|
I agree that Combat Maneuvers should be allowed for AoOs.
Imagine how much More interesting a fight would be if you could Trip, or Disarm an enemy as an AoO. The goblin is running at your wizard buddy with his dogslicer, grinning maliciously. The fighter reaches out and knocks the dogslicer away. The goblin gets before the wizard and realizes he has no weapon... "ahhh crap," thinks the goblin... "this is gonna hurt!"
If Maneuvers ARE Attacks then this doesn't even need to be resolved separately.
I personally don't see why Grapple shouldn't be Standard Action-compatable
(What else is American Football, Tackling someone running by as an AoO, and Grappling them to the Ground?)
Even Bull-Rush should be usable as a Standard Action/ AoO: Imagine you're blocking a 10' walkway by yourself, and mooks are trying to run past you (provoking AoO). Why couldn't you use the AoO to "Body Slam"/ shove them off the edge of the walkway? What Maneuver would better simulate that?
Director of Game Design
|
Hmm.. currently, Combat Maneuvers should not be used as part of an AoO (despite any combat maneuver language issues). I made this change for two reasons...
The first was to streamline the turn sequence. AoO's are disruptive enough as they currently stand, but adding in a Combat Maneuver can easily bog things down.
The second was that I wanted to curtail the use of Combat Maneuvers as an "Action Denial" strategy. Now, I can understand why players like this strategy (its quite effective if done right), but when turned on the players, the game can quickly become no fun for anyone. Through the use of trip, disarm, and grapple, you can usually completely nullify an opponents planned action, or at least hamper it to the point of being insignificant. I am not 100% sure this is good for the game as a whole....
Of course, these are only my current thoughts on the issue.. I am, as always, open to debate and suggestion. Can anyone give me some actual playtest feedback on how this has affected play?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Ok if combat manuevers are not used to do "action Denial" Just take them out. What else are they?
If I can do some of the combat manuevers as part of a full attack action (even bull rushing with a shield with the right feats) why can't I figure out how to stick my leg out and trip the guy running past me?
IF the fighter is going to have any ability to "tank" he NEEDS these means to stop things from just running by him. Combat Manuevers as AoO's allow him the means to do so.
Otherwise running past a fighter is just a "measly" couple of hit points of damage. If he can trip me I would think twice about it becuase that means I will have to also spend time getting up. Could then be more worth my while to just deal with him. Which is the whole point of "tanking"
|
Hmm.. currently, Combat Maneuvers should not be used as part of an AoO (despite any combat maneuver language issues). I made this change for two reasons...
The first was to streamline the turn sequence. AoO's are disruptive enough as they currently stand, but adding in a Combat Maneuver can easily bog things down.
The second was that I wanted to curtail the use of Combat Maneuvers as an "Action Denial" strategy. Now, I can understand why players like this strategy (its quite effective if done right), but when turned on the players, the game can quickly become no fun for anyone. Through the use of trip, disarm, and grapple, you can usually completely nullify an opponents planned action, or at least hamper it to the point of being insignificant. I am not 100% sure this is good for the game as a whole....
Of course, these are only my current thoughts on the issue.. I am, as always, open to debate and suggestion. Can anyone give me some actual playtest feedback on how this has affected play?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Our regular group showed a bit of dismay when they were told their AoO's could not be used for maneuvers. Now, they've been pretty good about the use of these, not sso much as 'action denial' but honest strategy -- tripping an opponent who goes by, disarming someone of a scroll when they start to use one, etc.
If you want to curtail maneuvers, why not allow characters with improved trip/disarm/etc (or even greater trip/disarm/etc) to use them as attacks of opportunity? It would make those feats slighty more valuable to take ...
|
The second was that I wanted to curtail the use of Combat Maneuvers as an "Action Denial" strategy. Now, I can understand why players like this strategy (its quite effective if done right), but when turned on the players, the game can quickly become no fun for anyone. Through the use of trip, disarm, and grapple, you can usually completely nullify an opponents planned action, or at least hamper it to the point of being insignificant. I am not 100% sure this is good for the game as a whole....
It's my job as the DM to ensure that the game doesn't suck for the players by staying my hand on occasion. I'd allow them (as others have said - they are fun) and put your balance advice as a sidebar.
I want to mention - I agree with your points about flow and fairness, but I think an 'Allowed by default, with a warning for the DM' is the better option.
