The Campaign Builder's Guild

An issue I'd like to discuss: I think an attack maneuver is missing. I recently designed a Greater Bullrush feat which would allow a character to knock away a target with a melee attack, using the rules of a bullrush (though the damage dealt would substitute for the strength check).

But I found a problem with this. First off, being skilled at bullrushing targets wouldn't help with this. Second, it doesn't seem to be something that should take the talent of a 3rd tier, +4 BAB feat. Third ... anyone can perform this maneuver: it's called playing baseball.

A baseball is a Diminutive target. One could d20-ify the game of baseball by saying it is an opposed attack roll between the pitcher and the batter, with the baseball gaining a +4 bonus to AC for being diminutive. Distance hit would be based on the damage roll of the batter, and the ball would suffer a -16 to it's strength check and it has a str of 0 (which is a -5 modifier), giving it a total modifier of -21.

My point is that hitting a moving ball with a bat is similar to trying to bat away a creature. Size comes into play, so only the rediculously strong could hope to bat away a creature their own size, but just imagine kicking a small animal and sending it flying; it's possible (just as possible as kicking a ball).

So, I'd like to create the rules for such a maneuver. I think it should probably require a full round action, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

Additionally, I still think that Overrun and Bullrush are a little weak currently. I'm looking at improving both of them, but I think a more simple approach has presented itself: merge them. I'd like to know what you think about this before I go futher.

Finally, another issue in my quest for d20 realism is armor. I think Armor as DR is the best solution: Armor will provide AC (because it is designed to deflect attacks) and DR (because it absorbs some attacks). This DR will be ignored on a critical threat (because you hit an unprotected location). In my WP/VP system, a critical threat will ignore the DR vs. the vitality attack, but the DR will protect one's wounds unless the critical confirmation is also a threat (then the first incriment of wound damage will ignore the DR, but the next is protected unless the next confirmation roll is also a threat ... and so on).

PS: Flat-footedness, Sneak Attacks, and WP/VP:

This has recently become a very big issue for me. First off, I can't imagine a sneak attack dealing vitality damage, it should be wounds. But I can't think of a way to balance it. The first idea was to trade out each die of sneak attack for +1 WP damage per hit, but then it becomes impossible for a Rogue to kill a mook with a single sneak attack like you can in standard d20.

The second option is to have a sneak attack allow the damage to bipass vitality entirely; it's not an auto crit, it just deals WP damage in addition to VP damage on a hit (so a crit will deal additional WP damage). This could be balanced with a saving throw mechanic (Fort vs. DC 10 + 1/2 rogue level + rogue's Int mod), and it could deal additional damage as the rogue gains levels (possibly).

I'm still unsure of what to do with it; I'm currently playing it as straight VP damage as normal until a Rogue player complains. But, thinking on this has also made me consider flatfooted opponents in general. IRL, if you successfully sneak up on someone and attack them when they can't defend themselves, they will be very hurt if they don't hear the attack coming. This seems to imply that an attack against a flatfooted and unaware opponent should be an auto-crit, but such an addition probably wouldn't be balanced. Please, your input will be appreciated.

QuoteMy point is that hitting a moving ball with a bat is similar to trying to bat away a creature. Size comes into play, so only the rediculously strong could hope to bat away a creature their own size, but just imagine kicking a small animal and sending it flying; it's possible (just as possible as kicking a ball).

much harder[/i] to hit and propel a living creature than a baseball. Baseballs have a very clear path and set distance away from the batter which they must come through. Charging barbarian grigs do not. ;)

Also, I'm not sure how far you could reasonably propel even a small animal through kicking it. (Barring a very specific, probably hilarious, setup prepared in advance.) While it is possible to say, kick a poodle, and send it flying in the air, it's pretty hard to send them more than 5 feet. I mean that's all i've ever managed.

Shame on you for kicking dogs.

I'd honestly say it's better to just improve the Imp Bullrush feat that require a whole other feat.  Its so circumstantial that its rarely worth taking.  I've seen it be useful only a couple of times (though it was a doozie those times).

While we're on the subject of realism and improving rules, I've been considering dropping Armor Profs.  I think they exist mainly to balance classes and prevent certain characters from wearing heavy armor, but since my character classes are d20 Modern (which don't really grant armor profs), I was thinking of removing them entirely.  Certainly, it takes a little instruction and practice to know how to done a suit of armor, but not enough that it seems on par with the amount of training feats usually represent.  I've also noticed few non-d20 games that require you to spend character selection abilities on armor (most games assume anyone with a little instruction can figure it out quick enough they don't have to pay anything for it beyond the money price).

