I like playing monk characters, and the idea of using Punishing Kick to kick someone off a cliff, or into a pit, or through a Wall of Fire, etc., is awesome. Unfortunately, none of those things will ever happen, insofar as the feat text provides that "the target must end this move in a safe space it can stand in".
Not only does this rule prevent all the cool things one might like to do with Punishing Kick, but it makes no sense in the context of the game. I'm willing to suspend disbelief to believe in dragons, in magic, etc., but I have no idea why this feat will only let me kick the target into a safe space.
Questions spring to mind. Can a character use the feat to kick someone into a pit if the target doesn't know it's there? What if the character doesn't know it's there either? Does the Universe simply disallow movement into unsafe areas even if neither combatant is aware of the danger? Could I test for traps by using this kick to push fellow characters across the dungeon floor (either with nonlethal damage or a good quantity of healing) and then note which squares they can't enter?
I am sure that the rule has to do with game balancing since, as written, the feat allows a Fortitude save, but only against being knocked prone and not against the knockback. In order to allow the feat to be used as it should be, I would think that the Fortitude save should apply both to the knockback and to being knocked prone. That way, the target isn't disadvantaged (since the feat requires both a hit, and permits a save) while still allowing the feat to be used to its full potential.
As an aside, I don't understand why Improved Ki Throw exists. Shouldn't Ki Throw permit the same effect? From a common-sense perspective, what is different about throwing someone into an unoccupied square or an occupied square? It's the same throw in each case, right? Why, then, does my character need a new feat to do that?
All comments welcome :)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because THIS. ISN'T. SPARTA.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, that's kind of silly.
If I'm your GM, I allow you to kick people off cliffs. (even without the feat *gasp*)
Most mid-high level characters don't die from the fall anyway.
Remember, Pathfinder is a comic-book super-hero game — for anyone "wearing tights" you had better see them go splat or they will not be dead from such a thing.
As for the comparison to Ki throw, all I have is more personal opinion. I am tired of every interesting combat action being a feat. I have begun ignoring these things in favor of generic combat maneuvers (and allowing PCs to retrain feats in a reasonable period of time).
Wish I had a more satisfying answer for you. Find a constructive, talented GM, and communicate with her. That's all you can do in the face of more and more restrictive feat language.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, none of those things will ever happen, insofar as the feat text provides that "the target must end this move in a safe space it can stand in".
Bull Rush. Don't follow up. Flavor it as a wheel kick, Jumping Leap Kick or Throw. Done.
I am tired of every interesting combat action being a feat.
I agree Evil Lincoln. That was one of the problems with 3.5 was it got to the point that to make new feats they started pidgeonholing almost any combat idea AS a feat. Once the feat exists it DIS allows anyone else from trying it since they don't HAVE the feat.
What they should have done is added more regular combat maneuvers and then made a few 'maneuver expert' feats that would apply to several manuevers at once.
Too many feats are things adventurous characters should at least be able to try (like small characters climbing on Huge or larger ones, as an example).
Wow, that ability really stinks of 4E. I can understand WHY an ability available to a first level character has such an annoying limitation, but it leaves a BAD taste in my mouth none the less.
Do note though there isn't a size limitation on this ability, unlike bull rush and the ability circumvents CMD as well working off AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was your GM Id allow you to kick people off a cliff with it. It says they must end their movement in a safe square they can stand in. it doesnt say that the square they can stand in cant be at the bottom of a cliff. ;)
Ha!
But no, I'd allow lava or spike pits, too.
It oughtn't to be called "Punishing Kick". It's more like "Forgiving Kick."
Oh TOZ. You should know better.
Back in your hole.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading the rule, I don't see anything that says you can't push your target into a pit, off a cliff, or through a Wall of Fire.
The key phrase is "the target must end his move in a safe space it can stand in" - it says nothing about what happens between the time he starts his move and ends it.