....Of course, these are only my current thoughts on the issue.. I am, as always, open to debate and suggestion. Can anyone give me some actual playtest feedback on how this has affected play?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I use the reference number 6 on Table 9-2 page 135, that basicaly mentions that "melee attack substitute" Maneuvers can be used as an attack of opportunity. So it's Disarm, Trip and Sunder that "are" allowed.
My group prefers having these options for attacks of opportunity, it allows for a situation where someone would otherwise be useless (ex.: Damage Reduction) to be usefull and adds value to some feat investements.
Thing we met: Triping (dismonting) a PC riding away from an ogre, Disarming an NPC caster's holy symbol (not successful from penalty), Sundering PC's bow used in melee.
If players know these options exist they actualy see attacks of opporunity as something other than "Potential loss of hit points" with a spellcaft roll for a caster.
For us it makes combat more dynamic and fun, please keep these options in.
|
Hmm.. currently, Combat Maneuvers should not be used as part of an AoO (despite any combat maneuver language issues). I made this change for two reasons...
The first was to streamline the turn sequence. AoO's are disruptive enough as they currently stand, but adding in a Combat Maneuver can easily bog things down.
The second was that I wanted to curtail the use of Combat Maneuvers as an "Action Denial" strategy. Now, I can understand why players like this strategy (its quite effective if done right), but when turned on the players, the game can quickly become no fun for anyone. Through the use of trip, disarm, and grapple, you can usually completely nullify an opponents planned action, or at least hamper it to the point of being insignificant. I am not 100% sure this is good for the game as a whole....
Of course, these are only my current thoughts on the issue.. I am, as always, open to debate and suggestion. Can anyone give me some actual playtest feedback on how this has affected play?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
i let my player use combat maneuers during AoO for a few reason... for example:
enemy is trying to make a run and they want him alive... i let them try to grapple or tripple him instead of just swinging the sword and killing him...
if an enemy fighter is trying to reach an area by passing next to everyone a sword swing might do some damage but not enough for him to care... but you could trip or bull rush him moving him awayfrom his path or ending his movement, saving a less powerful or more squishi character...
but in real life and fantasy fiction andmovies we can see that when the heroine fall in front of the villain he grabs her and uses her as a shield (grapple, the gnoll captain tried to do this when the bardess jumped toward him but got a 1 in the roll... so she fall close to him... he grabs her... but until his turn he wont be able to uses ehr as a shield... so the barbarian bull rushes both of them freeing the bardess and fighting desperately with the gnoll until his friends kill him... it was a great moment in the game and pretty funny)
also we can see many examples of an enemy charging toward a very vulnerable character just to be tripped by the roguish character, stopping his movement in the ground
this actions are AoO... an AoO should not just be "i hit him" but something fun that adds to the game instead of just the possibility to do more damage
|
|
I would allow them I've had Combat manurers used as Aoo in several of my games and I've never had it disrupt play at all. In fact they tend to speed up game play faster than regular AOO (Admittedly I do think that a char should have the appropriate feat to do it otherwise using something that normally provokes an attack of opportunity to stop an AOO can get strange. That and it stops the entire problem of every monster and its dog doing it to a player.)
Is everyone serious? I find AoO to be disruptive enough already, but when people are tripping, grappling, etc. during the monsters turn, things get a little crazy, and well, slooowwww.
If you want to be in position to do these other maneuvers, that is why they include readied actions in the game, and readied actions and delaying make things slow and complex enough. I also don't buy for a second the idea that fighters need to be able to do these things to stay relevant, or that "just damage" isn't VERY effective.
The only exception I would include is for folks with Improved Unarmed Strike. Due to the nature of that feat, I would say that if you are unarmed (or using a monk weapon) then you can pull off the fancy stuff.
As for playtesting... I've seen enough Enlarged spiked chain tripping to last a life time.
I also find AoO to be a bit ill defined. For example - can a zombie that is limited to a single action take an AoE?
|
|
It hasn't been stated, but the Barbarian's knockback rage power is used as an immediate action after you have successfully hit your opponent. Meaning that you could do a knockback after a successful AoO, and knockback is treated as a bullrush, with results varying on version of the power (either flat 5', or 5' + 5/5 over DC.)
Fiendishly, I realize that two barbarian's with combat reflexes, imp & greater bullrush, and the knockback power could seriously hurt a runner if positioned to bounce him between them. Sure each one can only bounce once, but the first barb gets two aoo and the second barb gets one he wasn't going to get, and the poor orc is a thick slimy paste.
|
|
It hasn't been stated, but the Barbarian's knockback rage power is used as an immediate action after you have successfully hit your opponent. Meaning that you could do a knockback after a successful AoO, and knockback is treated as a bullrush, with results varying on version of the power (either flat 5', or 5' + 5/5 over DC.)
