One thing I've always thought was just... wrong.
The movement speeds of Giant type monsters... And that they are restricted to the same 5' steps that mere mortals are. Just seems weird.. If you hit the 15-20' high range... a 5'shuffle seems off. Their movement should be much better.
I'd figure at LEAST a 10' step. They got have some STRIDE...
Probably something for game balance. Haven't delved much in the bestiaries... but looks really weird on the map when I fight them :)
Maneuvers themselves don't need to be treated so conservatively in terms of power either. Sure, at low levels they might be okay, but tripping a single enemy or leaving them shaken isn't particularly impressive battlefield control towards endgame.
I agree with this. As it stands Dirty Trick is really the only maneuver that gets impressive at mid to later levels due to Dirty Trick Master, but of course that requires 3 other feats (4 if you count Quick Dirty Trick as being necessary to the build), 13 intelligence (unless you happen to get Combat Expertise prerequisite free), and 11 BAB. It would be nice if some of the others got cool things like that as well.
Maybe Trip could have a feat that prevents enemies from getting up from prone when you are threatening. Maybe you could Bull Rush someone so hard they are stunned for a round. How about your disarm almost literally disarming the enemy along with their blade, so that they take bleed damage and negatives to hit even if they get their weapon back. Or something.
Meh. The 5ft step is meant to allow you to reposition without provoking. I just take it to be 5ft is the maximum movement you can make before someone gets a swing at you, regardless of what your stride is.
I can see his point, actually. The '5-foot step' should be less a definitive distance mechanically and just the default distance a normally sized character could safely move with A) little expenditure of energy or time (no action required) and B) without dropping their guard and therefore provoking an AoO. A halfing should not have the same safe-move shuffle distance as a freaking rune giant, not when smaller characters have a default -10 ft. / round move speed reduction and titans walk at twice a normal person's speed. Allowing a 'safe shuffle' mechanic out to your natural reach distance doesn't seem like it would break the game.
Meh. The 5ft step is meant to allow you to reposition without provoking. I just take it to be 5ft is the maximum movement you can make before someone gets a swing at you, regardless of what your stride is.I can see his point, actually. The '5-foot step' should be less a definitive distance mechanically and just the default distance a normally sized character could safely move with A) little expenditure of energy or time (no action required) and B) without dropping their guard and therefore provoking an AoO. A halfing should not have the same safe-move shuffle distance as a freaking rune giant, not when smaller characters have a default -10 ft. / round move speed reduction and titans walk at twice a normal person's speed. Allowing a 'safe shuffle' mechanic out to your natural reach distance doesn't seem like it would break the game.
And the evil GM gleefully starts throwing colossal creatures that can 30 ft shift into the game and the real trouble starts.
The 5 ft step is considered a "free step" because in your 5x5 square, your character can literally be anywhere. He is not necessarily in the very center. So essentially the "5 ft step" is actually the guy moving like... 2 ft to the left, he was just on the edge of his square so it counted as 5 ft of movement because thet is the smalled unit in which movement is measured.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Allowing a 'safe shuffle' mechanic out to your natural reach distance doesn't seem like it would break the game.
Except that it allows monsters to move 10 to 30ft and still get their full attacks while the PCs are limited to a single attack if they move more than 5. Not conducive to party survival.
Allowing a 'safe shuffle' mechanic out to your natural reach distance doesn't seem like it would break the game.Except that it allows monsters to move 10 to 30ft and still get their full attacks while the PCs are limited to a single attack if they move more than 5. Not conducive to party survival.
Could always boost these monster's CR by 1 or 2 to compensate.
(I will admit that I'm reminded of an undead from 3.5 that effectively got two full rounds worth of actions because it was two skeletons sort of squished together. It was total cheese when it 5 foot stepped, did a full attack, then five-foot stepped again.)
(I will admit that I'm reminded of an undead from 3.5 that effectively got two full rounds worth of actions because it was two skeletons sort of squished together. It was total cheese when it 5 foot stepped, did a full attack, then five-foot stepped again.)
Unless it had reach too what you described wouldn't really do much as the PCs would just 5 ft step up... now if was already on top of the PCs, full attacked, and then took two 5 ft steps away so the PCs had to move up, rinse, repeat, now you're talking something that will make PCs rage.
