Streamlining advanced combat actions

[ViciousPenguin]

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!

1: I suppose that playtesting is the only way to be sure, but I'm inclined to think that a lack of AoO's would make these maneuvers too common and too easy. Someone suggested using AoO's only upon the maneuvers failure which I think might be a good compromise solution. Of course it sounds like your game doesn't use AoO's at all, so maybe invoking a penalty (-4?) would be what you're looking for.

2: I think the mechanism would work for Trip, Disarm, Feint and Sunder. I'm inclined to think that Bull Rush is better served with opposed Str checks (as it is now), making the mechanic simple and sufficiently similar to the attack roll mechanic so that it's easy to remember and use. I might allow the option of an Escape Artist check, rather than an opposed attack roll, for Grapple. The 'nimble rogue' would be done a disservice otherwise. As for Overrun, the opposed roll method doesn't make sense to me. When the ogre attempts to Overrun the elf, size is a much bigger factor than fighting skill is. You either get out of his way or you don't. Now, if you're suggesting an opposed roll to see if you can get out of his way, you might be on to something.

 

[fuindordm]

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!

1. In a game with no AoOs these maneuvers are essentially consequence-free. You give up the chance to to damage in exchange for a chance to put your foe at an immense tactical disadvantage (no weapon, on the floor, falling into a pit, etc.) They are therefore too easy, and should have a low chance of success.

The opposed attack roll should be expected to have a success rate around 50%. That's why I added consequences to the maneuvers in case of an extreme failure. I think this might restrict their use to situations where getting the tactical advantage is necessary for the players to win.

2. Yes, I think an opposed attack roll would work. But there are situations where it doesn't make sense; some strength maneuvers can be just as easily opposed by quick reflexes or redirection as by equal and opposite force. I don't want to see the swashbucklers and rogues getting nerfed by a too-simple mechanic. You also have to consider whether weapon bonuses add to the roll--sometimes it makes sense, and sometimes it doesn't.

(I'm the same person as Caine Freerover)

--Ben

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

This mechanic should be single and easy to remember; something like an opposed attack roll, with a few modifiers where appropriate.

In your first post, you were OK with modifiers. Have you changed your mind?

So you don't like Caine's effects for failure when attempting these combat maneuvers, thinking they add too much complexity.. fair enough.

At least until I'm convinced that this complexity is absolutely required to make this both balanced and playable.

Again, fair enough.

To help me figure this out, please answer the 2 questions from my previous post (conveniently labeled 1 & 2 ).

I don't like absolutely restricting characters from doing anything; I like to apply a restricted chance of performing the action instead. In light of that, how about a -4 to the action if you don't have the feat (the feat removes the penalty)?

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?

Because I don't think it adds much to the complexity? You're not adding any extra rolls to verify the additional effect: if your single roll missed by x amount, the effect applies. I understand that you want to streamline as much as possible though.

 

[Grayhawk]

Thanks for all your replies!

In your first post, you were OK with modifiers. Have you changed your mind?

No, not really. I was always prepared to include some modifiers where necessary, especially when it comes to size differences. But for ease of play I'd prefer them to be used in conjunction with just one mechanic. But I may have to abandon this stance; more on this below.

So you don't like Caine's effects for failure when attempting these combat maneuvers, thinking they add too much complexity...

Yeah, because in reality they are just AoO's of another name. Obviously they don't work the same way (only comming into play if you fail your check), but they still have the possibilty of giving someone an action out of turn, which is something I'm looking to eliminate with the removal of AoO's.

I don't like absolutely restricting characters from doing anything; I like to apply a restricted chance of performing the action instead. In light of that, how about a -4 to the action if you don't have the feat (the feat removes the penalty)?

It seems that this is a reply to my question in the thread's first post? I'm sorry if I was unclear, but when I tried to direct attention to the 2 questions in 'my previous post', I was referring to post #17. I'm no longer contemplating the requirement of a feat to try these actions, as I agree with you that they should be open to all.

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 (?)

I have already addressed the spellcasting issue (as well as reach weapons) in an AoO free environment, but I'd rather not get into that in this thread

1. In a game with no AoOs these maneuvers are essentially consequence-free. You give up the chance to to damage in exchange for a chance to put your foe at an immense tactical disadvantage (no weapon, on the floor, falling into a pit, etc.) They are therefore too easy, and should have a low chance of success.

I guess my lacking experience with these special moves makes it hard for me to see how devastating they can be. In my mind, I see them being more of a nuisance than leading to 'an immense tactical disadvantage'. As I've noted earlier, the absence of AoO's will also make it easier to overcome being disarmed or tripped. But I'm very interested in hearing if the general consensus is that a 50% consequence-free chance against someone of equal skill makes these too easy.

