Attack-based resolution for combat maneuvers

[Sindeloke]

So initially my group didn't like the way the Iron Scoundrel outperformed a fighter at his own role, so we distributed Expertise more freely such that a rogue doesn't hilariously roflstomp a fighter in any athletics competition. This has had very healthy results in the realm of "doing things out in the world," like climbing things or swimming places or winning a rope-pull contest.... but in combat it's been markedly less successful. Basically no one ever fails to trip anyone. Like ever. And adding random expertise to random manticores doesn't seem like quite the right solution.

Also, Disarm as an athletics check makes no sense whatsoever. Disarm is your competency with your sword versus the other guy's competency with his sword. That's covered by your basic weapon proficiency, not the skill which represents your ability to play goatball or run a parkour course.

So I'm thinking, give everyone a single new secondary attribute. Put a box on the character sheet right next to AC and your ability saves, call it "maneuver defense," almost like it's the bad old days of Pathfinder, except this is going to be super easy to calculate: it's just 10+your choice of Str or Dex. If you have levels in a class/subclass that grants Extra Attack (or thirsting blade), you can also add your proficiency bonus. Monsters will probably be proficient if they've got a good Str or Dex save; one would have to play it by ear a bit but that's a fast and easy thing to do during encounter planning.

Now when you want to perform a shove, a trip, a disarm, whatever, you make an attack roll with your currently equipped weapon against your target's MD. No opposed rolls means things are marginally faster, and advantage and disadvantage can be easily adjudicated based on the weapon being used (axes and sais are designed for tripping and disarming, greatswords and longbows maybe not so much). Success is much more variable, and interesting things like Legendary Resistance, Indomitable, and Bend Luck enter the picture. The only thing that makes me dubious is the flattening of the offensive curve; I obviously don't like the massive Athletics Expertise gap between specialized trippers and regular joes, but is this too far in the other direction?

Has anyone else tried anything like this? Is there some other solution to Athletics Expertise in combat pushing shoves off the NPCs' d20s?

[Malifice]

So initially my group didn't like the way the Iron Scoundrel outperformed a fighter at his own role, so we distributed Expertise more freely such that a rogue doesn't hilariously roflstomp a fighter in any athletics competition. This has had very healthy results in the realm of "doing things out in the world," like climbing things or swimming places or winning a rope-pull contest.... but in combat it's been markedly less successful. Basically no one ever fails to trip anyone. Like ever. And adding random expertise to random manticores doesn't seem like quite the right solution.

Also, Disarm as an athletics check makes no sense whatsoever. Disarm is your competency with your sword versus the other guy's competency with his sword. That's covered by your basic weapon proficiency, not the skill which represents your ability to play goatball or run a parkour course.

So I'm thinking, give everyone a single new secondary attribute. Put a box on the character sheet right next to AC and your ability saves, call it "maneuver defense," almost like it's the bad old days of Pathfinder, except this is going to be super easy to calculate: it's just 10+your choice of Str or Dex. If you have levels in a class/subclass that grants Extra Attack (or thirsting blade), you can also add your proficiency bonus. Monsters will probably be proficient if they've got a good Str or Dex save; one would have to play it by ear a bit but that's a fast and easy thing to do during encounter planning.

Now when you want to perform a shove, a trip, a disarm, whatever, you make an attack roll with your currently equipped weapon against your target's MD. No opposed rolls means things are marginally faster, and advantage and disadvantage can be easily adjudicated based on the weapon being used (axes and sais are designed for tripping and disarming, greatswords and longbows maybe not so much). Success is much more variable, and interesting things like Legendary Resistance, Indomitable, and Bend Luck enter the picture. The only thing that makes me dubious is the flattening of the offensive curve; I obviously don't like the massive Athletics Expertise gap between specialized trippers and regular joes, but is this too far in the other direction?

Has anyone else tried anything like this? Is there some other solution to Athletics Expertise in combat pushing shoves off the NPCs' d20s?

Shoved enemies just stand up. It's not a game changer.

I let monsters expend a use of it's legendary saves to auto succeed a failed ability check it just made.

Works well.

[mephnick]

Shoved enemies just stand up.

Off topic, but I'm still not sure I love that. We've been playing with AoO's on standing up, but it might be too harsh.