Fiendishly, I realize that two barbarian's with combat reflexes, imp & greater bullrush, and the knockback power could seriously hurt a runner if positioned to bounce him between them. Sure each one can only bounce once, but the first barb gets two aoo and the second barb gets one he wasn't going to get, and the poor orc is a thick slimy paste.
and that friends... is called tag team
and after the 1st time the players use it make sure to repeat the same tactitc with some npcs vs the players :Dthat will showthe dangers of teaching monsters new tactics
actually i preffer AoO than delay action... yes the quick witted person who ahs a 20 has to delay his action to seeif he is needed... that is ust lame
but doing like old 2nd ed is too lenghtly (smaller intiative declared what was goind then theonewith higher could reac) its a lot more realist but to problematic and tedius...
but using a Combat Stunt or Maneuver during AoO is ok in my book... makes combat dynamic and fun
just remember... the monsters can do the same... i showed them theo option ehen theorc pretended to grab a PC as a shield...
If you want to be in position to do these other maneuvers, that is why they include readied actions in the game, and readied actions and delaying make things slow and complex enough.
If readied actions make things slow and complex, why should they be required to pull this sort of thing off? How would Maneuvers slow things down compared to a Melee Attack? They are no longer two separate Opposed rolls, so it's just making one roll vs. a DC like Melee vs. AC (and I'm suggesting it be treated as just that, an Attack vs. "Maneuver AC")
The only exception I would include is for folks with Improved Unarmed Strike. Due to the nature of that feat, I would say that if you are unarmed (or using a monk weapon) then you can pull off the fancy stuff.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Why should Improved Unarmed allow you to "pull off the fancy stuff" and Trip someone as an AoO, but having Improved Trip and a Trip-capable Weapon NOT allow you to do the same thing? There's certainly no argument for one "slowing or complicating the game".
I also find AoO to be a bit ill defined. For example - can a zombie that is limited to a single action take an AoE?
If the Zombie is limited to "one standard action or move action per round", then they would NOT get AoO's since it's disallowing EVERYTHING except one standard/move action (unless they hadn't acted on their turn)
I agree that this could definitely be clarified.
"power is used as an immediate action after you have successfully hit your opponent"
Don't forget that you can only use actions (of any kind) on your own turn.
Immediate Actions are explictly defined to be activated AT ANY TIME:
they just consume your next Swift Action (or can be used AS your Swift Action)
(I have a Barbarian PC I'm playing in a Beta Playtest, so I'm motivated to know how this works :-)
I know that it shouldn't take much more time, but for me, the trip-him-back attempt causing a readied action thing slows me down as a DM. I think it will be better once the rules are settled, but for me the game runs a little smoother when there are less interruptions to the players or monsters actions. AoO is an important part of the game, but the more options you allow, the greater the affect of the interruption on the flow of combat.
Your right about the actions. Sorry for my confusion.
I feel that a monk type (like Bruce Lee) should have a certain quickness that a guy with a big pole arm, scythe, or spiked chain just lacks. Both could deliver a powerful trip while keeping their guard up, but the monk could do it a little quicker. The monk able to use any body part to attack, that also makes me think they could get in cmb where others could not..
PS In the case of the zombie AoO- While it is an attack, an AoO is not defined as an action anywhere, so is not specifically forbidden.
|
|
I feel that a monk type (like Bruce Lee) should have a certain quickness that a guy with a big pole arm, scythe, or spiked chain just lacks. Both could deliver a powerful trip while keeping their guard up, but the monk could do it a little quicker. The monk able to use any body part to attack, that also makes me think they could get in cmb where others could not..
i disagree, people trained in the use of weapons can react as fast as a Monk... for the example check Jackie Chang or other Martial Artis confronting enemies with or without weapons (oki know i amusing "monk's" examples... but we have less examples with other weapons, also not everyone of them would count as monks... many would be fighters)
but the fact that a guy pass running ebsides you and you have a polearm, it should be as easy to let the blade fall over his ehad than just move the pole between his legs so he trips... or instead of hitting him in the torso with the same weapon you hit the legs
same movment, different focus...
i understand your worry that mechanically it might slow NPCs
i believe that giving the game a cinematic feeling and making the combat dynamic is a lot more enjoyable for the players... and after last Sunday i believe my players agree.
also... i believe that giving that option ONLY to monks or people with Improved unarmed strike (that has les reach than said polearm) is not only unfair but unrealistic.
|
Director of Game Design
|
So, I want to be clear on one thing. I think action denial is fine as long as it is part of a character's turn or readied action. Allowing it as part of an AoO is what causes problems. It slows down the turn to a crawl, as the GM/players then have to decide/adjudicate what else can be done with the rest of the character's turn.
