[3.P] Sending opponents flying

[Darius Kane]

I'm looking for ways to send my opponent flying several feet with a strong blow.
I know of the X Throw Setting Sun maneuver chain and the Awesome Blow feat. Is there anything else?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, there are the Knockback and Fling Enemy feats, both from Races of Stone, and the Knockback rage power, on the Pathfinder SRD. The Knockback feat and rage power work more or less the same, except the Knockback feat allows you to do it whenever you make an attack with Power Attack, and the rage power does it in place of a melee attack. The Fling Enemy feat lets you throw an enemy who you are grappling with as a standard action up to 10 feet for every 5 points your grapple check beats their grapple or Escape Artist check by, knocking them prone at the end.

[Darius Kane]

Note that I'm specifically asking for things that work on a hit. It doesn't necessarily have to deal damage, but it must be an attack, because I don't want to throw the opponent, I want to hit him so hard he gets knocked back through the air (the Throw maneuvers I mentioned in the OP are called "Throw" but mechanically they're touch attacks, so they're easy to refluff for my purposes).

BTW. I just read Bull Rush rules and I noticed something that I didn't notice before:

If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD you can push the target back an additional 5 feet. You can move with the target if you wish but you must have the available movement to do so. If your attack fails, your movement ends in front of the target.
Can, not have to. So do I understand correctly that the thing I want can technically be done with Core rules (although not as efficiently as with feats or maneuvers)? :smallconfused:

[Lonely Tylenol]

Note that I'm specifically asking for things that work on a hit. It doesn't necessarily have to deal damage, but it must be an attack, because I don't want to throw the opponent, I want to hit him so hard he gets knocked back through the air (the Throw maneuvers I mentioned in the OP are called "Throw" but mechanically they're touch attacks, so they're easy to refluff for my purposes).

BTW. I just read Bull Rush rules and I noticed something that I didn't notice before:

Can, not have to. So do I understand correctly that the thing I want can technically be done with Core rules (although not as efficiently as with feats or maneuvers)? :smallconfused:

According to the SRD rules, you can push somebody up to 5 feet without moving with them. If you wish to push them further than that, you must decide to move with them (unless you use either version of Knockback, above).

[Darius Kane]

For me it reads that you can push somebody 5 feet plus additional 5 feet for every 5 by which you exceed his CMD and you can follow him if you still have enough movement that round. To me nothing implies that you have to follow him when pushed more than 5 feet. It clearly says "can".

[Lonely Tylenol]

For me it reads that you can push somebody 5 feet plus additional 5 feet for every 5 by which you exceed his CMD and you can follow him if you still have enough movement that round. To me nothing implies that you have to follow him when pushed more than 5 feet. It clearly says "can".

From the d20srd:


Bull Rush Results
If you beat the defender’s Strength check result, you push him back 5 feet. If you wish to move with the defender, you can push him back an additional 5 feet for each 5 points by which your check result is greater than the defender’s check result. You can’t, however, exceed your normal movement limit. (Note: The defender provokes attacks of opportunity if he is moved. So do you, if you move with him. The two of you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from each other, however.)

If you fail to beat the defender’s Strength check result, you move 5 feet straight back to where you were before you moved into his space. If that space is occupied, you fall prone in that space.

Emphasis mine.

You'll have to be more specific when you say "3.P" which combat maneuvers you're using. In my game, which is also 3.P, we use 3.5's combat maneuver system by default and then backload abilities from Pathfinder. Ask your DM whether he would use the 3.5 interpretation or the Pathfinder one (or if he would reconcile the two; this also works against you, because the Pathfinder description could be seen as an omission or an edit).

[Darius Kane]

I'm the DM. And I quoted PF rules.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm the DM. And I quoted PF rules.

Knowledge that is privy to you and not to me.

How you rule the incongruous wording is up to you, then. You seem set on taking the omission to heart as an actual rule change already, and that's your right. Frankly, I don't care enough to stop you; I just figured I'd alert you to the fact that it is different.

EDIT: The Knockback (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo---rage-powers/knockback-ex) rage power specifically states that "the barbarian does not need to move with the target if successful," which suggests (but does not conclusively mean) that it was specific text meant to supersede the general text of the bull rush entry, for what it's worth. Again, it's your call as DM which way you would like to go with this.

[Darius Kane]

Knowledge that is privy to you and not to me.
That I'm the DM? Sure, although it's not very important.
That I quoted PF rules? Not really. It's right there, in my post.


How you rule the incongruous wording is up to you, then. You seem set on taking the omission to heart as an actual rule change already, and that's your right. Frankly, I don't care enough to stop you; I just figured I'd alert you to the fact that it is different.
You saying it's an omission doesn't make it fact.