[Sindeloke]

Shoved enemies just stand up.

Sure, after wasting everybody's time with an opposed roll that we all already know the outcome to and then eating a round of everybody's advantaged attacks. They're also basically perma-slowed and can never meaningfully threaten the back line if the party is playing at all tactically. The only real solution that still allows them to use their features is to add more monsters than the party can trip, but that's pretty monotonous and also a pain in the butt for me as DM.


I let monsters expend a use of it's legendary saves to auto succeed a failed ability check it just made.

Works well.

Sure, we were doing that too from the start, but there are a lot of other things in the game that affect saves too, which you wouldn't necessarily want to expand to skill checks out of combat but which are totally legit on trips and shoves. Indomitable, Aura of Protection, Bless - interestingly, it even technically has an impact on whether Conditions impact the outcome, since all of Restrained/Petrified/Unconscious/whatever all explicitly mention disadvantage or auto-fail on Dex and Str saves but never even mention ability checks. I imagine when they were written, nobody remembered that checks can be made defensively without taking an action, so they figured the "can't take actions" was enough to cover it. Kind of an amusing image, somebody coming up to a hog-tied fighter and trying to knock him over but just bouncing off.

[Vogonjeltz]

Off topic, but I'm still not sure I love that. We've been playing with AoO's on standing up, but it might be too harsh.

It does cost half their speed, so it's good for keeping an enemy corralled.


So initially my group didn't like the way the Iron Scoundrel outperformed a fighter at his own role, so we distributed Expertise more freely such that a rogue doesn't hilariously roflstomp a fighter in any athletics competition.

Rogues don't get more than one attack (granted, you can sacrifice 5 levels of rogue to put into a class that gives extra attack...but then you've delayed rogue progression 5 levels and aren't so much a rogue as whatever you put 5 levels into first). At 20 the Rogue would only have 2 attacks, Fighter would have 4, which is easily superior. More rolls > better proficiency modifier. A rogue who tries to go with strength is going to suffere from a lower dex, which is their key ability score. Rogues are better suited to defending against combat options and less suited to initiating them.


Also, Disarm as an athletics check makes no sense whatsoever. Disarm is your competency with your sword versus the other guy's competency with his sword. That's covered by your basic weapon proficiency, not the skill which represents your ability to play goatball or run a parkour course.

Disarm is an attack roll, not getting disarmed is how capable you are, not how well you attack.

Besides, the way it's set up naturally favors those classes that already want strength, and those classes likely to have athletics proficiency, as opposed to being something equally possible for a warlock or wizard as a fighter or ranger.

[Malifice]

Sure, after wasting everybody's time with an opposed roll that we all already know the outcome to and then eating a round of everybody's advantaged attacks. They're also basically perma-slowed and can never meaningfully threaten the back line if the party is playing at all tactically. The only real solution that still allows them to use their features is to add more monsters than the party can trip, but that's pretty monotonous and also a pain in the butt for me as DM.



Sure, we were doing that too from the start, but there are a lot of other things in the game that affect saves too, which you wouldn't necessarily want to expand to skill checks out of combat but which are totally legit on trips and shoves. Indomitable, Aura of Protection, Bless - interestingly, it even technically has an impact on whether Conditions impact the outcome, since all of Restrained/Petrified/Unconscious/whatever all explicitly mention disadvantage or auto-fail on Dex and Str saves but never even mention ability checks. I imagine when they were written, nobody remembered that checks can be made defensively without taking an action, so they figured the "can't take actions" was enough to cover it. Kind of an amusing image, somebody coming up to a hog-tied fighter and trying to knock him over but just bouncing off.

But is it perma slowed?

An 11th level fighter who is proficient in athletics and has a str of 20 shoves at +9. Leaving aside the fact the Wizard is polymorping things and teleporting, +9 isn't an auto pass.

[Madeiner]

Has anyone else tried anything like this? Is there some other solution to Athletics Expertise in combat pushing shoves off the NPCs' d20s?

I'm using the opposed check vs save.
You roll athletics vs STR or DEX save, not athletics or acrobatics, which monsters don't have.
Their save is much higher, leading to lower rates of success.

There is still quite a difference between those that can add proficiency to athletics for the attack maneouver and those who don't, but that's ok with me.

