Streamlining advanced combat actions

[Caine Freerover]

I think these manoeuvers are something you attempt only if you're very good at them. For me a 50% chance of success is not enough, unless the payoff is very large.

All of these manoeuvers require a standard action, and cannot normally be combined with another weapon attack. (Natural attacks can be added at the usual -5 penalty, however.) If a character uses a full-round action instead of a standard action, they get a +2 to the opposed roll.

Here are some simpler versions that anyone can use that avoid the AoO construct.

Bull rush, trip, and disarm also carry a size modifier; if the opponent is one size larger than you then you get a -4 to your roll, and if they're one size smaller you get a +4 to your roll. You can't attempt these on someone two or more size categories different from you.

Bull rush:
You and your opponent roll d20+BAB+Str, if you win you push them back 1' per point of difference between the rolls, rounded up to the nearest 5' interval, to the limit of your normal move.
If you fail by more than 5, your opponent gets a free attack on you.

Trip:
You roll d20+BAB+Str, and your opponent rolls d20+BAB+(Str or Dex) (whichever is
more favorable). If you succeed then your opponent falls prone.
If you fail by more than 5 you fall prone. If you are using a weapon with a trip bonus, you may choose to drop the weapon rather than falling prone.

Disarm:
You and your opponent roll d20+BAB+Dex. If you succeed then your opponent drops his weapon. If the defender is using a 2-handed weapon they get a +4 to their roll.
If you fail by more than 5, you must drop your weapon.

Feint:
You roll d20+BAB+Cha, and your oppenent rolls d20+BAB+Wis. If you succeed then
you have lured your opponent into following a pattern of attacks that gives you an advantage; in the following round they are denied their Dex bonus to AC.
If you fail by more than 5, then your next attack automatically misses.


Feats:

Improved Bull Rush, Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, and Improved Feint all simply add +4 to your roll.

 

[Li Shenron]

off-topic but this one is pretty much true actually... if you haven't been trained in the fundamentals of swimming you don't stand much chance of avoiding drowning. Swimming is one of the few skills that *should* be trained only!

That's not very true... I think all mammals have a little natural ability to swim, and if you put a baby into water he'll manage to float, although probably not for long. Within a very simple system such as the core rules, I think it's really fair that everyone has a chance to swim even without ranks. In any case, if you have 0 ranks in swim that doesn't automatically mean you've never ever dived into a pool of water...

 

[vulcan_idic]

off-topic but this one is pretty much true actually... if you haven't been trained in the fundamentals of swimming you don't stand much chance of avoiding drowning. Swimming is one of the few skills that *should* be trained only!

I have to agree with Li Shenron on this one. You will doubtless be more successful at saving yourself from drowning with training, but there is much to be said for the untrained "dog-paddle" method for saving yourself - it is very possible.

Arguing from another tack... Person N teaches you to swim. Person N was taught to swim by person (N-1). Who taught Person 1? (the first person to "know how" to swim)?

 

[knifespeaks]

Just a thought:

Trip/disarm/sunder are treated as attack rolls, with a miss provoking an AoO, but a hit allowing a reflex save to avoid the effect?

Improving one's efficiency in these combat options can simply add negative modifiers to the save OR additional plusses to hit.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I think these manoeuvers are something you attempt only if you're very good at them. For me a 50% chance of success is not enough, unless the payoff is very large.

All of these manoeuvers require a standard action, and cannot normally be combined with another weapon attack. (Natural attacks can be added at the usual -5 penalty, however.) If a character uses a full-round action instead of a standard action, they get a +2 to the opposed roll.

Here are some simpler versions that anyone can use that avoid the AoO construct.

Bull rush, trip, and disarm also carry a size modifier; if the opponent is one size larger than you then you get a -4 to your roll, and if they're one size smaller you get a +4 to your roll. You can't attempt these on someone two or more size categories different from you.

Bull rush:
You and your opponent roll d20+BAB+Str, if you win you push them back 1' per point of difference between the rolls, rounded up to the nearest 5' interval, to the limit of your normal move.
If you fail by more than 5, your opponent gets a free attack on you.

Trip:
You roll d20+BAB+Str, and your opponent rolls d20+BAB+(Str or Dex) (whichever is
more favorable). If you succeed then your opponent falls prone.
If you fail by more than 5 you fall prone. If you are using a weapon with a trip bonus, you may choose to drop the weapon rather than falling prone.

Disarm:
You and your opponent roll d20+BAB+Dex. If you succeed then your opponent drops his weapon. If the defender is using a 2-handed weapon they get a +4 to their roll.
If you fail by more than 5, you must drop your weapon.

Feint:
You roll d20+BAB+Cha, and your oppenent rolls d20+BAB+Wis. If you succeed then
you have lured your opponent into following a pattern of attacks that gives you an advantage; in the following round they are denied their Dex bonus to AC.
If you fail by more than 5, then your next attack automatically misses.


