Throwing People

KarinsDad said:
Yes, I was looking more for a way to do it in RAW, not as a feat (that is one of the major problems in DND, if you want to do something, you often have to take a feat).

I agree, hense the above suggestion.

But in the game, it would be nice if characters, especially combatant types like Monks, Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins were capable of doing things like sweeping or throwing opponents.

In the RAW, a sweep is just a trip attack. There are no rules for 'takedowns' while grappling, but presumably this is just another trip attack. I would think that a trip would gain a special circumstance bonus if you were grappled with your foe and willing to go prone (maintaining the grapple) with him, but its not explicitly mentioned in the rules (like so many other things).

Note in particular that there is nothing on the rules of pinning that mentions going prone, although alot of players I think assume that this is part of it.

As far as throwing goes, there just isn't any mention in the rules and nothing really covers it. A bullrush only allows you to push a target straight back. You cannot get more than 5' of separation between you and the target and you cannot explicitly trip (knock prone) a target you are bullrushing. For any of that, you'd need a special feat - 'Great Shove' maybe. For actually throwing a target something other than back, you'd need to go to a throw mechanic - and again you'd need a feat.

So as long as we are forced to make things up we might as well avoid the problem you mention at the start of the post which plagues so much of the material written for the game and create a new combat manuever. I'd much rather add combat manuvers and then feats to make them better, than make feats which effectively cripple player's options in the game. My assumptions is always that just because it isn't mentioned, doesn't mean that you can't do it and that feats only make you better at something.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Chaldfont said:
The Rules of the Game articles on grappling have some rules for this: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050301a

Many options that were left out of the PHB like tossing foes or tripping them while in a grapple.

Well, someone has to write the 'official' house rules, but Skip's articles are optional and not part of the RAW.

Skip's house rule on throws is servicable, but I dislike it for the following reasons:

1) It requires two dice rolls to resolve rather than one. I see no reason why you'd need an extra roll, since the capacity to make the throw is covered by the grapple check.
2) It makes no allowance for the fact that smaller creatures are easier to throw. As long as you can lift it, a halfling child and an orc warrior in plate mail are not only thowable the same distance, but because the strength check has a huge random factor, you are just as likely to throw the orc warrior further as not. I understand that you don't want to get uber-realistic here, but you don't have to be so primitive either.
3) Doesn't describe in any detail the consequences of being throw. Are we to believe that being thrown 20' through the air never does anything but change the square you are in?
4) I'm not sure that I buy the idea that you can only throw a foe that is pinned. That certainly makes throwing an even less attractive option.
5) It says nothing about being able to voluntarily throw the opponent less than the maximum distance, and because it doesn't mention it, invariably some player would argue that it can't be done.

Still, you'd probably have an easier time convincing someone that Skip's rulings were official than you would convincing them to accept something else.
 

Morrow said:
I'm not sure how "great" it really is. You can't throw anyone very far, only within your threatened area. It still looks like fun, though.

Well, even pro wrestlers who are trying to work with the person throwing them (like in a suplex, etc) only go 5 feet or so. And the bigger you get the farther they go...
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top