[WickerNipple]

But is it perma slowed?

An 11th level fighter who is proficient in athletics and has a str of 20 shoves at +9. Leaving aside the fact the Wizard is polymorping things and teleporting, +9 isn't an auto pass.

See but they've decided to "fix" the game by giving fighters expertise, and now they're complaining about auto passes.

[Malifice]

See but they've decided to "fix" the game by giving fighters expertise, and now they're complaining about auto passes.

Heh. Nice.

[JellyPooga]

So initially my group didn't like the way the Iron Scoundrel outperformed a fighter at his own role, so we distributed Expertise more freely such that a rogue doesn't hilariously roflstomp a fighter in any athletics competition.

I really dislike it when people come along with attitudes like this. The Rogue is supposed to "roflstomp" everyone at skills; that's their entire class schtick. Complaining "Why can't my Fighter be as good at Athletics as a Rogue?" is like whining about how your Eldritch Knight can't be as good at spellcasting as a Wizard or your Swashbuckler can't deal as much DPR as a Fighter.

Don't try to fix what isn't broken. If you want a Fighter that's good at Athletics, multiclass Rogue or Barbarian; both classes that are good at Athletics. Don't go around making gross changes to the game and impinging on the roles each class has.

[djreynolds]

A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.

The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller.

So a battlemasters DC is 8 + proficiency + dex or str, it is his choice on some of the maneuvers. And the enemy uses his strength save and proficiency if he has it vs that battlemaster's dc. You battlemaster's DC is usually his/her choice for ability added to the dc + prof

Disarming Attack. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to disarm the target, forcing it to drop one item of your choice that it’s holding. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, it drops the object you choose. The object lands at its feet.

In this instance the person being disarmed is allowed only a strength save, not an athletics check. So a battlemaster should be able to disarm a rogue, who has not taken resilient in strength.

But this is the kicker, a battlemaster must hit and the opponent must fail his save, and those opponents likely have strength save proficiency. They do not get to choose to use expertise in a skill, this is a strength save specially for the battlemaster's maneuvers. And he is still damaging the opponent with the extra superiority die damage, he does not have to give up an attack to shove. Nor does he give up damage on failed disarm, unlike the untrained disarmer above

A wolf totem must hit the opponent, and that opponent may be using the dodge action, or have the shield spell or defensive duelist feat.

Shield master though, is a bonus action and athletics vs whatever you got, and in this instance a rogue with a shield proficiency with expertise or a bard may knockdown even a barbarian in rage.

And if not multiclassing, a rogue has one attack action to sacrifice to shove someone. He may succeed but the enemy may be able to stand before the rogue can take advantage, or win initiative in the next round to capitalize on this advantage.

Shoving can be useful for this new swashbuckler who is engaged with multiple opponents to gain advantage and sneak attack that way, at level 13 he can use his bonus action to gain advantage on athletics or acrobatics checks, including expertise in these, he may have the ability to knock over a barbarian or withstand the shove of a bull with his acrobatics check.

I highly recommend a rogue find a way to get a shield, either through feats or multiclass dip, this way he can he use shield master and shove as his bonus action, which is an athletics check vs acrobatics/athletics, and then sneak attack.

[Desamir]

Shoved enemies just stand up. It's not a game changer.

Not if they're grappled.


Off topic, but I'm still not sure I love that. We've been playing with AoO's on standing up, but it might be too harsh.

Considering how easy it is to knock an enemy prone, I'd advise against it. The only downside to shoving is that it eats up an attack; if standing provokes an OA, then it doesn't even do that.

[Malifice]

I highly recommend a rogue find a way to get a shield, either through feats or multiclass dip, this way he can he use shield master and shove as his bonus action, which is an athletics check vs acrobatics/athletics, and then sneak attack.

In my experience, why bother? It uses up your bonus action (and cunning action), costs a feat (and some way of getting shield prof), rules out TWF, means you cant dump Strength like a good Rogue should, and isnt all that reliable.

Instead you could just target the dude your fighter is fighting and get two chances to swing, or play a swashbuckler.

[djreynolds]

In my experience, why bother? It uses up your bonus action (and cunning action), costs a feat (and some way of getting shield prof), rules out TWF, means you cant dump Strength like a good Rogue should, and isnt all that reliable.

