Tactical movement made easy! (New combat action)

[Arc]

Edit: After some thought, I've revised the advance rules, to deal with a few niggling problems, and to address some concerns voiced below. The original rules can be found below the revised ones (along w/ the original design decisions)

Advance

As a melee attack, you may attempt to force your opponent to move. If you succeed, you and your opponent must move 5' in a direction of your choosing. This special attack action draws an attack of opportunity.

Step 1: Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to advance against (If you have the Improved Advance feat, you don't incur an attack of opportunity for making an advance attempt.) If the defender's attack of opportunity deals any damage, your advance attempt fails.

Step 2: Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category.

Step 3: Consequences. If you beat the defender, you and the defender must move 5' in a direction of your choosing. This does not count towards either combatant's movement for the round. This movement does not count as normal movement for the purposes of drawing attacks of opportunity.

If you fail on the advance attempt, the defender may immediately react and attempt to make an advance against you with the same sort of opposed melee attack roll. His attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from you. If he fails his advance attempt, you do not subsequently get a free advance attempt against him.

Note: You may not make an advance attempt against an opponent that is 2 or more sizes larger than you.


Improved Advance [General, Fighter]

Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to advance against an opponent, nor does the opponent have a chance to advance against you. You also gain a +4 bonus on the opposed attack roll you make to advance against your opponent.
Normal: See the normal advance rules.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Advance as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Dauntless Advance [General, Fighter]

Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Advance.
Benefit: You may make an advance attempt against an opponent of up to one size category larger than you could normally advance against. For example, if you are a small creature, with Dauntless Advance, you may make an advance attempt against an opponent of size large or less.
Normal: You may only make an advance attempt against an opponent 1 size larger than you.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Advance as one of his fighter bonus feats.




Old stuff:

As I'm about to commence running a swashbuckling, airship pirates campaign, I've been looking at rules and supplements that add a swashbuckling flavor to combat. I've come across several that I like and will be using (including Dragon 301's Parry rules), but the fluidity of movement classic in most pirate and adventure films seemed to be missing.

Thus, I've created rules for a new combat action: advance. The general idea is to allow for the forcing of movement between two combatants, without uneccessary complexity. I've based these rules (and accompanying feat) off of the rules for disarm, and I like the tactical complexity they bring to combat. Have a look, and give me the criticism needed to make them work well

Edit: Here's the conundrum I'm facing, if I implement these rules: Should the forced movement draw AOOs? If yes, then the action is quite powerful (perhaps overly so). If not, then it loses some of its tactical advantage.

Edit: Typos + Great Advance prereqs fixed.

Advance

As a melee attack, you may attempt to force your opponent to move. If you succeed, your opponent must move 5' in a direction of your choosing. This special attack action draws an attack of opportunity.

Step 1: Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to advance against (If you have the Improved Advance feat, you don't incur an attack of opportunity for making an advance attempt.) If the defender's attack of opportunity deals any damage, your advance attempt fails.

Step 2: Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category.

Step 3: Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender must move 5' in a direction of your choosing. This does not count towards the defender's movement for the round.

If you fail on the advance attempt, the defender may immediately react and attempt to make an advance against you with the same sort of opposed melee attack roll. His attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from you. If he fails his advance attempt, you do not subsequently get a free advance attempt against him.


Improved Advance [General, Fighter]

Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to advance against an opponent, nor does the opponent have a chance to advance against you. You also gain a +4 bonus on the opposed attack roll you make to advance against your opponent.
Normal: See the normal advance rules.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Advance as one of his fighter bonus feats.


Great Advance [General, Fighter]

Prerequisites: Int 15, Combat Expertise, Improved Advance.
Benefit: Upon the success of an advance attempt, you may make an extra 5' move in a direction of your choosing. This extra 5' move does not count towards your movement for the round.
Special: A fighter may select Great Advance as one of his fighter bonus feats.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Should the movement draw AoOs? I'd say no. That could make it just *too* useful. There are enough possible uses as there are (breaking or creating flanking situations, forcing people down stairs- or off cliffs!, etc.). If you do decide to make the opponent's movement draw an AoO, then I think an Advance should draw AoOs from everyone, not just the opponent advanced against.

