|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 12:49AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2008
|
Hello folks,
I made a similar post for the speak with dead ritual and it really helped me realize how many people actually find this spell iconic, so I hand waved my arguments and just like all dms learned to adjust.
Please give me your opinions on knock down combat maneuver as well.
I find knock down a great way to spend your expertise dice. It is a strategic option well placed in the hands of the fighter.
What I dont like is its general application to everything, especially non anatomical sensible targets.
As the title mentions I dont like to have to describe proning oozes and I dislike mechanics that dont flow easily from my players narration. In 4e my players always stumbled when they tried to describe how they prone oozes. At first they gave it one or two memorable tries but after that they handwaved it with a chuckle instead trying to name call it using other terms like a bit dazed, more wobbly than usual etc...
Although it was funny, we all found it a prime example of how a power dictates narration instead of the opposite to the point where it doesnt make sense and is breaking momentum.
I would like to see some modifications in the knockdown maneuver description.
Does it work on everything?
Can we have a description modification, where some creatures cannot become prone?
Can we leave maneuver as is, and add the no prone ability as a passive trait for some creatures?
As a side note, do you think it works on flying creatures as well? (especially with the archer fighter) do they fall if they get hit?
So what do you think? Did you have the same problem? Do you think such a modification is acceptable or fighters will be gimped too much?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 1:03AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
INstead of gimping the ability why not alter the monster write ups to give them immunities to affects that they would logically ignore.
OR you could just accept that knocking someone prone deosn't have to involve tripping in the traditional sense, for example I have several options when knocking things over. I have a nasty trick where I step on the target's foot and give them a quick bump, never seen a Biped stay standing after that one, even people who should really have known better, utterly worthless on anything with hooves. On the other hand I also do a decent traditional leg sweep, tends to fail on humans with the proper experience, or sheer stability, but messes up quadrapeds just fine, if I can hook two or more legs. Were I to model a fighter on these techniques would he really need two distinct maneuvers?
Now having never gotten into a scrap with a motile jello jiggler I can't say for certain but assuming you can solidly connect with any of its substance it would be utterly within the powers of leverage to manipulate it's center of gravity albeit slightly, which is sometimes enough to gain an advantage.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 1:17AM
#3
|
|
|
Quick response: knockback is not the same thing as knockdown.
Longer response: add the trait on to some creatures as a dm option if you must (personally I don't have a problem with splacting an ooze such that it has to take some time to get itself back together), but be very careful about how broadly you do this.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 1:22AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Much to my mother's chargin, I used to smash my jello and pudding flat... with my hands.
I have no problem splatting oozes and them taking time to reform.
And hits to the legs, drop even big people.
No problem with knock back/down from me and my headshed.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 2:11AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
Yeah, I think this needs to be dealth with on a monster level, not on a power level.
The problem is letting players know that it's immune to non-elemental things. They should know it's immune to prone without a lore check, but not that it's immune to fire damage for example.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 2:20AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2011
|
I just see it as a flat strike against the ooze that loosens it in its entirety and takes a few seconds to drag itself back up to its oozing form, it may look different to knockdown but mechanically it is the same.
And it was technically knocked down.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 2:50AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
They way I see it, if you're willing to find a way to make the narrative work, do it. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, then don't use those effects in that situation.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 3:00AM
#8
|
|
|
Yeah, I think this needs to be dealth with on a monster level, not on a power level.
The problem is letting players know that it's immune to non-elemental things. They should know it's immune to prone without a lore check, but not that it's immune to fire damage for example.
Knock back != knock down.
If an ooze is immune to tripping but not being knocked prone (as demonstrated by some ooze variants in 3E), that's certainly has to be made known to the play; personally I'd say if it's
1. mobile enough to cause it to dodge attacks, as opposed to being auto-hit, not losing consistency & shrugging off attacks like nothing (in which case, it'd be immune to non-magical attacks outright)
2. not stable enough structure-wise to render it immune to tripping or other methods of introducing vulnerability
3. physically manifested, instead of being an illusion or completely insubstantial
It can be brought to the prone (vulnerable) position, not necessarily the prone (flat on face/stomach) position.
Regardless, as long as a creature can be moved (like most non-tree creatures), it can be knocked back. Mass and [physical/mental] density complicate matters, but generally speaking, if reacts to a sword or hammer at all, it can likely be maneuvered in a way other than where it wants to be... as sword, mace or magical compulsion to be knocked back would all be related to the same thing: force. Magic may have a more "sparkly" way of doing it, but feints, taunts, smashes and shoves usually work towards the same goal of forcing the enemy back.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 3:25AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
1. mobile enough to cause it to dodge attacks, as opposed to being auto-hit, not losing consistency & shrugging off attacks like nothing (in which case, it'd be immune to non-magical attacks outright)
Well - at present a fighter can only miss an ooze by rolling a 1. So they actually do seem to no longer be able to dodge attacks and are as close to autohit as the system allows.'
I'd like to see that change - but it is the way the Bestiary is set up at present.
That said - I don't object to them being able to be knocked back. But I do think they should be immune to prone as a general Ooze property.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 4:11AM
#10
|
|
|
The Ooze in the first packet was immune to falling prone--I wonder why they removed that from the second packet.
|
|
|