Thus, you can infer that:
- Wall of Fire - you can kick your target through the Wall, as he will end his movement on the other side of the wall, where he can safely stand. Damage is done prior to landing in his final space.
- Off a Cliff - you can kick your target off the cliff as the space they land in is a safe one where they can stand. Damage is done as he enters the space, so he takes damage before ending his movement. Because of this, technically, this is a valid use of the maneuver.
- Into a Pit - you can kick your target into a pit as the space they land in is a safe one where they can stand. Damage is done as he enters the space, so he takes damage before ending his movement. Because of this, technically, this is a valid use of the maneuver.
I am aware this is a stretch, but I believe this will work RAW. In any case, I cannot imagine the maneuver was intentionally designed RAI to prevent you from using it in these ways.
Most things like this are for a players benefit. If you kick an NPC off a cliff, Awesome! Great, cinematic kill! If a mook insta-kills your PC with no roll or save other than to hit (Truestrike, anyone?), not so awesome.
Of course, in this case, said mook could just as easily insta-kill you with a Bull Rush attemt and a slightly more difficult roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most things like this are for a players benefit. If you kick an NPC off a cliff, Awesome! Great, cinematic kill! If a mook insta-kills your PC with no roll or save other than to hit (Truestrike, anyone?), not so awesome.
Pathfinder is not a game which preserves a double-standard for PC survivability in this way. I agree that all characters benefit from the rule being less lethal, but why only this rule? And why less lethal? 60% of the time, even falling off the cliff isn't going to kill a PC.
Let's not assume that a cliff of any description is going to kill any character above 8th level. Yes, it could be Very Tall. But what BBEG at that level fights adjacent to a Very Tall cliff without fly or something similar?
What I mean to say is, environmental threats that can actually affect the outcome of a fight in hit points are very rare for most of the game's levels. They can make a normal attack into a very good idea, but we are not generally talking about instant kills.
Even if you kick the BBEG off a cliff. You'd better check and make sure he's dead. Probably he is not.
Coupled with a successful CMB check I would have no problem saying the bad guy topples over the edge to his doom, especially if he's dazed/flat-footed/etc.
Thanks all for your responses.
To Mok, you make some very good points about D&D being a narrative pacing system. I need to think about that a bit more. With respect to Punishing Kick being a save-or-die move, consider that:
1. If modified to allow a saving throw against the movement, it would require both a hit and a save.
2. As pointed out by Gilfalas, a bull rush (with no usage limitation) accomplishes the same effect. And by the time a Hungry Ghost Monk has levelled up to level 10 (i.e. the point where he can kick a target more than 5 feet), most spellcasters have a number of save-or-die abilities.
3. Only one sub-class (Hungry Ghost Monks) can use the move at 1st level. Everyone else has to meet the prerequisites, and wait until a point where other save-or-die abilities are available. As well, like a spell, the feat is only usable a certain number of times per day (1/day for every four levels of non-monk, 1/day per monk level).
4. The feat only allows you to kick a target 5 feet. If a target is dumb enough to stand in front of a pit, cliff, etc., the target deserves all he/she gets. If the DM doesn't want the main bad guy to get smoked that easily, don't put him/her on the edge of a cliff. Alternately, if the PCs succeed in luring a bad guy in front of a pit trap, they should be rewarded for their efforts. That's cinematic gold, right there.
Or you could just not set up your boss fight at a cliff. ;)
Yeah, it's probably to prevent abuses and to make it different from bull rush (where as others noted you can push someone into a lake of lava but there's size restrictions). It is totally mechanical balance related.
OTOH, I guess if you felt it was too unbalanced to allow kicking off cliffs, etc. with that feat, but wanted to include the ability for verisimilitude's sake, you could say that if you failed your attack roll horribly, you instead unbalance yourself and fall off the cliff instead... not that I actually advocate this, it's just an idea.
if interpretation is a democracy then I'm with Larry Lichman on this.