[edit]I really like this idea. I hope that it plays out as well as it looks in print![/edit]

 

[Arc]

Should the movement draw AoOs? I'd say no. That could make it just *too* useful. There are enough possible uses as there are (breaking or creating flanking situations, forcing people down stairs- or off cliffs!, etc.). If you do decide to make the opponent's movement draw an AoO, then I think an Advance should draw AoOs from everyone, not just the opponent advanced against.

I'm currently thinking no AOOs myself. The uses that you mentioned are exactly what I'm shooting for - inventive ways to use positioning in combat. Visions of combats across tabletops, or back and forth along a ship's deck, are exactly what inspired me to create this!

 

[demiurge1138]

The advance rules look good, but there's just one problem. My future character in your campaign already has more potential feats than feat slots. Grr...

Demiurge out.

 

[LazerPointer]

the concept looks good, but for an AoO, I'd say no. This reminds me of the thread about Cleaving giants getting an attack on a defensive PC for dropping someone nearby who draws an AoO.

To me the goal of combat is to be somewhat close to real fighting. The AoO system has some definate shortcomings....

 

[Aaron2]

I'd suggest that the defender has the option to take damage (perhaps critical damage) in order to avoid being forced to move.


Aaron

 

[AeroDm]

I'd suggest that the defender has the option to take damage (perhaps critical damage) in order to avoid being forced to move.


Aaron

If no AoO is caused by the movement I wouldn't allow them to avoid the movement through any means. In essence that would create one of two undesireable situations: 1) the times when this interesting feat is put to good use it is ignored because the creature would rather soak the damage or 2) the player figures out a way to make people accept the damage often and thus finds an easier way to deal damage.

Question- Unless I misread the person attempting the advance does not automatically advance as well (hence the improved version), correct? If so, will this really simulate movement in swashbuckling games or will it result in pushing people away, them 5' back into melee, wash rinse repeat?

Likewise, Because Greater Advance allows you to take a 5', could you then use an iterative attack to push them back another 5'?

 

[Aaron2]

If no AoO is caused by the movement I wouldn't allow them to avoid the movement through any means. In essence that would create one of two undesireable situations: 1) the times when this interesting feat is put to good use it is ignored because the creature would rather soak the damage or 2) the player figures out a way to make people accept the damage often and thus finds an easier way to deal damage.

I'm worried about the feat being an easy way to force another character off a cliff/chasm/etc just by making one attack v attack roll.

I'm curious, just exactly how are you making the person move, esp when they can be moving almost towards the attacker? I'm really having a hard time visualizing how this is in any way related to swashbuckling. Wouldn't it be better to work from the other end and give the defender the option of moving to avoid the blow?


Aaron

 

[AeroDm]

I was thinking about this a bit longer and I am not so sure it will actually have the swashbuckling flavor. First and foremost there won't be the continued movement because after moving 5' away (regardless of the direction) they are allowed to 5' back into the same spot, unless you have the advanced feat which allows you to follow.

What if instead you automatically were able to follow, but then the defender was able to determine which direction they move. Then allow the advanced feat to make multiple attempts per round (ala great cleave). One change I'd make is to declare that the defender may not move into a square adjacent to the attacker (or perhaps doing so would incur an AoO). This basically give them one of three directions, all backwards, to choose from.

This way while the attacker may push them around, the defender gets to choose the terrain. Advanced fighters could move 20' or more in a single round, which has a certain bit of flare to it. It also allows you to conduct fencing tournaments and specific duels to things other than X damage.

Final point of note- all of my ideas were made at 3 am after watching The Princess Bride.

 

[Aaron2]

What if instead you automatically were able to follow, but then the defender was able to determine which direction they move. Then allow the advanced feat to make multiple attempts per round (ala great cleave). One change I'd make is to declare that the defender may not move into a square adjacent to the attacker (or perhaps doing so would incur an AoO). This basically give them one of three directions, all backwards, to choose from.

This way while the attacker may push them around, the defender gets to choose the terrain. Advanced fighters could move 20' or more in a single round, which has a certain bit of flare to it. It also allows you to conduct fencing tournaments and specific duels to things other than X damage.

That's why I think it should be the defender who decides. Make a feat called Fancy Footwork (prereq Dodge) that gives the defender a, say, +4 AC bonus if he moves backwards 5 ft when attacked. The attacker can follow automatically into the space vacated. A superior attacker, through clever maneuvering can try to back the defender into a corner.


Aaron