Throwing teammates (as a tactic vs flying enemies)

[SnowleopardVK]

We've run across a flying enemy in our current game that's refusing to land. Only one member of the party is capable of hitting it, so while he can attack and the cleric can heal, the other two of us haven't been able to come up with much yet. (The game's pbp so the combat is still going on)

A moment ago the idea came to me of asking our barbarian to throw my character at the enemy. His strength is high enough the even the weight of me and my weapons and armour is still just a light load for him, so I think in theory this tactic could work. Especially if he starts raging first and then throws me while in rage.

I don't know how exactly a tactic like that would be calculated though, aside from that I would probably delay my turn until right after his.

Just to be clear, the weight of my character and her weapons and armour (I would drop off my bag with non-weapon equipment beside the barbarian before being thrown) is 137 lbs. His maximum light load is 153 lbs.

I assume this means he would be able to throw me at our enemy right? I'd like to know if/how it would work before asking my GM. Would it involve a skill check? Acrobatics for the throwee and an outright Strength check for the thrower maybe?

 

[Dingo333]

well, considering you are having trouble with a flying enemy, I am assuming no one can fly

so, your idea: being thrown at the fly guy

First, the barbarian needs to pick you up (a strength check, and just because you are light enough to be his light load, does not mean he automatically can)

Second, the barbarian will have to make an attack roll (to see if he threw you the right way)

Third, you are gonna crash into the fly guy, giving you the chance to attempt a grapple. You make it, you both fall, you dont, you fall.

Fourth, depending on how high up the fly guy is, you take falling damage. Note that if the barbarian misses his attack roll, this will hurt even more.

On the whole, I would have to say the barbarian grabbing and chucking anything laying around (table, chairs, kitchen sink) would be more effective and less suicidal.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Learn to stock ranged weapons. Clubs are free. Slings are free and the bullets cost less than dinner. Both let you add str to damage. There is no excuse for anyone to not have a ranged option in D&D.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

well, considering you are having trouble with a flying enemy, I am assuming no one can fly

Correct, we're too low in level and lack the right kind of spellcaster to know that spell anyways.

First, the barbarian needs to pick you up (a strength check, and just because you are light enough to be his light load, does not mean he automatically can)

Why would he not be able to? If he can pick up anything else that falls into his light load category, then the biggest issue I could see is that he might have an awkward time getting a good grip. I'd practically be climbing into his arms in order to go through with the plan though. If there were any check at all, I'd assume at the very least it'd be rather easy.

Note that if the barbarian misses his attack roll, this will hurt even more.

Why would it hurt more. I'd be hitting the same type of dirt, just in a different spot? I think it would make sense that I'd be hurt the same as if I'd failed the earlier-mentioned grapple and fallen.

On the whole, I would have to say the barbarian grabbing and chucking anything laying around (table, chairs, kitchen sink) would be more effective and less suicidal.

Actually now that I think about it... I believe something about rage powers says that a barbarian can't throw anything unless it's more than two size categories smaller than him unless he has lesser hurling. So much for ranger throwing and boulder throwing I guess. I suppose he can only throw pebbles.

Learn to stock ranged weapons. Clubs are free. Slings are free and the bullets cost less than dinner. Both let you add str to damage. There is no excuse for anyone to not have a ranged option in D&D.

They add Str to damage, but aside from our bard none of us can hit with ranged weapons to save our lives.

...

Maybe if we run inside something it'll be forced to land to come after us.

 

[gamerprinter]

Its going to hurt more, because if the barbarian misses you will go higher than the height of the flyer, thus will fall even further for more damage when you hit the ground.

Really as Dingo suggests if the barbarian is going to throw anything, he's better off throwing a rock that's laying around the ground somewhere, instead of throwing you.

There are specific feats for throwing objects though, like Throw Anything, or Ki Throw - if the barbarian has no such feats, its very unlikely that throwing a PC will be a smart thing to do. Without a feat for throwing you, he's very likely to miss. So instead of needing the cleric's heal spell to relieve any damage caused by combat, he's going to need it to heal you.

