Combat rules: Need some opinions

[Kerrick]

That seems like a decent rule of thumb, except for one thing. if start the slide near the end of the move, it doesnt make sense to me that you should necessariy stop sliding at half your move. If I have a 20 foot head start, and a 30 foot move speed, I think I shoul get the extra 40, on the ice, for a total of 60. i dont really agree with the slide cap.

That was just something I came up with off the top of my head. You would only move up to your max speed during your turn, though - it's just like jumping; if you're in the air at the end of your turn, you "continue" the jump at the beginning of the next turn and land then. So, I guess you could slide up to twice the distance you moved on land... but there should still be SOME kind of cap, since friction still plays a role.

I could have sworn the swashy and monk AC bonus doesnt normally apply when flat footed either.

They do, actually, but they're not dodge bonuses - they're unnamed.

The small goblin monk with a move of 100 should totally get his 20 combat step

Haha.

 

[Sylrae]

okay, well, in regard to the ac bonuses, i was just saying you dont lose those unnamed bonuses from the sort of voluntary flatfootedness. Otherwise the attack of opportunity seems to be too penalizing.

 

[ashockney]

First: does anyone recall seeing the variant rule for grapple, bull rush, etc. where the roll is 1d20 + Str + size (no BAB)? I'm almost certain I saw it on this forum, but I can't find it, and I wanted to check to make sure I had it right.

Second: Charge action. Does anyone else think that you should be able to charge across, say, a patch of ice or grease, but you suffer a -4 penalty to the Balance/Dex/whatever check to keep moving? Or to move through a patch of spike stones (same penalty)? I think it's kind of odd that you can't charge through any hazardous terrain (not to mention there are too many restrictions); I'd rather just say "You CAN do this, but you'll suffer a penalty for it." and let the player decide. Fewer restrictions means the combat maneuvers will be used more often.


Oh, and speaking of AoOs: I think I understand the reasoning behind "moving out of a threatened square provokes an AoO" - it prevents PCs from moving away to cast spells - but to my mind, anyone moving away from me, unless he's my only opponent, is going to get ignored in favor of a more immediate threat. Someone who's moving away from me is no longer a threat, at least not for the moment. Someone who's moving toward me, however, is a threat, and I should get an AoO (which would make PCs more wary about simply sauntering up to the bad guys).

And finally: I can't really do artwork, especially on a wiki, so I was thinking of simply removing most of the references to the combat grid, by implication making it less dependent on minis and the map, which is what I want to do anyway. Anyone have an opinion on this? Would restoring an element of "eyeball it and call it good" to combat be a good thing or not?

Oh yeah, forgot this one: I'm going to change the standard 5-foot step to "a combat stride" which is dependent on the creature's size. If you think about it, it makes more sense - anything up to Medium would still make a 5-foot step as normal (because a Tiny creature making a 0-foot step is just odd), but larger creatures, who are generally much taller and have a longer stride, can make longer steps - 10, 15, even 20 feet. Imagine, for example, a titan (huge) making a 5-foot step - he'd have to tiptoe. His movement is 60 feet, so it makes more sense that he could take a 10-foot step (yeah, his reach is 15, but that's a bit far, IMO).

I'm thinking something like: Fine/Diminutive: 0*, Tiny to Large: 5 feet; Huge/Gargantuan: 10 feet; Colossal/Titanic: 15 feet; etc. (it increases by 5 feet/2 size categories). *0 means the creature cannot take a combat stride unless its movement rate is 15 or more, in which case it is 5 feet.

Variant for Grapple and Bull Rush - not familiar with it, but these things REALLY need tweaked. Too many subsystems and separate rolls. Couldn't this be an Attack vs. Fort defense to push or an attack vs. Reflex defense to pin? Something really simple? How's Pathfinder handling this? From a game design perspective NO CHARACTER is dependent upon grapple, this is a monster thing...so nerf away!

Charging across ice or not a straight line...I couldn't agree more. These are tactical considerations that should be overcome with feat builds, or the willingness to accept penalties (or even "action failure") related to a skill check.

I agree, anything that can be done to make 3.5 less "map dependent" is a step in a positive direction. You can still use a map, just don't REQUIRE a map. I would love to see AOO's become more a function of tactical consideration plus feat build, perhaps with a skill check to allow an AOO? On the one hand, more actions is INCREDIBLY powerful, and on the other, keeping track of all the AOO's and subsystem exceptions is too cumbersome. I think I would carry your point to the next level, which would be to say this TARGET is my biggest threat, and if they create an opening, I will take it, whether they are moving in or moving out. 4e "mark" for a fighter is similar to this.

