Bash, Revisited

[Taerom]

I still believe that bash should be able to be done more than once in any given fight...would you have me believe that if I am stronger than you, that I can only dash you to the ground once, but not twice, simply because you are on your guard the second time? There are entire sports devoted to such practices. I myself happen to have taken a judo class, and know that there is a near-endless number of ways to throw a man to the ground when he is expecting it. Perhaps a penalty to successive bash attempts would be more appropos?

Before I am leapt upon and told that this would unbalance fights, let me make a few things clear:

Fighter vs. Ranger: A ranger is not supposed to be a close-range fighter for the most part, in my opinion. Just look at the name: ranger. Rangers are best at fighting at range, as a few players have discovered. They are not Priest/Fighter multiclass characters.

Fighter vs. Priest: A priest can easily defeat even the most skilled of fighters with the right spells and the right equipment. I have seen it done many, many times.

Fighter vs. Mage: A mage can employ magical flight, thus preventing bash from even hitting him, provided the fighter is not flying.

Fighter vs. Rogue: The rogue class and its subclasses aren't really meant to be toe-to-toe fighters. If anything they are intended as support classes.

So I ask you, where is this unbalancing issue that I just can't see, but is staring everyone else in the face?

[Keltorn]

Fighter vs. Ranger: A ranger is not supposed to be a close-range fighter for the most part, in my opinion. Just look at the name: ranger. Rangers are best at fighting at range, as a few players have discovered. They are not Priest/Fighter multiclass characters.

Whoa there, since when are rangers best for fighting at range? Keltorn uses his sword almost exclusively. Traditionally, rangers are known to specialize either with ranged weapons or with dual-wielding melee weapons (Combat Styles in 3.5 D&D), but fighters are jsut as qualified as rangers to used ranged implements. They just have to put their bonus feats into it instead of picking that combat style.

As for the bash, I totally agree. I would think that using the same method for bashing could still work, it would just be harder to catch them off guard. A penalty seems appropriate. However, I am not the best at balancing different classes and whatnot, so if there is a good reason for restricting bash to one use like this then I must be overlooking it. Could someone enlighten me?

[Kregor]

Fighter vs. Ranger: A ranger is not supposed to be a close-range fighter for the most part, in my opinion. Just look at the name: ranger. Rangers are best at fighting at range, as a few players have discovered. They are not Priest/Fighter multiclass characters.

Two points: 1) Rangers get their name from travelling and roaming the greater wilds, ie, range... as in home on the range... not range as in shooting at a range.

2) As Keltorn aptly puts it, there are two combat styles for rangers to choose from in tabletop D&D: either melee or archery. FK's code doesn't make the allowance for combat styles, but the same case holds true; rangers can be toe to toe warriors just as much as fighters.

As far as bash goes. I still say the problem isn't that you can only bash once, the problem is you can do things like disarm and hitall over and over, practically spamming them. I say special combat maneuvers like any of the afore should be once per opponent. rapid fire disarm is not only unbalancing, it renders combat down to the ridiculous. Just like multiple bash would be.

Unless and until the combat system is revised to comply with tabletop-style rules, special combat maneuvers like bash are extra special attacks that a fighter can fire off in a round on top of their non-tabletop fifth attack, multiple bash per opponent would serve nothing for combat strategy, but purely a "who's the bad-assinest" PvP beating.

[Keltorn]

Keltorn? Apt? Heh, thanks.
I agree with what you said about disarm, by the way. I think it should be usable more than once per battle, but I have seen a PvP fight where one continuously disarmed the dual-wielding opponent. It didn't quite seem right...

[Natasha]

Perhaps some code that if you try a certain combat maneuver continuously (like kicking, disarming, etc) that the other player is more like to get an attack of opportunity or a chance for the riposte code to counter it? Generally, the idea that trying to disarm someone again and again would allow them to realize you were just repeating your pattern and allow for a strike.

Natasha

[Taerom]

multiple bash per opponent would serve nothing for combat strategy, but purely a "who's the bad-assinest" PvP beating.

Firstly: If you're going to accuse me of such sophomoric reasons for making this post, I'm not even going to discuss the matter with you.

I would, however, like to point out as a simple solution to what you see as ridiculous PvP fighting, that it is particularly easy to stipulate that disarm or bash be used only once per fight. A rule most players would readily agree to.

Moving on...before the one bash per fight rule I used bash all the time. Now, since I have to use a shield to bash, and can only do so once per fight, the benefits of dual-wielding or using a two-handed weapon as opposed to using a shield/weapon combination are even greater, making the only real logical time for a fighter to use a shield as opposed to dual-wielding or using a two-handed weapon be in a group situation, where mobs are being slain in a couple of rounds. But surely, there is no combat strategy involved in my thinking at all.

As I see it, it should either be that shields are not required to use the bash skill, or bash can be used endlessly in any given fight (with a shield required), perhaps with a to-hit penalty.