I didn't know you were apart of these boards: goes to show what happens when you're gone for some time.

As for Armor Profs: I use proficiency groups. The groups are as follows:

Light Armor, Medium Armor, Heavy Armor, Shields, Tower Shields, Simple Weapons (Claws and Fists, Blades, Spears, Thrown Weapons, Clubs, Crossbows, Bows), and Martial Weapons (Weaponized Armor, Sabers, Swords, Polearms, Hurled Weapons, Axes, Hammers and Picks, Flails, Firearms, Longbows). Medium armor requires light, heavy requires medium, tower shields require shields, and martial weapons require an appropriate simple (hammer requires mace, weaponized armor requires claws, sabers requires blades, firearms require crossbows ...).

Each class starts with a number of proficiency groups; multiclassing is slightly complicated (you gain proficiency groups only if your new class earned more at first level than your first class did, in which case you gain the difference). Since martial groups require a +1 BAB, only warriors can start with martial weapons.

And I've never kicked a dog ... it was a cat.

JK.

Sounds pretty close to core, but maybe I misunderstood you.

It sounded like you were saying it goes like this:

Armor: Light => Medium => Heavy
Weapons: Simple => Martial

Or are you saying you get all simple, but have to take martial as groups?

I have to ask why you seem to imply it easier to learn swordsmanship than how to use an axe?

I was actually probably going to use Weapon Groups (pretty similar to the UA versions), but after realizing how few other games required armor profs, I started to think about exactly why such a rule existed.  The only thing I could think of was to give certain classes advantages (and dubious ones, anyway, as a fighter/rogue is proficient with heavy but will still likely wear light, a wizard still probably won't wear armor, and so on).

*nodnod* I'm in.

Hmm... I like the stuff I've seen so far... I don't have much to add at the moment, but I'm sure I will soon. :)

Edit: Actually, I do. Language systems for one.

HOW, in all realism, does it take the same amount of training that would gain you a little proficiency in lockpicking (takes about half an hour of practice to get the equivalent of one rank in open lock, in my experience) to grant you fluent speech in a language?

This is why I edited the system slightly in Aelwyd. You gain full proficiency in your automatic languages and any languages you gain from intelligence bonus, but speak language is a skill almost like knowledge, it has checks and DCs just like any other skills.

Well, as far as languages go, I've mentioned I liked that, though I don't know if I'd impliment it.  I do, however, have some varients in my Kishar mechanics thread.  Namely that one does not automatically gain literacy (which was pretty uncommon in the dark ages and middle ages), and in my case, no bonus languages for high Intelligence, though I'm considering dropping that.  I just often find it's hard to justify characters speaking far removed languages, and many areas don't have enough native languages to support a character with a high Int.

Quote from: Phoenix KnightSounds pretty close to core, but maybe I misunderstood you.

It sounded like you were saying it goes like this:

Armor: Light => Medium => Heavy
Weapons: Simple => Martial

Or are you saying you get all simple, but have to take martial as groups?

I have to ask why you seem to imply it easier to learn swordsmanship than how to use an axe?

I was actually probably going to use Weapon Groups (pretty similar to the UA versions), but after realizing how few other games required armor profs, I started to think about exactly why such a rule existed.  The only thing I could think of was to give certain classes advantages (and dubious ones, anyway, as a fighter/rogue is proficient with heavy but will still likely wear light, a wizard still probably won't wear armor, and so on).

No, in order to choose a martial group you have to possess the appropriate simple group:

Clubs - Axes, Hammers and Picks, Flails
Blades - Swords, Sabers
Thrown Weapons - Hurled Weapons
Spears - Polearms
Crossbows - Firearms
Bows - Longbows (I made the shortbow a simple weapon for many reasons)
Claws and Fists - Weaponized Armor

Fighters get 10 proficiencies, Paladins and Barbarians get 8, Rangers and Clerics get 6, Bards, Druids, and Rogues get 4 (though Bards get one free martial group with which they possess the simple group for, even though they lack the +1 BAB at first), Sorcerers get 2, and Wizards get 1.

So if you start off as a Rogue, if you multiclass into fighter you gain 6 proficiencies.

Do you then grant exotic as a third group for each set?

So you have simple blades => martial blades => exotic blades?

No, exotic weapons must be taken individually and you have to purchase them with a feat. Because of this, though, I'm ensuring that exotic weapons are more special than just dealing more damage: currently the bastard sword, war axe, and katana are the only exotics in my game that just deal more damage, and I'm trying to find a way to retool them (I really like the Complete Adventurer Exotics that have special abilities).