If they end their turn safely, then it's alright. So pushing of a cliff into the sea (if they can swim) or on normal ground is okay, in lava or very spiky floor is not.
Thus you can do damage to them once per this feat but you can't hinder them for the rounds to come.
|
|
Yep, that's kind of silly.
If I'm your GM, I allow you to kick people off cliffs. (even without the feat *gasp*)
Most mid-high level characters don't die from the fall anyway.
Remember, Pathfinder is a comic-book super-hero game — for anyone "wearing tights" you had better see them go splat or they will not be dead from such a thing.
As for the comparison to Ki throw, all I have is more personal opinion. I am tired of every interesting combat action being a feat. I have begun ignoring these things in favor of generic combat maneuvers (and allowing PCs to retrain feats in a reasonable period of time).
Wish I had a more satisfying answer for you. Find a constructive, talented GM, and communicate with her. That's all you can do in the face of more and more restrictive feat language.
My former GM never liked CM (combat maneuvers) because of all the feat requirements. He packaged all the CM feats into Combat Expertise. INT requirement isn't much of an issue since his ability score generation 5d6 re-roll 1 and 2, 9 times, take the best 6, and then apply racial modifiers.
I still never used them, but it was much better than taking insane amounts of trees before getting to what you'd want.
Punt the gnome!
There are many ways to solve this. In 4e they instituted the bloodied condition where certain things only kick into effect once someone is below 50% of their hit points. A 4e solution might be to have a power like the punishing kick feat, where you can knock someone back, but they have to land in a safe spot unless they are bloodied, at which point they can get tossed into whatever place happens to be there.
Actually, in 4E, you can knock someone into damaging terrain or off a cliff of any height by using a bull rush attack (or any attack power which includes a Push or Slide effect), but the target gets a save before he goes over the edge - if he succeeds, he falls prone on the edge of the cliff instead.
In 3.5/Pathfinder, introducing a saving throw for these situations could be a perfectly reasonable house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They did this so the rogue can't sneak up with his portable hole behind the BBEG, then punishing kick the BBEG into the portable hole, and the rogue closing it...
If I was your GM Id allow you to kick people off a cliff with it. It says they must end their movement in a safe square they can stand in. it doesnt say that the square they can stand in cant be at the bottom of a cliff. ;)
Indeed. It also does not specify the speed at which you end your movement in or how many squares straight down you are limited to before you get there.
The bottom of a cliff seems to me like a safe square that can be stood up in.
As does the bottom of a pit trap, provided it's not lined with spikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this is one of those areas in the design where the meta game gets lathered over the imaginary world.
A great post about rules and narrative structure, MOK.
|
I don't see a problem with allowing this however, the higher the NPC level and the more powerful the creature the harder it would be to do that. You might assign a penalty to the attempt or some sort of save for the targeted creature. Adding an environmental aspect to combat can be quite fun and this case in particular would make for an exciting way to deal with less powerful NPCs and creatures.
In my campaigns one of my house rules is any modification or clarification to a rule will apply to any and all NPCs, and if applicable, to any creature or monster. As my campaigns use a high percentage of NPCs most of my players will work with me to come up with a fair compromise. This will limit the inevitable picking of a player up and throwing him off the same cliff by a large creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you're dumb enough to stand next to a cliff or spiked pit, you deserve to go into it. Natural Selection BABY!
I'd give them a save. But it is pretty dumb that a balance mechanic was incorporated into a feat called Punishing Kick. If you can't kick someone off a cliff or into something harmful, then what's the point.
My son's half-orc fighter has a similar feat with a similar restriction. (I forget which one, and I don't feel like looking it up.) I just ignore the restriction. So far, it's come up once. He knocked an enemy psychic warrior out of the third story of a ruined tower during an epic battle. The psychic warrior took his damage from the fall, and then used a dimension door-like power to return to the fight, only to get knocked down again. After the third time, the psychic warrior just gave up and ran away. Ah, good times. :)