PDA

View Full Version : Pressing! The most useless house rule ever? You decide!



Jon_Dahl
2013-05-08, 06:02 AM
INTRO

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 99% of movies/tv-series duels one of the fighters presses and the pressed party retreats. The roles are often switch during melee. The result is that the fight is very mobile. If you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, please see these clips:
http://youtu.be/NN30YMzja6Y?t=19s
http://youtu.be/BEtPluUi0_U?t=1m
I'd like to have the same in D&D.

THE MECHANICS

In melee combat, against opponents at your reach, you can choose to press in melee if one or more of the following conditions applies:
1. You are larger than your opponent
2. You are significantly stronger than your opponent (Strength is 4 points higher or more)
3. You are using a shield and your opponent is not
4. You are better at fighting than your opponent (higher BAB)

You can also choose to press if your opponent has only half of its hp or less left.

If both parties are able to press one another, neither can press.

Your opponent is forced to take a 5 ft step away from you (diagonally or not) every round. If the opponent is unable to take a 5 ft step but is able to move, then he or she should move (Attacks of opportunity may apply). If your opponent is unable or unwilling to move away from you, you receive +4 bonus to attacks until the pressed opponent moves away from you.

Deepbluediver
2013-05-08, 08:16 AM
THE MECHANICS

In melee combat, against opponents at your reach, you can choose to press in melee if one or more of the following conditions applies:
1. You are larger than your opponent
2. You are significantly stronger than your opponent (Strength is 4 points higher or more)
3. You are using a shield and your opponent is not
4. You are better at fighting than your opponent (higher BAB)


My biggest concern is that all these are very static conditions, and (with the exception of HP) not likely to change over the course of a battle. If one character is pressing the other, they are going to be able to keep pressing.

It's not a bad idea, but I want to think some more about what kind of implications it could have for the game. For example, at higher levels many MANY monsters will be both larger and stronger than the player, so even after damaging it, they will be unlikely to be able to press.

Jon_Dahl
2013-05-08, 08:24 AM
My biggest concern is that all these are very static conditions, and (with the exception of HP) not likely to change over the course of a battle. If one character is pressing the other, they are going to be able to keep pressing.

It's not a bad idea, but I want to think some more about what kind of implications it could have for the game. For example, at higher levels many MANY monsters will be both larger and stronger than the player, so even after damaging it, they will be unlikely to be able to press.

I know, but in any case the cinematic value of the game would be increased. This is the sole purpose of this rule. However, I do understand your point of view. If you think about this only from the game perspective, it might not seem too appealing, but if you wish to add that good old action movie feeling into the game, then it's worth considering. I think...?

JoshuaZ
2013-05-08, 06:39 PM
The mechanic as written doesn't really do what you want it to do (since it doesn't go back and forth ever). Suggested different mechanic:

1. Any character can choose on their turn to be ready to step away from a specific enemy. If so, when that enemy makes a melee attack, the character takes a five foot step away from the enemy and gains a +2 bonus to AC against that attack.

2. When a character makes a melee attack, they can choose to press the attack. If so, they take a -1 penalty to attack and damage roles in that attack. If their attack roll exceeds the opponent's AC-2, they may force the opponent to take a five foot step away. This step does not incur attacks of opportunity.

This might need some tweaking, but this should allow more of the back and forth that you see in cinematic fight scenes.

Ashtagon
2013-05-09, 09:01 AM
Suggested alteration:

If you score two consecutive hits before a given opponent can hit back, you can make a free "pushback" check. The check is:

1d20 + size modifier + BAB + Strength modifier (nb. count Strength bonus only once)

Extra modifiers: +4 for using a shield

If you win this check, you can force your opponent to take a 5-foot step in the direction of your choice, and you must immediately and simultaneously take a 5-foot step to maintain contact. These steps do not use any actions. They may invite attacks of opportunity from your allies against your opponent (or your opponent's allies against you).

If your opponent declines to take the step you asked him to and your next attack roll is against that opponent, you gain a +4 bonus on that attack roll.

Bastian Weaver
2013-05-09, 09:12 AM
I think that's what happened in OotS, when Roy fought against that half-ogre dude that stepped back every turn and used Attack of Opportunity twice when Roy charged at him. The bad guy retreated, gaining an advantage, and Roy pressed him right where he wanted him.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-05-09, 02:07 PM
*Nods* I actually worked to build this sort of thing into the game system I'm designing - not necessarily the moving-back-and-forth part, but the "One fighter is on offensive, one is on defensive" part. Here's how I did it:

1: Turns are made up of "Action Points" of various types - movement, physical and thought. The number of action points you have determines how many actions you can take - specific actions each cost a certain number of each type of point. Action Points renew at the end of your turn, not the beginning.

2: Wounds are very nasty; taking even fairly light damage will start to slow you down, and higher quantities of damage actually require higher-level healing effects (not just multiple applications) - so, if you can avoid taking an injury, you really want to do so.

3: When you are attacked, you can spend an action point to use an "Active Defence" - right now these consist of Blocking, Parrying, Dodging and Counterspelling. Active defences are a very large part of your defences, and it's generally going to be pretty likely (>75%) that your enemy will hit you without them, and fairly unlikely (<25%) that your enemy will hit you if you do use them. Blocking, in particular, is actually an automatic success - but the attack still hits, it just hits your arm, which is a little tougher and you can pile on DR with the use of a shield.