2. Yes, I think an opposed attack roll would work. But there are situations where it doesn't make sense; some strength maneuvers can be just as easily opposed by quick reflexes or redirection as by equal and opposite force. I don't want to see the swashbucklers and rogues getting nerfed by a too-simple mechanic. You also have to consider whether weapon bonuses add to the roll--sometimes it makes sense, and sometimes it doesn't.

I've given this some more thought, and I think I'll concede this point. Regarding weapon bonuses, I think they logically have to apply to sunder and disarm checks. See the following post for full write-ups.

 

[Grayhawk]

Based on the feedback so far, here is the current incarnation of the streamlined rules for special combat moves:

These rules cover Bull Rush, Disarm, Feint, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder and Trip. All of these require a standard action to perform. 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. On a tie the defender wins.

(Some of these are almost identical to Caine Freerover's (fuindordm's) suggestions in post #11, but without the consequences from a low, failed check.)

Bull Rush: You and your opponent roll d20+BAB+Str, if you win you push him back 1' per point of difference between the rolls, rounded up to the nearest 5' interval, to the limit of your normal move.

Disarm: You and your opponent make opposed attack rolls with the weapons you're holding. If you succeed then your opponent drops his weapon. If the defender is using a weapon 2-handed he gets a +4 to his roll. (I changed Caine Freerover's (fuindordm's) suggestion of d20+BAB+Dex to opposed attack rolls.)

Feint: You roll d20+BAB+Cha, and your opponent rolls d20+BAB+Wis. If you succeed your opponent is denied his Dex bonus to AC against your next attack.

Grapple: You and your opponent roll d20+BAB+Str. If the defender is armed, he may oppose the initial grappling attempt with an attack roll using his current weapon. If you win, you are both considered to be grappling. When grappling (in subsequent rounds) you can do the following by winning an opposed d20+BAB+Str check: Break free, deal unarmed damage, draw a light weapon, deal damage with a light weapon (and the rest of the stuff allowed by the RAW, I guess).

Overrun: You and your opponent (unless he chooses to sidestep) roll d20+BAB+Str. If you succeed, your opponent is knocked prone and you may continue moving. (It seems to me, that if you choose to block, it should be based on Str and not Str or Dex...)

Sunder: You and your opponent make opposed attack rolls with the weapons you're holding. If you succeed, you deal damage to your opponent's weapon.

Trip: You roll d20+BAB+Str, and your opponent rolls d20+BAB+(Str or Dex) (whichever is more favorable). If you succeed, your opponent is now prone. If you're tripping with a trip-weapon, you may use an attack roll with that instead.

Again, I'd like your input on these questions:

1: In a game with no AoO's, does the mechanic with the opposed rolls make these actions too easy, too hard or just about right? If it seems too easy, what kind of penalty should they carry?

2: Are there any of the suggestions above you'd rather see handled differently? For instance, should it be possible to substitute Str with Dex when grappling?

Thanks for your time!

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Again, I'd like your input on these questions:

1: In a game with no AoO's, does the mechanic with the opposed rolls make these actions too easy, too hard or just about right? If it seems too easy, what kind of penalty should they carry?

2: Are there any of the suggestions above you'd rather see handled differently? For instance, should it be possible to substitute Str with Dex when grappling?

Looking good.

1. It does seem a bit too easy; I'd apply a -4 penalty.
2. Use a feat to remove the -4 penalty.

(Same suggestion that I made earlier.)

 

[EvilGM]

There are no opposed rolls.

Opponent makes a Fortitude or Reflex save (DC = 5 + attacker's BAB + attacker's Str modifier; or Dex, if appropriate) to avoid the special combat move.

Trip, disarm, grapple and sunder can be used as an attack action.
Bullrush and overrun are standard+ actions.

The 'improved' feats add 4 to the DC.

 

[Quickleaf]

Well, I was thrown in the water as a baby, and I learned to swim pretty good. And no noticeable side effects. *twitch*

Grayhawk, obivously your house rules are very different, and good on you!
I would say treat each special maneuver as a SKILL, using more or less the same rules of opposed checks you've been talking about. In addition, each manuever skill is opposed by its opposite....
Disarm...Resist Disarm
Feint...Sense Feint
Sunder...Resist Sunder

And so on...Thus, a canny rogue might be very good at feinting and disarming but never have practiced resisting getting disarmed (having never met someone as good as him).