1 square behind said fighter, and doesn't change the mechanics of the grapple/pin/drowning, on the other hand, it does make a large mechanical difference in the following situation.
Monk (M) grapples huge giant (G), and the giants friend (F) wants to attack you...
M
GGG
GGG
GGGF
as it is currently ruled, because you stay adjacent to the giant, F must walk around the giant to attack you, whereas if you move into his square (like 3.5) you are attackable from any space G occupies.
You could rule it then that even though you are in his square, that F must still be next to you to attack you, but then you could just move into the middle square of G, and F cannot attack you at all, creating issues.
Also, what then do you do with mounts? In PF, if G was a mount, and M decided to mount up and ride, F could attack M or G from any square G occupies.
Occupying the same square is just a bit troublesome, maybe not for you, as you may be extremely visual and may not use the battle grid as much (just random example, not suggesting anything about your play style personally), but for a rules lawyer it is. The feat Close would work extremely well without having to occupy the same square anyways, as even though you are inside of a longsword strike, you are still not dancing around your enemy and he therefore would still provide soft cover from any other enemies behind him, which i think is even cooler than moving into his square... from such a distance you can make a warrior wielding a 2h axe less effective, and be partially protected from the archer behind him. :)
|
So, something that has bugged me about many RPGs is the lack rules for closing on an opponent, to a distance where their longsword, their great axe, their flail is not effective. Real World fighters both in the past, as well as the present carry secondary weapons (Indeed, the Romans made a point <No Pun intended> of their primary weapon, the Gladius, capitalizing on this tactic) to exploit such close distances. Why does your fighter bother to carry a dagger? Why would someone choose a short sword over a longsword in D&D? (To DM) What do you mean there's not enough room to swing my Greatsword in the tunnel!?!
Her are some rules/options that I am going to try out in my Kingmaker game.
Please feel free to comment, discuss, help out if something looks imbalanced, or even try with your fellow gamers.
How'd it go in playtest? Did the players have more fun with the added rules?
|
|
How'd it go in playtest? Did the players have more fun with the added rules?So, something that has bugged me about many RPGs is the lack rules for closing on an opponent, to a distance where their longsword, their great axe, their flail is not effective. Real World fighters both in the past, as well as the present carry secondary weapons (Indeed, the Romans made a point <No Pun intended> of their primary weapon, the Gladius, capitalizing on this tactic) to exploit such close distances. Why does your fighter bother to carry a dagger? Why would someone choose a short sword over a longsword in D&D? (To DM) What do you mean there's not enough room to swing my Greatsword in the tunnel!?!
Her are some rules/options that I am going to try out in my Kingmaker game.
Please feel free to comment, discuss, help out if something looks imbalanced, or even try with your fellow gamers.
Doing it tomorrow, actually.
-Uriel
I think there is a big problem using grapple to emulate this feature for a number of reasons:
1) when you attempt to grapple without 2 hands free (ie if you are wielding a weapon) YOU get the -4 to grapple, not the enemy, so "closing" with a small weapon would already be considered a negative for you, not a positive.
2) Lets say you do successfully grapple, you can then do damage equivalent to a single strike with your light or one-handed weapon (aka a sword, flail, dwarven waraxe, etc). That does not mean you roll a to hit roll and see if you hit and/or crit, but just automatically do damage = to your weapon damage once a round.
3) they can full attack you back with the same types of weapons at no penalty. The idea of closing would be to make it harder to attack you with said weapon, grappling means its harder for them to hit everyone else BUT you.
4) as i just noted, they can full attack, you cannot.
5) the other "as noted" would be they can still use a 1 handed weapon like a long sword to attack you in Pathfinder rules, which is what you are trying to make harder.
1. This is where a feat or new weapon property could help make that an advantage over "normal"
2. Yes at a -2 penalty (as per grappled condition), that is after the Combat Maneuver Check as a Standard Action with a -4 penalty because they don't have two hands free. They may take an attack in place of actually escaping the grapple. Note they are still grappled
3. No they cannot full attack, they must fully break the grapple (a standard action) to be able to full attack on the next turn.