Instead you could just target the dude your fighter is fighting and get two chances to swing, or play a swashbuckler.

You can dump strength, but a 10 or 12 is very doable and coupled with expertise in athletics gives you a very good chance of a knockdown. Yes it uses your bonus action or even an attack if you forgo the shield, and it is party dependent. But if you go first, and lay some guy out, now your tanks can hurt them with impunity.

The rogue is finally free of disarming traps and can get back to messing people up with sneaks and shoves. I actually prefer to not use a shield actually and give up my first attack to prone some lameo and let my fighter go to town. And then I don't feel so bad using him as a meat shield and sneak attacking and then disengaging and leaving him there.

[Malifice]

You can dump strength, but a 10 or 12 is very doable and coupled with expertise in athletics gives you a very good chance of a knockdown. Yes it uses your bonus action or even an attack if you forgo the shield, and it is party dependent. But if you go first, and lay some guy out, now your tanks can hurt them with impunity.

The rogue is finally free of disarming traps and can get back to messing people up with sneaks and shoves. I actually prefer to not use a shield actually and give up my first attack to prone some lameo and let my fighter go to town. And then I don't feel so bad using him as a meat shield and sneak attacking and then disengaging and leaving him there.

Yeah, but you can get sneak attack every single round anyways more or less.

Guess im just seeing a pretty huge feat investment for very little gain.

[djreynolds]

Yeah, but you can get sneak attack every single round anyways more or less.

Guess im just seeing a pretty huge feat investment for very little gain.


Yes for a single classed rogue, it would be costly to obtain two feats shield master and moderately armored. But I actually used it in my first rogue.

I assuming most guys are using a multiclass dip in most builds.

But for me, it really makes good use for my melee rogue, the thuggish type. I find my thug build, which I used an arcane trickster for, had enough spells to stealth with and mirror image let me hang around in combat and I was usually landing my first attack for my sneak attack, which is rare of course, and so I rarely used my disengage and wanted a little more AC, so even with a mountain dwarf I took moderately armored for the shield and shield master instead of two weapon fighting. But this is not a typical build, this was more for in-game where we needed a tank and a rogue and we couldn't multiclass.

My new rogue, I dipped for now just three battlemaster and use precision, which is added before or after the strike, and I have no need for that off-hand strike for now, rarely, so I find the bonus action from shield master here gives me another option on my bonus action, I can disengage or stay put and shove.

[Sindeloke]

Heh. Nice.

Really? Seemed kind of rude to me, actually. A little blinkered, too, but the two so often go hand in hand, after all. But I suppose we all come from different communication backgrounds. Perhaps where the two of you are from, snide insults are considered genuinely courteous? If you truly believe it was a "nice" comment, I shall endeavor to continue to have a friendly, respectful discussion in good faith. The discussion actually relevant to the OP anyway, as opposed to folks complaining that other people are playing their magic elf games wrong.


Rogues don't get more than one attack (granted, you can sacrifice 5 levels of rogue to put into a class that gives extra attack...but then you've delayed rogue progression 5 levels and aren't so much a rogue as whatever you put 5 levels into first). At 20 the Rogue would only have 2 attacks, Fighter would have 4, which is easily superior. More rolls > better proficiency modifier.

[....]

Besides, the way it's set up naturally favors those classes that already want strength, and those classes likely to have athletics proficiency, as opposed to being something equally possible for a warlock or wizard as a fighter or ranger.

You seem to contradict yourself here. You say fighter is better than rogue because of more attacks, thus the rogue's higher bonus isn't really a concern, but - correct me if I'm wrong - you also seem to say that the current system is better than the proposed one, specifically because the proposed system would grant an equal bonus between fighter and wizard, and that makes wizards too good compared to fighters? If more attacks is better than more bonus, there shouldn't be a problem with wizards getting bonuses that are only equal to what the fighters are getting, because the fighters (and other martials) still get 2-3x as many opportunities to make those rolls.

