• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Do these combat manuevers seem balanced?

Beholder Bob

First Post
Please let me know what you think - I'm thinking of adding these manuevers to my game... if these things are too out of 'whack', I need to know before the players abuse them & my monsters!

Brace: as a move action, gain a +4 to resist Trip, Bull Rush, and Overrun – though you suffer -4 AC to avoid being hit by these same attacks. You may maintain this as a free action, but you may not move while maintaining it. If you move (willingly or not) or fall prone, you cease to be braced.

Death from Above: as a standard action, drop onto a target unaware of you and make a melee attack with a +2 to hit and +d4 per 10’ fallen damage. If you hit, you take d4 per 10’ dropped (with a Athletics check to reduce damage) and the target must make a Strength or Balance check DC 10 + damage from your attack, or be knocked prone. Whether or not you hit, you make a DC (20 + 1/10’ fallen) Balance check or fall prone as well. If you miss, you take full falling damage, and provoke an attack of opportunity. You also need to make the Balance check to avoid falling prone. If your target is aware of you, he gains a bonus to AC equal to 2 + his Reflex save.

Defensive Sunder: as a standard action, attack a foe’s weapon as they attack you with it without provoking an attack of opportunity. While doing so, you gain -2 dodge AC against attackers other then the one you are performing a Defensive Sunder against. You may only perform this maneuver against a foe that attacks at your initiative or less – and you lower your initiative to your foe’s initiative by virtue of using this maneuver. Intent to use this manuever is declared at the beginning of your round, but is not applied until the foes round. If the foe does not attack you - or does not use a weapon in his attack, this action is wasted.

Ignore Foe: as a free action usable once per round, you can choose to ignore an opponent to focus on another in melee, preventing one foe from gaining flanking against you, but at the cost of treating the ignored foe as being invisible to you. Additionally, ignoring a person inflicting damage on you is difficult when they hurt you - you provoke an AOO from non-ignored foes whenever you are struck for damage by the foe you are ignoring.

Maneuver Foe: as a standard action, make an attack roll against either 10 + foe’s highest attack value (for a melee weapon currently wielded) or 0 + their AC, whichever is higher. If you hit, your foe must either move 5’ in a direction of your choice or be flat-footed Vs you until the end of your next round. If you miss your roll by 5+, you provoke an AOO from that foe. Against a target you have just successfully feinted Vs, you gain +4 to your rolls to maneuver them.

Roll with the Blow: sacrifice your next standard action and fall prone in order to reduce damage from a melee attack in ½. You take full damage unless you succeed in a Reflex save against the attacker’s roll to hit roll. On a failed roll, you take full damage, lose your next standard action, and are still prone. As a side effect of this action, whether you succeed or not, you may make a 5’ move out of turn.

Targeting: Initiated as a full round action, it is a free action to maintain. While in use, you provoke AOO from those that threaten you. You focus on a single foe’s movements to gain a +1 to hit that foe with a ranged attack on the following round. You maintain this bonus so long as you do not move, fall prone, make an attack against a different target, or Set against a different foe.

B:]B
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Goolpsy

First Post
I would strongly suggest you NOT to use "Ignore Foe" first of all it will probably criple every Thief, and will reduce players "tactical Maneuvers" .. why use a turn to get into flanking position, if it doesn't work? - Game Issues

If you think of it, Having one opponent in your back really reduce your concentration to fight, and it "limits your space" as he is RIGHT behind you, kicking you, hitting you.
And the opponent your fighting will likely Use that disadvantage in the best way posible, Hence the "loss of Dex to Ac" and availability of Sneak attacks.

You do make a penalty for ignoring a Foe, but i would suggest a Concentration check or something to make it work, and taking the penalty if he succeed, while he is just plain flanked on a failed check.

Still i suggest not adding this Combat Action
 

Beholder Bob

First Post
Goolpsy said:
...If you think of it, Having one opponent in your back really reduce your concentration to fight, and it "limits your space" as he is RIGHT behind you, kicking you, hitting you.
And the opponent your fighting will likely Use that disadvantage in the best way posible, Hence the "loss of Dex to Ac" and availability of Sneak attacks...You do make a penalty for ignoring a Foe, but i would suggest a Concentration check or something to make it work, and taking the penalty if he succeed, while he is just plain flanked on a failed check...

Ignore Foe:....each round you continue to ignored a foe inflicting damage to you, you suffer a -1 to hit and AC against foes you are not ignoring.