Bigger combat stride for bigger monsters = cool. Fighting everything size Huge or Gargantuan at 12th level and up = not cool.

 

[Kerrick]

okay, well, in regard to the ac bonuses, i was just saying you dont lose those unnamed bonuses from the sort of voluntary flatfootedness. Otherwise the attack of opportunity seems to be too penalizing.

Right. I changed it to an insight bonus, so it doesn't go away when you're flat-footed. The 3.5 monk's unnamed bonus doesn't either (but it does if he's helpless, which implies that it's a combination of dodge and insight).

Variant for Grapple and Bull Rush - not familiar with it, but these things REALLY need tweaked. Too many subsystems and separate rolls.

The way it works is this: 1d20 + CMB (AB + Str mod + size mod) + modifiers vs. DC 15 + defender's CMB. If you succeed, you're grappling and you can then take any of the actions listed under the grappling section - move, pin, etc.

I use a variation of the Alpha rules version; back then it was the same, but a success +0 resulted in a hold, +5 was grabbed, +10 grappled, and +15 pinned (see here). I also didn't agree with the blanket "Strength applies to all combat maneuvers", so I made disarm and trip Dex-based. Finally, I dropped the opposed DC to 10 + modifiers; folks on the Paizo boards agree that 15 is too high, though some say 10 is too low; 12-13 seems to be a common middle ground.

Couldn't this be an Attack vs. Fort defense to push or an attack vs. Reflex defense to pin?

Come on, we're not doing 4E here.

I would love to see AOO's become more a function of tactical consideration plus feat build, perhaps with a skill check to allow an AOO?

Skill check to allow AoO would mean more die-rolling, which is what I want to avoid - I want combat to move faster.

On the one hand, more actions is INCREDIBLY powerful, and on the other, keeping track of all the AOO's and subsystem exceptions is too cumbersome. I think I would carry your point to the next level, which would be to say this TARGET is my biggest threat, and if they create an opening, I will take it, whether they are moving in or moving out. 4e "mark" for a fighter is similar to this.

Well... PCs only get 1 AoO per round (Combat Reflexes notwithstanding). If we can cut down the number of actions that provoke them, it would do a lot to streamline the system.

Bigger combat stride for bigger monsters = cool. Fighting everything size Huge or Gargantuan at 12th level and up = not cool.

That's really a function of the system - in general, the more HD a creature has, the greater its size and the greater its CR.

 

[Kerrick]

First: does anyone recall seeing the variant rule for grapple, bull rush, etc. where the roll is 1d20 + Str + size (no BAB)? I'm almost certain I saw it on this forum, but I can't find it, and I wanted to check to make sure I had it right.

Found it - it was in House Rules.

Anyway, the real reason for bumping this thread was that I came up with some new combat stuff and needed an opinion. We have feint and demoralize, and I found taunt in the Netbook of Feats when I was looking for more feats (the author adapted it from the demoralize use of Intimidate). I was going to write up taunt as a maneuver instead of a feat, then I thought - why not tie them all together to use the same mechanic? They'll be easier to use and more balanced. So here they are.

Feint: As a move action, a character can attempt a feint, leaving his opponent off-guard for the next attack. In order to do so, the character must make a modified level check: 1d20 + base attack bonus + 1 per 5 points of his Bluff score vs. DC 10 + opponent's base attack bonus + 1 per 5 points of the opponent's Sense Motive score. If the check succeeds, the opponent loses its Dex bonus against the character's next attack.

When feinting in this way against a nonhumanoid, the character takes a -4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), he takes a -8 penalty. Against a nonintelligent creature, it’s impossible.

Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Demoralize: As a move action, a character can attempt to demoralize an opponent with whom he is in melee combat and who can see him. To do so, he must make a modified level check - 1d20 + his base attack bonus + 1 per 5 points of his Intimidate score vs. DC 10 + opponent's base attack bonus + opponent's Wisdom modifier; the opponent adds any bonuses to saves vs. fear effects. If the character is larger than his opponent, he gains a +2 bonus per size category of difference; if the opponent is larger, it becomes a -2 penalty per category. If the check succeeds, the opponent is shaken for 1 round per 5 points the check result exceeds the DC.