Feats:

Improved Bull Rush, Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, and Improved Feint all simply add +4 to your roll.

This is a pretty good idea. The opponent's BAB should be a factor in resisting these combat maneuvers.

 

[Plane Sailing]

That's not very true... I think all mammals have a little natural ability to swim, and if you put a baby into water he'll manage to float, although probably not for long.

The thing is, babies lose that ability very quickly.

When I was a kid our whole class went along to swimming lessons. On day 1 if you had pushed our whole class into the pool almost all would drown. floating and doggy paddle is *not* the natural reaction of people (animals are much better at doing it naturally. People are much more likely to panic).

So considering some of the other skills which are "trained only" I think Swim definitely should be within that category.

(n.b. wikipedia has a very interesting article on the history of swimming - nothing germane to this discussion, but very interesting anyway)

Funnily enough in D&D it doesn't matter if you let people swim untrained because if anyone falls into water wearing armour they are likely to drown long before they could remove the armour anyway. A pit with water in the bottom is a literal death trap for almost any armoured character!



Cheers

 

[Grayhawk]

Off topic: I'm with Plane Sailing on the swimming issue. There is such a thing as not being able to swim. (Now, enough with the swimming, lest the real topic drowns )

Just a thought:

Trip/disarm/sunder are treated as attack rolls, with a miss provoking an AoO, but a hit allowing a reflex save to avoid the effect?

I'm sure that there are many ways which you can try to streamline these special combat actions, but I've decided to stay with the opposed attack roll mechanic, at least until someone shows me why it doesn't work.

My reasons are that I find that mechanic easy to remember as well as elegant and transparent. Also, if these actions required an attack roll against your opponents AC, some (all?) would propably had to be against a touch AC, something I'm planning to get rid off in my search for simplicity.

Caine Freerover, I understand why you would want to use slightly different checks to perform the different actions, but personally I'd much prefer a single mechanic, unless it generates gross balance or logic issues.

The opponent's BAB should be a factor in resisting these combat maneuvers.

Which is why I'm proposing the opposed attack roll mechanic in the first place

Time for a humble appeal: I really like to see all of your ideas for how to go about this, but before I can seriously consider any of these, I'd like for you to turn your most scrutinizing eye on the idea I'm proposing and tell me what you see.

Once again, here's the thing:

'Trip, Disarm, Feint*, Bull Rush, Sunder, Overrun and Grapple all require a standard action and are all resolved using the opposed attack roll mechanic. You cannot initiate such an action against someone more than 1 size larger than yourself. If you are smaller than your opponent you get a -4 penalty on your roll.'

* I've included Feint, as this is for a game without the current skill system.

Since this is meant for a system without AoO's, there's no drawback to initiate one of these actions.'

Here are the specific questions I'd like for you to consider:

1: In a game with no AoO's, does the opposed attack roll mechanic make these actions too easy, too hard or just about right?

2: In a simple game, do you think that the opposed attack roll mechanic adequately can be used to govern these actions? If not, which do you feel needs to be handled differently?

Thanks for your time!

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Caine Freerover, I understand why you would want to use slightly different checks to perform the different actions, but personally I'd much prefer a single mechanic, unless it generates gross balance or logic issues.

He is using a single mechanic for all those actions! Only the ability score modifier is different. I'd be pretty impressed if anyone came up with a simpler mechanism than this. Looks to me like this is what you're after.

 

[Grayhawk]

He is using a single mechanic for all those actions! Only the ability score modifier is different.

Let me rephrase then: I'd like them to use the same mechanic, if at all possible. Having it based on different ability scores and having different results based on how much you fail the opposed check by is unneeded complexity IMO. At least until I'm convinced that this complexity is absolutely required to make this both balanced and playable. To help me figure this out, please answer the 2 questions from my previous post (conveniently labeled 1 & 2 ).

I'd be pretty impressed if anyone came up with a simpler mechanism than this. Looks to me like this is what you're after.

I'm after the simplest possible solution, and so far the opposed attack roll -either resulting in a success or a failure (with no other drawbacks) - seems to be it. Again, if you feel this doesn't cut it, please tell me why?

 

[knifespeaks]

Here are the specific questions I'd like for you to consider:

1: In a game with no AoO's, does the opposed attack roll mechanic make these actions too easy, too hard or just about right?

2: In a simple game, do you think that the opposed attack roll mechanic adequately can be used to govern these actions? If not, which do you feel needs to be handled differently?

1. Those skills are probably balanced - but no AoO's might make spell users more prone to combat cast, so you might need to address that specific circumstance (?)

2. Probably, yes - you call them opposed rolls, I call 'em saving throws. Same mechanic though.