Unless it had reach too what you described wouldn't really do much as the PCs would just 5 ft step up... now if was already on top of the PCs, full attacked, and then took two 5 ft steps away so the PCs had to move up, rinse, repeat, now you're talking something that will make PCs rage.
Its been over six years since that game.
IIRC it did not have reach, but may have been large sized, so it's a little fuzzy.
But basically it 5-foot stepped up to a PC, murdered them (unconscious), and then 5-foot stepped up to another PC for another full attack.
And yes, we called B!!*@$@!.
I don't like that colossal monsters are trapped inside 30' x 30' boxes when some of their descriptions indicate they are several times that size. They are rare occasions, though, so when they occur I just ignore the 6x6 square box they say they are in and adjudicate according to their description.
Similarly, I don't care for the 2D aspect of size and how it doesn't relate very well into the third dimension (height). Frost giants are 15' tall but fit in a 10'x10'x10' box.
I guess you could always go back to the original 3rd edition's sizes for the various creatures, though they still didn't account much for height.
I don't like that colossal monsters are trapped inside 30' x 30' boxes when some of their descriptions indicate they are several times that size. They are rare occasions, though, so when they occur I just ignore the 6x6 square box they say they are in and adjudicate according to their description.
Similarly, I don't care for the 2D aspect of size and how it doesn't relate very well into the third dimension (height). Frost giants are 15' tall but fit in a 10'x10'x10' box.
Dragons will take over the whole table and then move into the living room. A 360 foot long dragon (not including tail!) at the 1" scale is six feet long.
Similarly, I don't care for the 2D aspect of size and how it doesn't relate very well into the third dimension (height). Frost giants are 15' tall but fit in a 10'x10'x10' box.
That's only because he's constantly bending over trying to hack at the little heroes scurrying around his feet with his greataxe. ;D
I don't like that colossal monsters are trapped inside 30' x 30' boxes when some of their descriptions indicate they are several times that size. They are rare occasions, though, so when they occur I just ignore the 6x6 square box they say they are in and adjudicate according to their description.
Similarly, I don't care for the 2D aspect of size and how it doesn't relate very well into the third dimension (height). Frost giants are 15' tall but fit in a 10'x10'x10' box.
Who said their box is only 10' tall? Maybe it's a 10 x 10 x 20 box.
The game is really awful at handling the third dimension, for all it hands out flying and reverse gravity and whatnot.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sad fact is that combat maneuvers are best used against targets that don't threaten you.Which, last I heard, was the system working as intended.This stinks of an 12th level caster picking up feats that let them blow up 1 HD kobolds in more spectacular ways. "Spectacular Bang: any creature that this spell instantly kills is thrown about, possibly injuring other creatures. [metamagic +0] (Now with ragdoll physics!)"
I.e. "not something they should be doing."
If combat maneuvers are intended for fights below the challenge-level of the party, then wtf are the feats for? Why are we encouraging fighters to become utter masters of beating up unarmed children?
In fairness, if you read the post, the point seems to be that combat maneuvers are best used on targets weaker than you unless you have the Feats that improve them in which case, equal opponents can be effected more readily.
Whether that actually is working as intended is another matter, but that's the logic.
In fairness, if you read the post, the point seems to be that combat maneuvers are best used on targets weaker than you unless you have the Feats that improve them in which case, equal opponents can be effected more readily.
Whether that actually is working as intended is another matter, but that's the logic.
I don't think it is. The only combat maneuver worth spending feats on to Not Suck at it is probably trip, because they provoke when they stand up and have a penalty to AC while prone.
Disarm would be GREAT if it actually WORKED and couldn't be defeated by a 50gp gauntlet option (lolz, locked gauntlet).
Sunder would be viable if you could reasonably damage weapons/armor/shield to any significant degree. Or rather, you can, and GMs will ignore it without having to explain why. I built a character around sunder once in 3.5 including the Sundering Cleave feat (when you break an item you deal damage to its wielder too). Tried to sunder some guy's tower shield and did 42 damage (with an adamantine reach weapon) and didn't break it. Tower shields only have 20 hp and with an adamantine weapon I was ignoring all of the shield's hardness even if it was also adamantine.