Demoralize is a mind-affecting effect.

Taunt: As a move action, a character can attempt to taunt his opponent into reckless action. To do so, he must make a modified level check - 1d20 + base attack bonus + 1 per 5 points of his Bluff or Perform score (whichever is higher) vs. DC 10 + opponent's base attack bonus + opponent's Int or Wis modifier (whichever is higher). If the check succeeds, the opponent is enraged and will direct all of its energy toward attacking the character; it gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls, but a -2 penalty to AC. This effect lasts for 1 round per 5 points the check result exceeds the DC, until the character is dead or flees, or until the opponent receives a calm emotions or similar spell.

A character can taunt an opponent who can either not see or not hear him (but not both), but he suffers a -4 penalty. Taunting a creature of animal intelligence (1 or 2) incurs a -8 penalty (these penalties stack). Taunting a mindless creature is impossible.

 

[Hawken]

Originally Posted by Kerrick View Post
First: does anyone recall seeing the variant rule for grapple, bull rush, etc. where the roll is 1d20 + Str + size (no BAB)? I'm almost certain I saw it on this forum, but I can't find it, and I wanted to check to make sure I had it right.

Found it - it was in House Rules.

You're quoting yourself to...yourself?

Re: Feint.
I don't like those rules.

It is WAY to easy for a Bluffer to do that and leads right back to a rogue being able to out-fight a fighter, even if the skill bonuses are 1/5th normal. Fighters just don't have the points to invest in SM at all while rogues have points to spare.

I would suggest keeping Feint a combat ability and leaving skills out of it. 1d20 + BAB vs. 10 + BAB is more than fair. Or you could even do:
1d20 + BAB + Dex or Cha mod vs. 10 + BAB + Dex or Wis mod.

Plus I would allow a defensive option like if successful, you trick the foe into attacking where you won't be, preventing them from adding their Dex or Str to attack instead of to their AC.

Same with Demoralize and Taunt, leave skills out of it entirely.

Demoralize:
1d20 + BAB + Str or Cha vs. 10 + BAB + Con or Wis

I'm suggesting Con as an alternate to represent a character's ability to withstand pain. Someone isn't going to be demoralized if they don't think they're going to get hurt.

I would suggest this lasts for as long as the scarer is directly attacking or pursuing the scaree + 1 round per point of ability modifier. As a standard action, the scaree can make a Will save (DC = 10 + 1/2 BAB + ability mod of scarer) to shake off the Shaken condition.

Taunt
1d20 + Int or Cha vs. 10 + Wis or Cha

I suggest leaving BAB out because combat skill has no bearing on being able to tease someone into a rage.

For effect, I would suggest the target suffers a -2 to attack or defense--teaser's choice since he is finding it easier to avoid being hit or to hit his target. The target does get a +2 bonus to damage or an extra attack (at -2 to hit) though because of his fury and is otherwise treated as if Raging.

I suggest this effect lasts for 1 round per point of ability mod + 1 extra round each time the target hits the teaser and does damage.

Once the target comes out of the fury, I would suggest he is immune to further taunting for the remainder of the encounter unless he willingly gives in to further taunting.

Taunt could also be used to goad them into charging you if you are not close enough.

You could even create a feat called Combat Manipulation which could provide a +4 bonus to checks made to make or resist any of the above maneuvers.

You could make another called Melee Maneuver that lets someone with a rogue or wizard BAB treat their BAB as that of a fighter when making these checks.

 

[Kerrick]

You're quoting yourself to...yourself?

No, just letting anyone who cared know that I found it.

It is WAY to easy for a Bluffer to do that and leads right back to a rogue being able to out-fight a fighter, even if the skill bonuses are 1/5th normal. Fighters just don't have the points to invest in SM at all while rogues have points to spare.

I could drop it to 1/5 ranks... then a Rog 10 with max ranks and 14 Cha vs. a Ftr 10 would be 1d20 + 7 + 2 + 2 vs. DC 10 + 10, or 1d20 + 11 vs. DC 20. I just think there should be some kind of bonus for PCs who are especially proficient at bluffing foes.

I would suggest keeping Feint a combat ability and leaving skills out of it. 1d20 + BAB vs. 10 + BAB is more than fair. Or you could even do:
1d20 + BAB + Dex or Cha mod vs. 10 + BAB + Dex or Wis mod.