And the mention of your lack of ranged weapons. You don't have to be proficient with a given weapon to use, you will just have a minus to attack than you would normally have. Having no skill at ranged weapons is no excuse for not having a ranged weapon. Most consider it a necessity of equipment for each or most players to have a ranged weapon.

You don't have one, so this doesn't help you. But throwing you as a combat tactic without great skill is a useless proposition. Your GM might allow it anyway, but it seems a pretty silly tactic.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

...And the mention of your lack of ranged weapons. You don't have to be proficient with a given weapon to use, you will just have a minus to attack than you would normally have. Having no skill at ranged weapons is no excuse for not having a ranged weapon. Most consider it a necessity of equipment for each or most players to have a ranged weapon...

I know you don't need proficiency, but I see no reason from the point of view of my character to carry around a weapon that she's no good with "just in case" I run into a type of enemy outside her normal specialization as a ranger.

If we ran into several flying enemy encounters and she bought a ranged weapon afterwards because she had been unable to help in those fights, then sure that makes sense. For her to buy such a weapon because "Most consider it a necessity of equipment for each or most players to have a ranged weapon" seems like metagaming to me.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Several points
a) the highland games weight over bar record is 16'5" for a 56lb load so the range you could throw a 137 lb person isn't going to be overly high...
(New Scottish 56lb Weight for Height Record - X Marks the Scot - A Community of Kiltwearers.)

b) if the barbarian is bad enough at throwing things that it's not worse throwing weapons at an opponent how do you think he'll do better with you?
Many weapons are designed for throwing, you aren't

c) you're a ranger, you're not going to be that bad with a ranged weapon barring an extremely strange character design (you've probably got some dex for AC)

d) fighting flying, extremely mobile or enemies at a large distance is hardly unusual, certainly once you get up a few levels so having some way of going against it is pretty much necessary. You might not be as good with missile weapons as at hth but if you're 50% as effective as you are at hth it beats being completely ineffective.

 

[gamerprinter]

Being equipped and skilled to use both ranged and melee weapons is the providence of a ranger, more so than any other character class. It is hardly optimization, nor metagaming, rather an intrinsic quality.

Had you been looking to optimize (which you obviously have not), a ranger with an archery combat style, combined with quickdraw and purely melee related feats outside of your combat style would make for the most effective kind of ranger. Thus you'd be highly skilled in both ranged and melee combat. Nobody says you have to optimize, but had you stayed with a standard ranger build (as described above), you wouldn't be in your current situation.

In the end, throwing a PC is a far worse option, then any described options by all other posters in this thread. Most players want their characters to be as versatile an adventurer as possible to cover all possible eventualities while still fitting a character concept - this is not metagaming.

Do you understand the term metagaming? You seem to define metagaming to be more that what its understood to be. Or as Indigo Montoyo says, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means..."

 

[IronWolf]

I know you don't need proficiency, but I see no reason from the point of view of my character to carry around a weapon that she's no good with "just in case" I run into a type of enemy outside her normal specialization as a ranger.

How bad can they be? And besides a 20 always hits. Shoot, I've seen cases where a player was going to *not* roll because no way would he hit due to firing into melee, cover, etc. Convinced him to roll and sure enough - natural 20. Made a significant impact on that particular fight actually.

If we ran into several flying enemy encounters and she bought a ranged weapon afterwards because she had been unable to help in those fights, then sure that makes sense. For her to buy such a weapon because "Most consider it a necessity of equipment for each or most players to have a ranged weapon" seems like metagaming to me.

Depends - hasn't this adventurer heard stories of such things? Or even basic hunting to survive in the wilderness - surely they would want some sort of ranged weapon even if it was simply to hunt game with to feed themselves. Easier to hunt rabbits with a bow or sling than a great sword.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Easier to hunt rabbits with a bow or sling than a great sword.

Dunno, they'd be hugely encumbered carrying a greatsword.