Combat rules: Need some opinions

[Kerrick]

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.

Okay, now I see what you're saying. You're right - feinting like that isn't bluffing someone.

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

Oh. I had to look back upthread to see what we'd done.... I'd say leave it as "a successful feint (by attacker OR defender) leaves the target flat-footed". That makes it a lot easier to remember, and more uniform all around. An attacker can use it to get a free attack in, or the defender can use it to make a quick getaway. Course... if you can only do it on your turn, aren't you always the attacker?

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.

That's what I thought you were aiming for. It's a good idea, but the problem here is that you're using a nonstandard ability modifier for a save in a (fairly) common circumstance, and in combat, no less - I wonder how long it would take for a player to subtract his Wis mod, find and add his Cha mod, and then get make the roll?

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.

Well, you said rage, so I assumed +4 Str, +4 Con... that would boost hit points. Oh yeah, and if the target of the taunt is knocked unconscious or dying, the effects wear off too. Forgot that part.


Edit: After some quick editing, here's what I've got for the revised abilities.

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 makes a modified level check - 1d20 + base attack bonus + Cha modifier vs. DC 10 + opponent's base attack bonus + opponent's Wis modifier. If the check succeeds, the opponent loses its Dex bonus for the character's next attack (the character can also use this action to take a combat stride away from the opponent without provoking an attack of opportunity).

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.

The Improved Feint feat grants a +4 bonus to feint checks.


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 ranks in Intimidate + his Cha modifier vs. DC 10 + opponent's base attack bonus + opponent's Wis 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 + his Cha modifier vs. DC 10 + 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 engaging the character in melee combat if possible; it gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls, but a -4 penalty to AC. The enemy will charge to close with the character if applicable. This effect lasts until the character is incapacitated, dead, or flees, or until the opponent is incapacitated or 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.

I think taunt should add ranks in Bluff, with the opponent's Sense Motive opposing it - it's not like feinting; someone who's skilled at bluffing (i.e., talking smack) can easily goad someone else into a fight.

 

[Sylrae]

About Feinting... What if the one Doing the feint isn't a humanoid Say it's a drider? IE an aberration?

I would think you should not do it by racial type. Someone with a natural weapon and 8 legs can try to feint just as easily as someone with 2 legs and an axe. They should be able to try to feint eachother cause its falsely telegraphed movements that youre trying to do. I could see a -2 for somethign of equal intelligence but drastically different physical qualities.

In terms for animals, I dont think it would be nearly as difficult to fake out an animal as youre implying.

Have you considered making use of Parry?

 

[Hawken]

I don't think its so much the racial type as it is the ability to understand and react to the attempt.

One type attempting to Feint another could be penalized for not knowing or understanding how the other type reacts to the Feint. A Human might not have a penalty when trying to Feint a Drow, but it should have one when attempting to Feint a Drider since a Human generally doesn't have the same understanding of Drider tactics and psychology to feint.

Animals and Vermin should be different. I think their ability to 'resist' a Feint should be based on their reaction speed (Dex or Reflex) not so much Sense Motive.

 

[Sylrae]

Isn't a feint like an individual faked out attack? I dont think there would be that much tactics involved?

I could see if you had to watch more appendages it woud be more difficult. IE, faking our someone when you have 6 arms would be easier than faking someone out who only has two. But I would imagine if two people ith six arms tried o fake eachother out they would both succeed more often. More places to watch for, more chance to err.

That would be my thought.

Maybe if it were based on number of attacks in a round, or number of combat usable appendages? just an Idea.

It's been a while since I stopped taking Martial arts, but isnt a successful feint almost always followed immediately by an actual attack? Maybe failing against a feint could provoke an AoO?

Just throwing out ideas.

 

[Kerrick]

The penalties are straight from the PHB. If you've got, say, a marilith feinting against a human, common sense should come into play here - the marilith has likely fought many, many humanoid foes and would know how they react, so she'd suffer no penalty (or at best a reduced one).

It's been a while since I stopped taking Martial arts, but isnt a successful feint almost always followed immediately by an actual attack?

If it were a standard action, like it used to be, you couldn't do it; as a move action, you can.

Maybe failing against a feint could provoke an AoO?

Hmm. I thought about that for a minute, and I can see where you're going - the defender's not fooled, and since you're expecting him to attack where you're NOT, he can hit you were you ARE.

 

[Sylrae]

So are you agreeing with the AoO Idea? lol or was that a disagreement?

 

[Kerrick]

Heh, sorry. That was me agreeing.

 

[Kerrick]

I need to know if this makes sense (i.e., can you read it and understand what's going on here). I'm using a variant grapple system (the one from Pathfinder Alpha), where you make a grapple check vs. a set DC; how much the result exceeds the DC governs how well the grapple succeeds - up to +4 is held, +5 to +9 grabbed, +11 to +14 grappled, and 15+ is pinned. With that in mind, does the following make sense?

Swallow Whole (Ex): A mu spore can try to swallow a grabbed opponent of smaller size than itself by making a successful grapple check. If the result is grabbed (DC +5) or better, it swallows its prey and the opponent takes bite damage (4d8+10); otherwise, the opponent simply takes bite damage and is not swallowed (though it is still grappled if the check succeeded).

A swallowed creature takes 2d8 points of bludgeoning damage each round. It can try to cut its way free with any light slashing weapon if it can deal 33 points of damage, or it can just try to escape the grapple. If it chooses the latter course, a successful grapple check puts it back in the mu spore's mouth, where it may be bitten or swallowed again.

Basically, what happens is that the mu spore can grab you with a tendril and toss you into its mouth on the next round (no check necessary, assuming it's grappled you). Once you're in the mouth, it can bite you automatically and attempt to swallow you with a grapple check (effectively, it's grappling you with its mouth) 5 or more better than the DC. After that, you're swallowed whole, but can attempt to climb free.

Most of this came from the original mu spore entry, but I want to use it as a general "swallow whole" thing because I like it and it makes sense (the biting/swallowing thing, at any rate; not sure about being able to climb back out of something's stomach). I seem to recall seeing something like this in 1E/2E somewhere, too...

 

[Khairn]

Swallow Whole (Ex): A mu spore can try to swallow a grabbed opponent of smaller size than itself by making a successful grapple check.

How about " A mu spore can try to swallow a target that had been grabbed, grappled or pinned by its tentacle in a previous round." ? Given your description of the attack, I think clarifying the first sentance makes it easier to understand.

 

[Kerrick]

I already included that in the Improved Grab description:

**Improved Grab (Ex):** To use this ability, the mu spore must hit with a tendril attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. It constricts each round for 4d6+21 points of damage on a successful grapple check and will attempt to swallow its opponent the round after it grapples.

Good catch, though.