Question about Shield Rush

[thom]

Had an interesting quandary come up today when my PC group invaded a cult's lair. The group let the enemy surround them & the PCs couldn't break out of the narrow tunnel they were in.

Soo...the "sword & board" fighter decided he wanted to Shield Rush a cultist to "make a hole" and move on through. And that's where the fun (read breakdown) began.
1]) Since the 2 parties were adjacent, we figured the PC would use an Attack maneuver for his Shield Rush; and he'd only be moving one hex (into the cultist's hex) to do so. His Strength was 12, the cultist was Strength 10; according to Exploits (p. 40) we start with thrust-2 crushing (so 1d-3 for the PC vs. 1d-5[??] for the cultist-the first issue).
2) Then we check for movement; in this instance, the PC only moved ONE HEX into the cultist's hex; so the SM modifier is -2(??) - the second issue! Now we have 1d-5 vs 1d-7(!)
3) This is when the PC asked "Can I use Mighty Blow to add +2 to my damage?" {NOTE: I use Extra Effort with the DF rules for my game-I like 'em}. I ruled No, and said I'd post to the forum; hence this discussion...
4) The PC has a medium shield, so we add +2 to his damage, and -2 to the cultist for a (final?) tally of 1d-3 vs 1d-9(!)

I ruled the cultist ended up with a '1', and the PC (luckily) rolled a 5 for a result of '2', so the cultist fell and the PC move into his hex: Success!(?) And the fight went on...

So here I am (as promised) seeking the answers. How close were we to the way it's supposed to be done?

thom

[Expy]

Slam rules are the darkest of arts, the blackest of wizardry. Woe is he who stumbles across them in the deep, for his mind shall be plagued by its devilry forevermore.
Kromm tried to tweak Slams for the DFRPG release, but it didn't really help the core problem which you have immediately encountered:
> Its very, very easy to stack +adds to your dice and auto-win on low speed collisions

It looks to me like everything was done correctly. Extra effort should apply, and other modifiers like weapon master (shield) should too. Unrelated, but you can also do neat stuff like rapid strike with a slam, or dual-weapon attack. Ain't that cool? Slam one guy, knock him down, then stab his mate behind him.



This strategy will rarely work on big, tough monsters and those big, tough monsters can use these rules right back at the PCs, mind. You haven't seen fear on a players face until you have spoken the words "The direwolf snarls and pounces at you, Mr Cleric," and he knows his only way out is a dodge of 9 since parrying would break his fancy power item.

Slams work very well on flimsy fodder and other human-ish opponents (who are... also usually fodder) or casters, but if a melee guy gets on top of a caster and that caster can't blink away or something, they deserve to be able to bully them. It's also important to not forget that slams can leave the slammer particularly vulnerable to mobbing and free attacks from the rear.

And hell, even if your guy did succeed on the slam here, realize he has now volunteered to be in close combat with the guy he just slammed! That opens some options, if your cultist is willing to die for the cause (what cultists aren't?) and uses all-out attack (determined) to grapple a leg at -2 (-4 for posture, +4 for AoA, -1 for shock, -1 for location). Your knight isn't allowed to block or parry this attack (swords and shields are too encumbering to use in close combat!) and if the grapple works then he is completely hosed: Unable to move, unable to strike his grappler with either weapon (too long to use in close combat), unable to retreat from other attacks and afflicted with a whopping -6 to DX (-2 for having a medium shield in close combat, -4 for the grapple).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Expy

And hell, even if your guy did succeed on the slam here, realize he has now volunteered to be in close combat with the guy he just slammed! That opens some options, if your cultist is willing to die for the cause (what cultists aren't?) and uses all-out attack (determined) to grapple a leg at -2 (-4 for posture, +4 for AoA, -1 for shock, -1 for location). Your knight isn't allowed to block or parry this attack (swords and shields are too encumbering to use in close combat!) and if the grapple works then he is completely hosed: Unable to move, unable to strike his grappler with either weapon (too long to use in close combat), unable to retreat from other attacks and afflicted with a whopping -6 to DX (-2 for having a medium shield in close combat, -4 for the grapple).