So, say you have two fighters of equal talent, each with 3 Physical Action Points - during a fight, one or the of them may find themselves pushed onto full defensive, where they have to use their action points to stop their enemies attacks over and over, and thus have no action points left to attack with on their own turn.

Then, there'd be assorted ways to break out of the pattern - the defensive player could Shield Bash if the attacking player rolled poorly enough on an attack, slamming them with their shield for no damage, but knocking them off balance (represented by taking away their remaining action points for that round); alternatively, the attacking player could decide that getting in at least some damage is more important than maintaining the offensive, so they could Power Attack (using 2 Physical Action Points), which would be difficult to block/parry, but would mean that the defensive opponent had a chance to start making attacks of their own (as the attacking player would only have made 2 attacks that turn, the defending player would only have used 2 action points trying to block them, and could use their remaining point to renew the assault.)

I'd like to have the actual moving-back-and-forth part, but I haven't decided how to make that happen yet (dodging will probably be part of it.)

Steward
2013-05-09, 08:36 PM
My biggest concern is that all these are very static conditions, and (with the exception of HP) not likely to change over the course of a battle. If one character is pressing the other, they are going to be able to keep pressing.

I have to agree.

Even taking account this rule:


You can also choose to press if your opponent has only half of its hp or less left.

If both parties are able to press one another, neither can press.

It doesn't quite do that. Even if I wear down the opponent to only one HP left, he can still stop me from pressing him if he's bigger than me or has a higher BAB.

I definitely still like the rule though; pressing can be a fun way to add drama to a melee scene, especially if you can use it back an opponent into a wall, off a ledge, or into and through other cool terrain features. There's just no back-and-forth to it; the smaller weaker guy will never be able to press; his only chance is to carve off enough HP to stop the bigger guy from pressing HIM and that can take forever.

Logic
2013-05-09, 09:19 PM
Suggested alteration:

If you score two consecutive hits before a given opponent can hit back, you can make a free "pushback" check. The check is:

1d20 + size modifier + BAB + Strength modifier (nb. count Strength bonus only once)

Extra modifiers: +4 for using a shield

If you win this check, you can force your opponent to take a 5-foot step in the direction of your choice, and you must immediately and simultaneously take a 5-foot step to maintain contact. These steps do not use any actions. They may invite attacks of opportunity from your allies against your opponent (or your opponent's allies against you).

If your opponent declines to take the step you asked him to and your next attack roll is against that opponent, you gain a +4 bonus on that attack roll.
This version seems to be the best possible version of pressing. I like the way the mechanics of this work.

Altair_the_Vexed
2013-05-10, 02:28 AM
Suggested alteration:

If you score two consecutive hits before a given opponent can hit back, you can make a free "pushback" check. The check is:

1d20 + size modifier + BAB + Strength modifier (nb. count Strength bonus only once)

Extra modifiers: +4 for using a shield

If you win this check, you can force your opponent to take a 5-foot step in the direction of your choice, and you must immediately and simultaneously take a 5-foot step to maintain contact. These steps do not use any actions. They may invite attacks of opportunity from your allies against your opponent (or your opponent's allies against you).

If your opponent declines to take the step you asked him to and your next attack roll is against that opponent, you gain a +4 bonus on that attack roll.
This makes sense - but calling them 5ft steps will be confusing, as a 5ft step does not provoke an AoO.
I suggest this needs to change to:
"you can force your opponent to move 5ft. in the direction of your choice, and you must immediately and simultaneously take a 5ft. step or move 5ft. to maintain contact."

This wording has the advantage of making the pressed creature provoke Attacks of Opportunity, and loose out on full attack actions (which makes the move more effective, and thus more desirable).

Lastly, because most combat maneouvres provoke AoO, I would also add the following condition:
"If you fail, your opponent need not move, and may make an Attack of Opportunity against you."

Ashtagon
2013-05-10, 04:49 AM
This makes sense - but calling them 5ft steps will be confusing, as a 5ft step does not provoke an AoO.
I suggest this needs to change to:
"you can force your opponent to move 5ft. in the direction of your choice, and you must immediately and simultaneously take a 5ft. step or move 5ft. to maintain contact."

This wording has the advantage of making the pressed creature provoke Attacks of Opportunity, and loose out on full attack actions (which makes the move more effective, and thus more desirable).

Lastly, because most combat maneouvres provoke AoO, I would also add the following condition:
"If you fail, your opponent need not move, and may make an Attack of Opportunity against you."

I'm happy not to call these 5-foot steps due to the specific game terminology, but effectively burning your opponent's next move action is rather punitive. It not only stops him from full attacking but also prevents him from effectively fleeing the combat, since he can't take a run action.

That penalty is too severe when compared to other combat manoeuvres that don't actually cost you an action to use, and especially considering that if you can perform your full attack, you'll almost certainly be able to prevent him from dong anything again.

ddude987
2013-05-10, 02:08 PM
When I first read this I though "what is so pressing?"
I love the idea though the balance needs work. I would love to add this into my campaign setting!