Hmm... if we use the above PCs: 1d20 + 7 + 3 (Dex) vs. DC 10 + 10 + 1 (Wis), or 1d20 + 10 vs. DC 21.

Plus I would allow a defensive option like if successful, you trick the foe into attacking where you won't be, preventing them from adding their Dex or Str to attack instead of to their AC.

Now that's cool - I like that. Umm, let's see... a defensive feint incurs a -4 penalty to the attacker's next roll?

I'm suggesting Con as an alternate to represent a character's ability to withstand pain. Someone isn't going to be demoralized if they don't think they're going to get hurt.

I would suggest this lasts for as long as the scarer is directly attacking or pursuing the scaree + 1 round per point of ability modifier. As a standard action, the scaree can make a Will save (DC = 10 + 1/2 BAB + ability mod of scarer) to shake off the Shaken condition.

Con works. I like the standard action = save thing, too... it gives the victim a second chance, as it were, at the cost of an action.

Taunt
1d20 + Int or Cha vs. 10 + Wis or Cha

I suggest leaving BAB out because combat skill has no bearing on being able to tease someone into a rage.

Adding BAB to this one didn't feel right to me either, but I wanted uniformity. The problem with this one being a straight-up opposed ability check is that the taunter is going to succeed about 50% of the time. Ideally, I'd like it to be around 35-40% - that's just enough to not make it useless, but not so much that it's too effective.

For effect, I would suggest the target suffers a -2 to attack or defense--teaser's choice since he is finding it easier to avoid being hit or to hit his target. The target does get a +2 bonus to damage or an extra attack (at -2 to hit) though because of his fury and is otherwise treated as if Raging.

I'd go with a -2 to attack and +2 to damage, so the taunter can't negate the victim's bonus. Sending someone into a rage (as in +4 Str, +4 Con) is way too abuseable - players would just taunt their friends and let them go to town.

I suggest this effect lasts for 1 round per point of ability mod + 1 extra round each time the target hits the teaser and does damage.

That gives me an idea... if the teaser deals nonlethal damage to the target as part of the taunt, it adds a bonus to his roll (like on a 1:1 basis). It's like slapping someone across the face. But why would the rage last longer if the victim slams his tormenter in the face? I think it would be minus 1 round, because you're getting satisfaction.

Once the target comes out of the fury, I would suggest he is immune to further taunting for the remainder of the encounter unless he willingly gives in to further taunting.

Yeah.

Taunt could also be used to goad them into charging you if you are not close enough.

That was kind of implied, but I forgot to state it. Good catch.

You could even create a feat called Combat Manipulation which could provide a +4 bonus to checks made to make or resist any of the above maneuvers.

Aha! I had the idea for a feat, but I couldn't think of a name. Thanks!

You could make another called Melee Maneuver that lets someone with a rogue or wizard BAB treat their BAB as that of a fighter when making these checks.

Improved Combat Manipulation? Although getting a +4 bonus is akin to having a good BAB anyway... better, at low levels.

 

[Hawken]

I just think there should be some kind of bonus for PCs who are especially proficient at bluffing foes.

One can be a proficient liar/manipulator without being able to feint in combat. They are mutually exclusive of each other. And being good at one does NOT make one good at the other.

a defensive feint incurs a -4 penalty to the attacker's next roll?

That would be too powerful against most foes. I'd suggest treating it just like a feint. Feints deny ability scores to AC, a defensive feint should do the same, deny str or dex to BAB.

but I wanted uniformity

Uniformity makes things look neat and organized, but if it doesn't fit, it shouldn't be used. Another method would be to use 1d20 + 1/2 character level + ability mod vs. 10 + Will save + Cha mod.

Sending someone into a rage (as in +4 Str, +4 Con) is way too abuseable - players would just taunt their friends and let them go to town.

Yes, a barbarian rage would be abusable, but the "mini-rage" I suggested isn't so bad. Its not as good as a barbarian rage, but its significant enough and is kind of a polar opposite of fighting defensively.

Further, I'd suggest there be a "voluntary' mini-rage and an 'involuntary' one. If its voluntary, the character can enter it at will--and end it at will. Involuntary, like taunting someone, would last for the listed duration.

But why would the rage last longer if the victim slams his tormentor in the face? I think it would be minus 1 round, because you're getting satisfaction.