I understand your view, though I feal the true argument against this is purely meta or game mechanics rather then realism. Now, given that, I'd be hard pressed to argue DnD is a 'realistic' combat system. Despite that, I find the idea of summoning a celestial badger to flank a 19th level fighter an abysmal side effect, one I feal obligated to rectify. If I faced a man armed with a chainsaw and an angry cat, I'd not care a whit if the cat attached itself to my spine - I'd focus on not letting the man count the rings after yelling timber! The problem comes in - what happens if foes represent a credible threat, but a lopsided one. A fighter and rogue - ignore the rogue, rcv a sneak attack, turn your back on the fighter, find out what a maxed out power attack can do. Also - ignoring a foe also means you no longer threaten them - they can freely trip, grapple, disarm, and wedgie you to hearts content. The concentration idea sounds good at first - till you realize only spell casters would have the moxy to ignore a deadly threats in melee! Perhaps I should make the penalty cumulative - it keeps tripping you up until you spend a round to wack the guy dancing behind you. Hmmmm

B:]B
 

Phaedrus

First Post
Manuever Foe looks really nice! Jump for Cover, too.

I agree with Goolspy on Ignore Foe.
I think Set should give +2 instead of +1.
Defensive Sunder takes the usefulness of Improved Sunder away. I'm not a fan of sundering in the first place, either.
 

ARandomGod

First Post
Defensive sunder basically negates the improved sunder feat, but if you're OK with everyone being able to sunder then that's cool. As a GM I'd feel obliged to sunder those magic weapons more often, however, as all the monsters effectively have improved sunder, and they should use the feats they have.

I think "Ingnore Attacker" is too strong. Even with the additional restraint I think you should put on to it.

You really need to allow the melee attacks made by the person ignoring an opponent to be treated as ranged attacks by the ignored person. This is a logical extention of the fact that they're being ignored. It follows because 1) all attacks other than melee attacks provoke AoO's 2) A melee attack does not provoke because it threatens 3) an ignored attacker is not being threatened. Therefore any attacks made are not threatening them, and hence provoke AoO's.

Even still I think it's too "anti-rogue". But if you use it I strongly suggest you also apply the AoO's.

For manuever foe I think the 'manuevered' should be able to use his tumble skill to oppose instead of making an opposed attack roll, if he chooses.
 

Beholder Bob

First Post
Hmm - defensive sunder limits the sunder attempt to be vs a foe attacking you, only vs what is used against you, lowers your ac vs others, and still has a chance of provoking an attack of opportunity. By the feedback, though, folks seem to see it as pretty good. I'll re-evaluate it. The thought was that sundering carried objects on a foe is exposing yourself, but the striking weapons as they are swung at you just aggressive parries. Hmm, I'll stew on this. Perhaps it will need to be nixed or nerfed.

I'm pretty set on Ingnore Attacker, though I'm happy with the idea of nerfing it further. It already makes the fellow flat footed against the ignored target, opening them up to a slew of manuevers... I could replace each round you continue to ignored a foe inflicting damage to you, you suffer a -1 to hit and AC against foes you are not ignoring. with you provoke an AOO from non-ignored foes whenever you are struck for damage by the foe you are ignoring. That should be a pretty strong nerf, though perhaps too strong....

Manuever Foe resisted by tumbling instead of the targets attack total... sure, sounds more then reasonable. I'd imagine most folks would have a higher attack value (after strength, magic, masterwork, feats...) then tumble check, but weak melee folks with good tumbling... sure!

B:]B
 
Last edited:

Goolpsy

First Post
I know the d&d doesn't always work with reality... but if you read the first part of my post, it was about it affecting the Game mechanics..

Im not sure it is was what ArandomGod suggested, but the way of giving the ignored Foe a Free AoO each time the "Guy ignoring him attacks" seems fit.

the flanking Cat or Bat is a Tactical choice mostly made by the players and it makes the combat more fun. By more or less completely remove the chance of Flanking the whole rogue class is Cripled so much that the 3.0 Ranger can laugh at it. Its a good idea to add these new combat Actions/Choices to the game = more tactical talk between the players maknig combat more fun for this Hack and Slash system. If jsut afraid the "Ignore Foe" does the complete opposet.

If a wel lknown world Organisation Gave food and cloth and money to the poor hungry people.. the world would Rejoyce.. if they afterwards used the Village to test new Diseases effects on humans, They would have the whole world against them..

My point is: One bad thing/Decission counts soo much more Downwards in attitude and happiness of the players, than making 10 good ones..
 

Beholder Bob

First Post
Goolpsy: what say you to the alternate penalty I've suggested?

you provoke an AOO from non-ignored foes whenever you are struck for damage by the foe you are ignoring.

It eliminates the 'fierce' badger/bat/cat in 99% of the cases, but being struck by an ignored foe giving ALL other foes an AOO agaisnt you is pretty severe! So - ignoring a competent foe is just asking to get clouted, knocking you into the blades of the other folks!

Yes/no/answer fuzzy, try again later?

As to the hungry village/food/disease....Are you implying there is something wrong with that? :]

B:]B
 

the Jester

Legend
I don't like defensive sunder, for the same reasons others stated above.

Same with ignore foe- though with the 'AoO from everyone' it becomes more interesting, at least.
 

LostSoul

Adventurer
Rogues should still be able to Sneak Attack if they are having Ignore Foe used against them.

It says they are treated as Invisible, correct? You don't get your Dex bonus against Invisible creatures, do you?

Unless I am missing something.
 

Remove ads

Top