GM said the shield didn't break.
I don't think it is. The only combat maneuver worth spending feats on to Not Suck at it is probably trip, because they provoke when they stand up and have a penalty to AC while prone.
Disarm would be GREAT if it actually WORKED and couldn't be defeated by a 50gp gauntlet option (lolz, locked gauntlet).
Sunder would be viable if you could reasonably damage weapons/armor/shield to any significant degree. Or rather, you can, and GMs will ignore it without having to explain why. I built a character around sunder once in 3.5 including the Sundering Cleave feat (when you break an item you deal damage to its wielder too). Tried to sunder some guy's tower shield and did 42 damage (with an adamantine reach weapon) and didn't break it. Tower shields only have 20 hp and with an adamantine weapon I was ignoring all of the shield's hardness even if it was also adamantine.
GM said the shield didn't break.
Grapple can have devastating consequences to an unlucky defender, especially a caster. It's more than worth it, usually. Shame that it's also so complicated it requires a bloody flow-chart to know what the heck is going on. Our Jade Regent fighter has used reposition to hilarious and bloody results on unsuspecting enemies, so that one's pretty good.
It sounds like your GM just didn't know what the heck they were doing. Not really a fault of the rules there.
|
|
I don't think it is. The only combat maneuver worth spending feats on to Not Suck at it is probably trip, because they provoke when they stand up and have a penalty to AC while prone.In fairness, if you read the post, the point seems to be that combat maneuvers are best used on targets weaker than you unless you have the Feats that improve them in which case, equal opponents can be effected more readily.
Whether that actually is working as intended is another matter, but that's the logic.
Trip is definitely solid. Some creatures are immune, but all combat maneuvers should be an option, rather than the only effective thing you can do in combat.
Disarm would be GREAT if it actually WORKED and couldn't be defeated by a 50gp gauntlet option (lolz, locked gauntlet).
Very few NPCs have one of those, though. Unless your GM is a dick.
Fighting monsters who don't have weapons is a bigger concern, though, and a potential issue with the maneuver, I admit.
Sunder would be viable if you could reasonably damage weapons/armor/shield to any significant degree. Or rather, you can, and GMs will ignore it without having to explain why. I built a character around sunder once in 3.5 including the Sundering Cleave feat (when you break an item you deal damage to its wielder too). Tried to sunder some guy's tower shield and did 42 damage (with an adamantine reach weapon) and didn't break it. Tower shields only have 20 hp and with an adamantine weapon I was ignoring all of the shield's hardness even if it was also adamantine.
GM said the shield didn't break.
That's a bad GM, not a problem with the maneuver.
And I'd argue Dirty Trick is also a valid and worthwhile combat maneuver, as is grapple if you really specialize (Tetori, I'm looking at you). The others are seriously lackluster, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sunder has a goose/gander problem. Even leaving aside the crazy paranoid players who don't want to 'destroy the loot' using it offensively, when used by NPCs/Monsters on the players it has a lot of the same problems as a rust monster. It tends to make the game un-fun for PCs.
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sunder has a goose/gander problem. Even leaving aside the crazy paranoid players who don't want to 'destroy the loot' using it offensively, when used by NPCs/Monsters on the players it has a lot of the same problems as a rust monster. It tends to make the game un-fun for PCs.
Yes, I despise Sunder for that reason. Should be deleted and replaced with Disarm, then if you need to, you can destroy it later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?
Supposed to, yeah.
Sunder has a goose/gander problem. Even leaving aside the crazy paranoid players who don't want to 'destroy the loot' using it offensively, when used by NPCs/Monsters on the players it has a lot of the same problems as a rust monster. It tends to make the game un-fun for PCs.
That was from a game where loot was an utter non-issue. We wouldn't have been able to take the shield anyway. I took the trick (sundering cleave) because it sounded really cool. The fact that I could make enemies easier to hit for my allies was a bonus.
And then it flat didn't work.