4. see 2 & 3
5. Yes they could still attack you in the grapple or choose to damage with the longsword damage you if they reverse the grapple. Again this is where a weapon property/feat/other could help offset that.
|
|
Ugh, why am I up...Oh yeah, my 'Not-Quite-Girlfriend' is coming over at 9 (Why 9? Ach!), and I have been cleaning for a few hours...Girls do love a clean apartment.
Anyone else who has time or an inclination to try any of the Close suggestions, mine or otherwise out, please do.
I am going to try for an hour before my game, and run the following:
(1) Players controlling Elf Rangers and Rogues, armed with dual-short swords (And bows), doing a commando style raid on a Gnoll clan.
Gnolls armed with a variety of weapons,Close, standard and Reach.
Lvl 3 characters, Gnolls with a Lvl of barbarian or fighter.
4 Players, 2 per side.
(2) Gladiator style combat in an arena. Each player having their own fighter (Lvl 6, so as to see how Close affects a character with multiple attacks) Each character armed with different weapons (2 Close weapons, one with long and short sword, maybe one with a grat axe, one with a reach weapon and a close weapon.
We are fast, it shouldn't take too long.
Cheers,
-Uriel
1st edition had such mechanics.
there was a column for minimum space to weild.
I latter editions the weapons still have lengths and such, but it is left up to the DM, to discriminate.
there should not be an opposing feat chain, for the simple reason that there IS no way to keep someone at bay if they want to close.
Dirty-In-fighting has always ruled the day for hand to hand.
The rules of english boxing prohibit things like elbows and grappling simply because of this...there was no way to stop or oppose it and it made for a lousy spectator sport.
Further more there are countless FBI statistics that show under a certain distance, a knife wielder will kill a gun man every time.
Certain martial arts are even designed around this concept "if you can take the first two hits, nothing after that will matter, because he wont be able to hit you again" Graci Jiu Jitsu comes to mind.
In our campaigns secondary weapons get used for several reasons:
1)Fell in water, and swimming type monster is attacking (crocodile) cant swing sword effectively but dagger will do fine)
2)confined space, constricting monster has got you or youve been swallowed (we dont allow main wepon to be used simply because it seems to easy to cut your way out if being swallowed whole and there for there has to be some restriction, so that is it....of course if a gargantuan monster where to swallow a human.... then so be it, greatswords away!)
3) limited cieling hieght (ie kobold warren)
4)sunders
5)disarms
6) rust monsters
7) heat metal/warp wood
8) that guy with 9 hit points is getting away (throw it)
trust me daggers get used! (at least by us)
All in all I think you actually have a good idea. I don't know if any of you are proficient with weapons, but i have 10 years of Aikido, Kendo, and fencing experiance and one of the things you learn is maintaining distance because if a opponent gets to close your weapon becomes akward to use and rather ineffective. Usually speaking, the bottom 1/3 of the blade is not very effective for attacking and is actually used for defense (generally stronger at the base and less sharp). When you are within a few feet of a Katana, the weapon becomes rather unwieldy. This has always been the balancing act when it comes to weapons, if you have a longer weapon you can hit from a greater distance but it becomes very hard to manuever when in close range since you still need to account for the 2/3 of the sword that has effectively become dead weight but if you have a shorter weapon you have less reach but when in close, you can easily decimate the longer weapon.
On another note, the problem I see with the whole grappling thing is that when you perform a grapple, BOTH you and the opponent gain the grappled condition. Which means BOTH of you lose your dexterity to AC which:
1) Makes no sense in this case since the very reason you are managing to stay close is because you are fast and wile.
and
2) The people to perform this sort of manuever would probably have alot of dex (rogues and mobile fighters and rangers) so losing their dex to AC would effectively murder them.
So yeah... using grapple is a very bad idea.
This is pretty much Grapple. Last thing we need is more complicated combat.