In closing, I would like to say that there is most likely not going to be an increase but a decrease in shield usage among characters of classes with the bash skill without a change to the current code system, and I would like to make a point of the fact that this game is not and as far as I know has never been tabletop Dungeons and Dragons, as much as it does emulate it.

[Kregor]

Not a personal attack against you Taerom, I didn't say you, personally, would suggest the change in bash for this purpose, although, there are players who would use it for such.

As a player of a character who has used sword and shield almost exlusively for RP sake, even in PvP, I have found that while dual wield in FK does give an advantage, a single bash can be a great equalizer. I can pretty much render any bashable mob defenseless and beat them to death with a single bash and good timing. And I have beaten more than one dual wielding lvl50 in a spar. I have also been on the receiving end of such a skilled bash and come to at about 30% of my hitpoints.

As far as the statement that this is not tabletop, no, it is not. But we are working toward making it more and more like it. The spell system revamp that is going on over on the test port is totally 3E tabletop. And my hunch is, the combat system is likely to follow suit with some significant revision after the spell system makes it over to the real game.

It's not tabletop, but skills like enhanced damage got axed from the game because they are a non D&D skill that made warriors *too* powerful.

When we talk about balancing out combat styles, guild power, etc. I am one that thinks the solution isn't to simply add more power where we think power is lacking. Better to meet them in the middle somewhere. If we conclude that sword and shield is consistently weaker than a dual wielder, it makes more sense to me, to rule that the non D&D fifth attack a fighter gets gives them too much an advantage when dual wielding and should fall to the wayside.

[Taerom]

The reason dual-wielding is "so good" as many have put it, is not because it is really that good, but because of a lack of a decent alternative. (Although I have found that two-handed weapons can be just about as good for PvE).

[Balek]

If we conclude that sword and shield is consistently weaker than a dual wielder, it makes more sense to me, to rule that the non D&D fifth attack a fighter gets gives them too much an advantage when dual wielding and should fall to the wayside.

I really don't follow your logic here. Removing 5th attack does not in fact make dual wielding less attractive, it makes it MORE attractive. Why? Because removing one of a sword and shield fighter's attacks is removing one-fifth (20%) of his attacks. Removing one of a dual wielding fighter's attacks is removing one sixth (16.67%) of his attacks. You are hindering a fighter with a shield more than one who is dual wielding by removing that fifth attack.

[Selveem]

Talks about bash seem to have completely crawled to a complete halt.

Having finally made a character that specializes in sword and shield style, I'm noticing that not only does bash no longer work most of the time, but even when it does the victim is stunned only long enough to get a maximum of 2 attacks off (1 or zero attacks off are more common) before they get back up. To make matters worse, it can only be done once per opponent.

Any chance this is being revamped?

Some examples:

A tall hobgoblin attacks as you open your guard attempting to bash him!
You dodge a tall hobgoblin's piercing attack.
You slam into a tall hobgoblin bashing them to the ground.
a tall hobgoblin has several traumatic wounds.
Your collision with a tall hobgoblin leaves him stunned!
You dodge a tall hobgoblin's piercing attack.
You score a critical hit!
Your pierce nearly bisects a tall hobgoblin's right arm.
A tall hobgoblin's severed right arm falls to the ground!
A tall hobgoblin comes to and stands.

A tall hobgoblin attacks as you open your guard attempting to bash him!
A tall hobgoblin's hit hits your chest.
You slam into a tall hobgoblin bashing them to the ground.
a tall hobgoblin is badly bruised.
Your collision with a tall hobgoblin leaves him stunned!
You dodge a tall hobgoblin's piercing attack.
A tall hobgoblin dodges your piercing attack.
A tall hobgoblin comes to and stands.

Your collision with a tall hobgoblin leaves him stunned!
You score a critical hit!
Your pierce nearly bisects a tall hobgoblin's right leg.
A tall hobgoblin's severed right leg falls to the ground!
A tall hobgoblin comes to and stands.

Your collision with a tall hobgoblin leaves him stunned!
You dodge a tall hobgoblin's piercing attack.
A tall hobgoblin dodges your piercing attack.
A tall hobgoblin comes to and stands.

[Glim]

I know this is an old thread, but one bash per fight is silly. I love seeing martial arts references come up (you should go more than once Taerom ) and I can agree, a few years of jujutsu have taught me that even if you are ready and trained, you can still be thrown. I see no reason why bash shouldn't just be given a lag lke disarm and allowed multiple times in a fight.

Since we are revisiting bash, I actually think it'd be better if the whole command was changed to "trip" for it to be more in line with the D20 special attack (I'd prefer sweep or throw, but trip is what's in the books). If that was done, things could be brought in such as, if you fail a trip and your opponent has it trained, he automatically makes a trip attack back (maybe a config option +/- autotrip).