Anyway, there was another system that had an entire class dedicated to doing sunder-like options. I'm blanking on the name (Iron Heroes?) where armor was DR (not penalty on the hit) and the sundering options would reduce the benefit armor gave. So you could pull off an attack that reduced an enemy's DR by 1d4 or you could swing for 1d6+strength hitpoint damage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sad fact is that combat maneuvers are best used against targets that don't threaten you.Which, last I heard, was the system working as intended.
Just because it's intended doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I don't like that colossal monsters are trapped inside 30' x 30' boxes when some of their descriptions indicate they are several times that size. They are rare occasions, though, so when they occur I just ignore the 6x6 square box they say they are in and adjudicate according to their description.
Similarly, I don't care for the 2D aspect of size and how it doesn't relate very well into the third dimension (height). Frost giants are 15' tall but fit in a 10'x10'x10' box.
Who said their box is only 10' tall? Maybe it's a 10 x 10 x 20 box.
The game is really awful at handling the third dimension, for all it hands out flying and reverse gravity and whatnot.
For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever found a system that handles 3D well.
For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever found a system that handles 3D well.
Fair enough.
For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever found a system that handles 3D well.Fair enough.
It's been ages since I played Champions, but from what I recall it handled 3D pretty well. They didn't have static size classes in the version we played. Not sure if they do these days or not.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?
Irony
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4e monster statblocks were very nice.
OT: Mounted Combat was pretty awful for a long time and Grapple still needs a flowchart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Auto-hit, auto-fail, auto-succeed mechanics. If we throw enough people at it, one of them is bound to roll a 20!
In my games, for situations where 20 would be an auto-succeed, instead it's counted as a 25. In situations where it would be an auto-fail, it's instead counted as a -4. In most cases, this amounts to the same thing, but it prevents, say, the world's greatest weapon master from being disarmed by having 20 goblins try at the same time.
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?
this post is funny
And of course the problem with doing so is that trip becomes increasingly pointless as you encounter more and more enemies which can fly and/or teleport or are simply too large and therefore have a very high CMD to reliably trip.I know we hate everything about 4e...
Speak for yourself.
Auto-hit, auto-fail, auto-succeed mechanics. If we throw enough people at it, one of them is bound to roll a 20!
In my games, for situations where 20 would be an auto-succeed, instead it's counted as a 25. In situations where it would be an auto-fail, it's instead counted as a -4. In most cases, this amounts to the same thing, but it prevents, say, the world's greatest weapon master from being disarmed by having 20 goblins try at the same time.
I just disregard that rule entirely.
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?this post is funny
Why? I think it's pretty cool you can sunder someone's weapon and leave it with only 1 HP. Penalize their attacks and still get the treasure.
With the right feats, you even hurt them at the same time!
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?this post is funnyWhy? I think it's pretty cool you can sunder someone's weapon and leave it with only 1 HP. Penalize their attacks and still get the treasure.
With the right feats, you even hurt them at the same time!
I think he was referring to the irony of a status effect called 'broken' actually being a fix for something.
I think he was referring to the irony of a status effect called 'broken' actually being a fix for something.That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?this post is funnyWhy? I think it's pretty cool you can sunder someone's weapon and leave it with only 1 HP. Penalize their attacks and still get the treasure.
With the right feats, you even hurt them at the same time!
yes, ironic funny, not sarcastic funny.
I actually like the broken condition. But I appreciate the humour behind "broken" fixing a broken rule.
Made me smile :)
Note to self: patent enormous Jell-O mold that can be used to accurately project 3-D combat (with the assistance of large syringes that can be used to insert and remove miniatures).
I actually went out and purchased some plexiglass and a carbon fiber rod (square, about 3/16th of an inch in cross section) and was going to make 2"x2" platforms at various heights; 1", 2", 3" and 4" so that flying could be managed with relative ease.
I got one made, and haven't needed them since.
lol, I get it now. Thanks.
There is a flowchart. If you ask me, it actually makes grapple even more complicated.
(I also think it might be wrong about a few things.)
Grapple still needs a flowchart.I keep hearing this comment from people, but I don't get it. Grapple's not that complicated; does it even have enough steps to make a flowchart? Is there something I'm missing?
Compared to other combat maneuvers? YES, it is the rocket science of CMB checks.