Well, the fighter can still Retreat vs the grapple attempt and Block or Parry. They can also Retreat and Dodge of course, and I'd allow a 'retreat' forwards for someone who has just entered close combat with a slam that's knocked their foe down. While retreating forwards like that moves you out of the encirclement, it means all the other bad guys are now in your flanks and a step from your rear...

[thom]

Thanks guys! I can't say I'm delighted that I did the slam rules correctly, but it is what it is... <sg>

And damn! why didn't I think of the cultist fanatically grabbing the PC's leg! I had him roll out from under to give his buddies room to attack...

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by thom

Had an interesting quandary come up today when my PC group invaded a cult's lair. The group let the enemy surround them & the PCs couldn't break out of the narrow tunnel they were in.

Soo...the "sword & board" fighter decided he wanted to Shield Rush a cultist to "make a hole" and move on through. And that's where the fun (read breakdown) began.
1]) Since the 2 parties were adjacent, we figured the PC would use an Attack maneuver for his Shield Rush; and he'd only be moving one hex (into the cultist's hex) to do so. His Strength was 12, the cultist was Strength 10; according to Exploits (p. 40) we start with thrust-2 crushing (so 1d-3 for the PC vs. 1d-5[??] for the cultist-the first issue).
2) Then we check for movement; in this instance, the PC only moved ONE HEX into the cultist's hex; so the SM modifier is -2(??) - the second issue! Now we have 1d-5 vs 1d-7(!)
3) This is when the PC asked "Can I use Mighty Blow to add +2 to my damage?" {NOTE: I use Extra Effort with the DF rules for my game-I like 'em}. I ruled No, and said I'd post to the forum; hence this discussion...
4) The PC has a medium shield, so we add +2 to his damage, and -2 to the cultist for a (final?) tally of 1d-3 vs 1d-9(!)

I ruled the cultist ended up with a '1', and the PC (luckily) rolled a 5 for a result of '2', so the cultist fell and the PC move into his hex: Success!(?) And the fight went on...

So here I am (as promised) seeking the answers. How close were we to the way it's supposed to be done?

thom

I'm months late so you've probably figured it out by now, but for the sake of posterity:

The final step, rolling damage, is wrong. Per Exploits page 52, the minimum damage on a crushing attack is zero, not one, so the cultist's damage is zero. I.e. as long as the PC rolls at least one point of damage, the cultist falls over.

(Additionally, thr-2 damage for ST 10 is 1d-4, not 1d-5, so add one to the cultist's damage roll, which of course is still zero so in this case it doesn't matter.)

I do not recommend allowing the speed modifier ("Size" column) to go negative for slams, or you wind up making it bizarrely easy for weak creatures to knock over stronger creatures when moving only 2 feet (-3 per die means a ST 17 creature with a medium shield will be rolling 1d-1 against a ST 30 creature's 3d-13, resulting in automatic knockdown of the stronger creature most of the time!). Judging from the Karkadann monster writeup, the intent seems to be that you only apply that modifier as a bonus, never as a penalty.

Originally Posted by Expy

This strategy will rarely work on big, tough monsters and those big, tough monsters can use these rules right back at the PCs, mind. You haven't seen fear on a players face until you have spoken the words "The direwolf snarls and pounces at you, Mr Cleric," and he knows his only way out is a dodge of 9 since parrying would break his fancy power item.

Wise clerics will have either a Shield skill for block-11+DB, or at least a heavy cloak, to raise Dodge from 9 to 11; 14 when retreating.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

... or at least a heavy cloak, to raise Dodge from 9 to 11; 14 when retreating.

Only if weilding the cloak as a shield.

Just a quick reminder because I keep seeing Players trying to get DB bonuses from worn cloaks which isn't how it's done.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Only if weilding the cloak as a shield.

Yes, of course. The advantage over a shield is that the cloak is only 5 lb. instead of 15 lb., but you still use it similarly to a shield.

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Yes, of course. The advantage over a shield is that the cloak is only 5 lb. instead of 15 lb., but you still use it similarly to a shield.

Plus, when out of combat, a cloak looks a lot more dashing slung over the shoulder.