I am not 100% against it, but it makes the game a bit more complex when the out of sequence actions can be one of a host of options, instead of one simple choice.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
So, I want to be clear on one thing. I think action denial is fine as long as it is part of a character's turn or readied action. Allowing it as part of an AoO is what causes problems. It slows down the turn to a crawl, as the GM/players then have to decide/adjudicate what else can be done with the rest of the character's turn.
I am not 100% against it, but it makes the game a bit more complex when the out of sequence actions can be one of a host of options, instead of one simple choice.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
i agree
but i prefer that me as DM and my players have the choice of thatinstead of "no sorry, i know its logical you could just put your foot in front of him so he will trip, but the rules say you can only hit him with your sword... no i understand you don't want to kill him, just stop him... hey are you going to roll your AoO or not? anyway the guys goes running"
that is what i feel when i am told AoO is nothing but an attack, and at least for our group when they used it for a Combat Maneuver it went smootly
but we let you tinkering and hope ofr the best
Our regular group showed a bit of dismay when they were told their AoO's could not be used for maneuvers. Now, they've been pretty good about the use of these, not sso much as 'action denial' but honest strategy -- tripping an opponent who goes by, disarming someone of a scroll when they start to use one, etc.
Not to mention sundering a potion vial when an opponent tries to drink a potion (which is specifically mentioned in the rules).
Frankly, I think most of the issues with maneuver "abuse" are related to tripping (which is generally harder to do now, anyways). That's no reason to punish sunder and disarm as well.
|
|
So, I want to be clear on one thing. I think action denial is fine as long as it is part of a character's turn or readied action. Allowing it as part of an AoO is what causes problems. It slows down the turn to a crawl, as the GM/players then have to decide/adjudicate what else can be done with the rest of the character's turn.
I am not 100% against it, but it makes the game a bit more complex when the out of sequence actions can be one of a host of options, instead of one simple choice.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think using the maneuvers are more streamlined than they've ever been.
Take for example trip: Old way - you roll a "touch attack, if hit, then each person rolls Str check. if you succeed (and have Imp Trip) you can then make attack to do damage. If you fail, roll a second opposed check."
now: roll 1 d20 (no different from AoO to do damage). If successful, person on ground. If fail, person no on ground. If fail by too much, you on ground. No damage rolled. IN fact its quicker to resolve than an AoO to do damage.
I feel very passionately for the sake of fun and more clever combat to allow AoOs to use maneuvers not requiring movement. Sunder, Disarm, Trip, Knockback, are all more than viable alternatives to just doing damage.
I can't count the number of times someone with a lot of hit points merely ignored the notion he might take a little damage to take on the attack of opp regardless. With maneuvers as options, this makes the "welcoming of an attack of Opp" by someone who feels invincible to it.
I really don't see it slowing down combat any more than rolling an attack and then rolling/adding damage; thanks in large part by your design team in coming up with an alternative to opposed rolls and touch attacks first.
Robert
If you want to curtail maneuvers, why not allow characters with improved trip/disarm/etc (or even greater trip/disarm/etc) to use them as attacks of opportunity? It would make those feats slighty more valuable to take ...
I like that. Allow them to be attacks of opportunity only for those who took the feat.
So, I want to be clear on one thing. I think action denial is fine as long as it is part of a character's turn or readied action. Allowing it as part of an AoO is what causes problems. It slows down the turn to a crawl, as the GM/players then have to decide/adjudicate what else can be done with the rest of the character's turn.
I am not 100% against it, but it makes the game a bit more complex when the out of sequence actions can be one of a host of options, instead of one simple choice.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Not being able to use these various actions as an AoO just seems like taking choice out of the game. I'd rather have the choice there and let the DM rule it away if they don't want it.
To me the game is about choices...not limitations.
|
|
In order to prevent it getting out of hand, the suggestion upthread of adding it as an option for those who've taken the appropriate Improved Manoeuvre feat.
That would a) Improve the power of those feats,
b) as it's feat based boost the Fighter more than other classes
c) limit the abuse as you'd have to have invested some resources to get the benefit so every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't get it
d) give more options in combat
e) make combat more interesting (which I know is another word for complicated but anything that breaks the "I hit him, he hits me" paradigm is good with me)
f) actually makes guarding possible. At the moment, monsters can just run past the fighter, take the hit and chow down on the squishies.