EDIT: The Knockback rage power specifically states that "the barbarian does not need to move with the target if successful," which suggests (but does not conclusively mean) that it was specific text meant to supersede the general text of the bull rush entry, for what it's worth. Again, it's your call as DM which way you would like to go with this.
As you said, it changes nothing.

[JaronK]

The Knockback feat sends people flying and you don't follow them. A shield charger (using Shield Charge and Shield Slam along with Knockback and Improved Trip) can launch people all over the place. Throw in some Dungeoncrasher levels and you should be good to go.

JaronK

[Darius Kane]

That's what I was planning on doing with potential shield-bearers and Fighters.

[Lonely Tylenol]

{Scrubbed}

[Darius Kane]

{Scrubbed}

[Lonely Tylenol]

{Scrubbed}

No, just communicating poorly your intentions and your role in this discussion. I can't have known that you were the DM when I told you to ask your DM, so I made the fact that I was not privy to this information clear.

Acting like I somehow missed that you had quoted the PF rules is just being smug.

And yes, by the way, it absolutely is an omission (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omission); that is objective fact. It's in one version and not the other. It is not something I care to argue, because it is something you can verify for yourself. You're also free to decide for yourself why they omitted it, and I have no opinions to offer on that. My only purpose here was to offer information, not to argue.

[Darius Kane]

{Scrubbed}

[Lonely Tylenol]

Mhm. So leaving something out intentionally is completely out of the question then, huh?

Leaving something out intentionally is omitting (https://www.google.com/search?q=omit&rlz=1C1SKPM_enUS504US505&oq=omit&aqs=chrome.0.57l2j59j61j60l2.719&sugexp=chrome,mod=9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) something.

Have a nice day.

[Darius Kane]

Sorry, but I don't see the word "intentionally" in any of your links. I might've been blinded by my smugness, though.

[Lonely Tylenol]

{scrubbed}

[Darius Kane]

That's because you're not clicking them.
Another rude assumption.
I DID click them. Your first link has no mention of "intentionally". Your second link is too general. I clicked the couple first results that popped up. Again, no "intentionally". If you have a specific site in mind link that and don't waste my time, please. But finding some obscure definition that says exactly what you want, when every definition that I read doesn't include it (and I read random ones, multiple times), isn't really going to win you this argument.
I found the site you're quoting. On second page of the results.
It doesn't really matter what one site out of multiple says. That's just arguing technicalities. Omission is commonly used with the meaning of "unintentionally". Only one site mentioned "intentionally" from multiple that I read. But it really isn't surprising that it said that, somewhere. Internet is full of incorrect information after all.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I found the site you're quoting. On second page of the results.

This is where I found it (outlined in red). (http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/2921/omit.png)

This isn't an argument. I don't want this to be an argument. I'm perplexed that you're still arguing this.

[Darius Kane]

This is where I found it (outlined in red). (http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/2921/omit.png)
Was that so hard?
You see, as I said earlier, I found it myself, on the second page, not on the top of the first. And, as I said earlier, that's one definition. Multiple others "omit" that part. And just so you know, that one or two sites say "intentionally or not" doesn't change the fact that the word "omission" is very rarely used to mean "intentionally".


This isn't an argument. I don't want this to be an argument. I'm perplexed that you're still arguing this.
You're the one that acts like he's somehow right.

[Lonely Tylenol]

{scrubbed}

[Darius Kane]

{Scrubbed}

[Morph Bark]

If they were important maybe I would've communicated them more clearly. They weren't. You made them relevant through your incorrect and unnecessary assumption.

And that is why they were relevant in the first place. Had he known beforehand, he would've had no need to assume.

At any rate, do you wish to just send them flying backwards, or do you want additional effects as well, such as making them fall prone at the end?

[Darius Kane]

There was no need to assume anything.

Sending them flying was really the primary thing I was after. Anything else would be just a nice bonus.
You don't have to post anymore, I asked Mods to close the thread, because after finding out the change in PF rule it's not needed. Unless you'd really like to share your ideas? I don't mind, they can still be helpful.
In that case, Mods, sorry for bothering you, don't close the thread.

[Karoht]

I'm looking for ways to send my opponent flying several feet with a strong blow.
I know of the X Throw Setting Sun maneuver chain and the Awesome Blow feat. Is there anything else?
To be truthful, I am not familiar with either of these features.
Do you plan to, or are you willing to, use a Two-Handed Weapon for this purpose of knocking around opponents?
If so...
http://www.pathfindersrd.com/feats/combat-feats/pushing-assault-combat
Pushing Assault and Power Attack say hello.
Pushing Assault is from APG, and requires STR15, Power Attack, BAB +1

[Vaynor]

In that case, Mods, sorry for bothering you, don't close the thread.

The Red Towel: This thread is being closed for reasons unrelated to your request. Please try to be civil.