[two fairly long posts completely full of technical details, caveats, exceptions, extra checks and rolls, extra rulings for specific cases and so on]
While I appreciate your enthusiasm, to be honest, what you're doing and suggesting here is just turning something into an excessively, needlessly complicated mess of checks and caveats that would trip anyone up and result in a system that is less fair, less balanced and more confusing than anything yet implemented or suggested.
I'm not sure exactly how what I suggested would work in practice, or if it's different enough from how it works now to balance it, but I doubt that it's more unfair and unbalanced than anything that has been implemented or suggested before.
After all, we already have Shove, environmental effects, those statues in the Druid Grove and other things that are far more unbalanced than what I suggested...
As for it being confusing, it probably has more steps than it needs to have, but I don't think that it's confusing.
You're suggesting:
- Outcome variable based on something characters can't control or choose or alter beyond character creation (their weight), and which carries inherent imbalances of fairness with it, to be tied into such a tangible mechanic.
- A system that relies on two ability scores, each with their own separate, independent checks, from one person, against AC and an ability score from the defender, and which, if you are the attacker, then having a low score in EITHER stat means that you will more or less always fail to achieve your aim.
- Variable outcomes that have vastly different effects which the player cannot control or choose, because you're suggesting it be controlled by a split threshold measure on one of the two ability checks.
- Suggests a chance to miss outright where such a thing is impractical, and conversely don't allow for the defender to simply dodge your efforts - while handling this exact sort of thing is what contested ability checks are FOR in the first place.
And all this just for a single standard combat action.... I'm sorry, I don't want to sound harsh, but this whole thing is a non-starter...
01 - I think that it would make sense for equipment and the weight of a character's inventory to affect Weight.
02 - It might make it only useful when dealing with characters that have lower, the same or slightly higher stats, but the point was to nerf Shove so that it wouldn't be overpowered.
03 - I suppose that the attacker could choose whether they want the defender to become prone or be pushed away before the rolls, rather than having that be decided by the Strength vs Strength roll result.
04 - How is it impractical to miss when trying to push a character?
About that all being just for a standard combat action, it's important
because it's a standard action.
You say it just 'makes sense' for Gnomes, Halflings and other small races to be easier to shove... No, it doesn't. You also later suggest that smaller creatures should be harder to shove, as determined by another, independent check. You also attempt to say that they shouldn't be melee characters anyway, because it doesn't make sense for them to be... sorry, but no. Halflings make excellent Fighters and Superlative Barbarians - some of the best builds in the game, in fact... but you'd want them to be make less capable of playing these classes fairly because they're small. No. Go away with that.
Gnomes and Halflings have less Weight than the other races that can be chosen, so they should be easier to push a farther distance.
Smaller creatures should be easier to miss.
As for Halflings making excellent Fighters and Barbarians, even the best in the game, if that's true, then what's wrong with their Weight giving them a disadvantage sometimes?
The core rules already have considerations for whether a character is nimble enough to avoid being shoved, or strong enough to resist it directly, and whether a character has the strength and capability to succeed on the attack as well. It also has a consideration for the size of the attacker and defender, in determining what is feasibly possible and what isn't. It does all of this with a single die roll, and one supporting rule - Simple, elegant, easy to work with, and fairly balanced.
Aren't those rules already mostly implemented in Baldur's Gate III?
The only differences seem to be that Shove doesn't cause characters to be prone and that it's a Bonus Action.
That would make similar effects like Topple for weapons overpowered, wouldn't it?
Instead of wasting an Action trying to cause a foe to become prone or move five feet through Shove, you could try to cause damage and prone with one Action.
Yes. And that is why many people are deeply unhappy with Larian's homebrew on weapon actions. Knocking someone prone and doing damage at the same time is
specifically the purview of Battle-Master Fighters: they have to dedicate specifically to get that ability... so no, it shouldn't be available to everyone for free. It's another reason why shove is an attack action, not a bonus action.
I don't think that justifies Shove being an Action rather than a Bonus Action.