No, you're not getting satisfaction. Its not about satisfaction or torment. Its about pain and crushing your opponent. As long as they continue to struggle and fight back, continue to even move, it feeds the rage, it doesn't satisfy it.

 

[Kerrick]

One can be a proficient liar/manipulator without being able to feint in combat. They are mutually exclusive of each other. And being good at one does NOT make one good at the other.

True... but being a good liar does help with being able to point over your opponent's shoulder and yell "Look out!" and have him look. Hence the bonus for ranks, not a straight Bluff check.

That would be too powerful against most foes. I'd suggest treating it just like a feint. Feints deny ability scores to AC, a defensive feint should do the same, deny str or dex to BAB.

Wait, wait... you're considering a -4 penalty to an attack more powerful than being flat-footed? Against a rogue? Of course, if the opponent is flat-footed, he can't make AoOs (without the Combat Reflexes feat), which means you could get away... hmm.

Uniformity makes things look neat and organized, but if it doesn't fit, it shouldn't be used.

Yeah, I know.

Another method would be to use 1d20 + 1/2 character level + ability mod vs. 10 + Will save + Cha mod.

The Jester's Taunt ability is a Will save vs. 10 + class level + Cha mod... it would make sense to have it be a Will save, but why the Cha mod? I kind of see the "self-possession" thing I think you're aiming for, but wouldn't Wis fit better (as in, you recognize what he's trying to do and have the strength of mind to resist being baited)?

Yes, a barbarian rage would be abusable, but the "mini-rage" I suggested isn't so bad. Its not as good as a barbarian rage, but its significant enough and is kind of a polar opposite of fighting defensively.

True, but it's also more bookkeepping for the DM - all of a sudden, his NPC has gone ballistic and he has to recalculate hit points, attack bonus, damage, etc. Fighting defensively is just a -4 to attacks/+2 to AC, so fighting offensively could be the same in reverse.

No, you're not getting satisfaction. Its not about satisfaction or torment. Its about pain and crushing your opponent. As long as they continue to struggle and fight back, continue to even move, it feeds the rage, it doesn't satisfy it.

I suppose you're right. I have the effects last until the taunter is dead or flees, so it's basically the same thing.

 

[Hawken]

True... but being a good liar does help with being able to point over your opponent's shoulder and yell "Look out!" and have him look. Hence the bonus for ranks, not a straight Bluff check.

We might have to agree to disagree on this point--crap! I hate using cliches!

If I'm fighting someone (and I've been in plenty of fights), I'm not going to believe a damn thing my enemy is saying. If he told me to "look out", I'd stab him in his face and THEN duck, not the other way around. Feinting is more along the lines of misleading and misdirecting an enemy's defense or attack rather than trying to trick him into looking over his shoulder. That example would be Bluff vs. Sense Motive and if it succeeded, I'd allow the results of a successful feint, but that is not what a feint actually is.

Wait, wait... you're considering a -4 penalty to an attack more powerful than being flat-footed? Against a rogue? Of course, if the opponent is flat-footed, he can't make AoOs (without the Combat Reflexes feat), which means you could get away... hmm.

Actually, here I was thinking your idea of neat and orderly--keeping the mechanics (roughly) the same.

The Jester's Taunt ability is a Will save vs. 10 + class level + Cha mod... it would make sense to have it be a Will save, but why the Cha mod? I kind of see the "self-possession" thing I think you're aiming for, but wouldn't Wis fit better (as in, you recognize what he's trying to do and have the strength of mind to resist being baited)?

I was thinking Cha because the taunt is tied into the strength of personality and social aspects of Cha. It isn't always so much recognizing the taunt for what it is and resisting/ignoring it, but whether it stings the person's pride enough or embarrasses them enough in front of their peers that causes them to attack so wildly. --Think McFly from Back to the Future when he was called Chicken by Biff. Yeah, he knew it was stupid, but every time it goaded him to take the wrong action (at the time) because it was a matter of pride.

True, but it's also more bookkeepping for the DM - all of a sudden, his NPC has gone ballistic and he has to recalculate hit points, attack bonus, damage, etc. Fighting defensively is just a -4 to attacks/+2 to AC, so fighting offensively could be the same in reverse.

You've got a point, though I didn't mention anything about hit points. So we could just say that the mini-rage is +2 to attack, -4 to AC.