I see where you're coming from, I was actually honestly dubious about the wizard=fighter aspect too, at first, but then I remembered that I already had that concern before we ever played 5e, wrt weapon attacks. I remember a lot of people did. It looks weird to a D&D veteran to see that a sorceror with 14 dex has the same to-hit with a crossbow as a fighter with same. But it turned out fine in actual play, because there's so much else going on. Bonuses to hit, multiple attacks, ways to get martial advantage that casters don't benefit from, etc etc. All of that applies equally to shove-as-attack.

[djreynolds]

A dex based melee rogue should be focused on his sneak attack and ensuring that lands. 3 levels of battlemaster for precision is plenty.

A str based melee rogue is still stuck with a finesse weapon and no GMW or GWS, for me, IMO, he is causing havoc in battle and using more attacks, and a shield and multiclassing to sqeeze out that expertise in athletics for all you can.

A ranged rogue is at cross roads, you can have one ranged attack that may fail and lose out on your sneak attack, or multiclass with someone with archery and focus more on sharpshooter.

Now off-hand crossbow seems to be a nice area that a rogue can dwell in, small dip for 3 ranger or 3 fighter. If you miss with the short sword, you can just shoot the handcross bow to get sneak attack. But if you land with melee sneak attack, use a sharpshooter attack with the bonus action. Just need archery style, crosswbow expert, and maybe duel wield feat.

As for fighter with expertise in athletics, I say dip rogue--- too easy. But why a fighter doesn't get it or the paladin? Is you are in heavy armor, and it is tiring to wear 65 pounds and propel yourself in combat. A barbarian, who gets advantage, or rogue, or bard are in light armor or none and do not have all the weight to move. Its the only reason I can see why a fighter doesn't gain expertise in athletics to begin with.

Look at American Football, a defensive end can hammer the quarterback, yes. But watch a safety or cornerback launch themselves like a missile and clean out players, they get flagged for that now if its to the head. I see a fighter as the former and the rogue as the latter, even the pads weigh less for the corner then the defensive ends.

[Zalabim]

Valor bards have the combination of expertise, armor, shield proficiency, and an extra attack that makes bards the best class for using flashy combat tactics that hinder the opponent without actually causing damage. This seems just fine to me.

Changing that to an attack roll takes away one of the benefits of using Str in melee rather than Dex.

Adding proficiency for most enemies means that all characters will have less success than fighters do by default.

Making it solely an attack roll or saving throw based effect also puts the role of ability checks farther from the rest of the game.

I think a better change is to rethink your expertise for everyone houserule. I like the idea of having four or five tiers of profiency: none, 1/2 (jack), 1 (proficient), 1 1/2 (focus), and 2 (expert). Expert being for skills that are not related to your main attribute (and optional), and Focus being for Expertise on a skill associated with your main attribute.

[Vogonjeltz]

Really? Seemed kind of rude to me, actually. A little blinkered, too, but the two so often go hand in hand, after all. But I suppose we all come from different communication backgrounds. Perhaps where the two of you are from, snide insults are considered genuinely courteous? If you truly believe it was a "nice" comment, I shall endeavor to continue to have a friendly, respectful discussion in good faith. The discussion actually relevant to the OP anyway, as opposed to folks complaining that other people are playing their magic elf games wrong.



You seem to contradict yourself here. You say fighter is better than rogue because of more attacks, thus the rogue's higher bonus isn't really a concern, but - correct me if I'm wrong - you also seem to say that the current system is better than the proposed one, specifically because the proposed system would grant an equal bonus between fighter and wizard, and that makes wizards too good compared to fighters? If more attacks is better than more bonus, there shouldn't be a problem with wizards getting bonuses that are only equal to what the fighters are getting, because the fighters (and other martials) still get 2-3x as many opportunities to make those rolls.

I see where you're coming from, I was actually honestly dubious about the wizard=fighter aspect too, at first, but then I remembered that I already had that concern before we ever played 5e, wrt weapon attacks. I remember a lot of people did. It looks weird to a D&D veteran to see that a sorceror with 14 dex has the same to-hit with a crossbow as a fighter with same. But it turned out fine in actual play, because there's so much else going on. Bonuses to hit, multiple attacks, ways to get martial advantage that casters don't benefit from, etc etc. All of that applies equally to shove-as-attack.

I'm saying two things,

1) more attacks > less
2) giving classes that aren't focused on melee the exact same bonus for melee maneuvers as those that are melee focused is a bad idea.