So that's a lot of positives, to my mind. It would make things slightly more complicated, but hardly much more as the manouvres have been simplified.
|
|
Hmm.. currently, Combat Maneuvers should not be used as part of an AoO (despite any combat maneuver language issues). I made this change for two reasons...
The first was to streamline the turn sequence. AoO's are disruptive enough as they currently stand, but adding in a Combat Maneuver can easily bog things down.
The second was that I wanted to curtail the use of Combat Maneuvers as an "Action Denial" strategy. Now, I can understand why players like this strategy (its quite effective if done right), but when turned on the players, the game can quickly become no fun for anyone. Through the use of trip, disarm, and grapple, you can usually completely nullify an opponents planned action, or at least hamper it to the point of being insignificant. I am not 100% sure this is good for the game as a whole....
Of course, these are only my current thoughts on the issue.. I am, as always, open to debate and suggestion. Can anyone give me some actual playtest feedback on how this has affected play?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingOur regular group showed a bit of dismay when they were told their AoO's could not be used for maneuvers. Now, they've been pretty good about the use of these, not sso much as 'action denial' but honest strategy -- tripping an opponent who goes by, disarming someone of a scroll when they start to use one, etc.
If you want to curtail maneuvers, why not allow characters with improved trip/disarm/etc (or even greater trip/disarm/etc) to use them as attacks of opportunity? It would make those feats slighty more valuable to take ...
... yet without making them "overpowered". A great idea! I definitely vote for this "tweak". :)
(and, you are right -- it would feel silly if nobody could ever try to disarm/trip as a reaction to someone else's action)
|
|
Like Robert said above, AoO is rarely anything to worry about for a well armored high hp character. I cannot tell you how many times I took an AoO in order to get to a better position. I took the attack simply because, first they have to manage to hit me, and second, they are VERY unlikely t do enough damage to bother me at all.
Adding maneuvers to AoOs means that combat becomes MUCH more dynamic. In essence it finally makes an AoO mean something.
Now I can see not allowing grappling and bullrushing as these are full attack actions.
I would advocate developing these into a feat tree (Yes I know everyone hates more feats but it solves both problems and allows players to customize toward certain goals). Greater Maneuver feats could allow these maneuvers to be used as AoOs. This way not every single fighter, monk, barbarian, paladin, ranger and rogue will be tripping as AoOs. It would more likely be fighters who have more feats to use. This also allows fighters to "tank" which is essentially denying the enemy movement and actions.
|
|
So, I want to be clear on one thing. I think action denial is fine as long as it is part of a character's turn or readied action. Allowing it as part of an AoO is what causes problems. It slows down the turn to a crawl, as the GM/players then have to decide/adjudicate what else can be done with the rest of the character's turn.
I am not 100% against it, but it makes the game a bit more complex when the out of sequence actions can be one of a host of options, instead of one simple choice.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Again all I can say is I find allowing them to use certain combat manurers as AoO actually speed combat up and I would much rather players used that than readied actions (since a ready action is not specified you can have occasions were a player decides to change what he was going to do in response to what is happening whereas an AoO is an on the spot decision). Also as mentioned earlier if you make it a rule that you can only do it of you have the appropriate feat ie improve disarm, improved trip ect. You wont just have every character and/or monster doing it every five seconds.
|
|
... yet without making them "overpowered". A great idea! I definitely vote for this "tweak". :)(and, you are right -- it would feel silly if nobody could ever try to disarm/trip as a reaction to someone else's action)
I'll concede - if allowing AoOs to do maneuvers for those who have the Improved feats is adopted it's far better than not allowing them at all.
Furthermore, if you make an AoO as a maneuver and you don't have the imp feat, your AoO now provokes an AoO and now it just gets silly.
So perhaps limiting the AoOs as maneuvers that you have feats to substantiate it is the way to go.
Robert
|
|
Now I can see not allowing grappling and bullrushing as these are full attack actions.
what if said character falls prone in front or besides you and is trying to stand? *grab* next round i will try to grapple or pin him into a human shield! :D at least for a retreating enemy is useful... i applied this and it worked fine... except the barbarian bullrushed in his turn mygnoll before he had his meatshield in proper place.
I would advocate developing these into a feat tree (Yes I know everyone hates more feats but it solves both problems and allows players to customize toward certain goals). Greater Maneuver feats could allow these maneuvers to be used as AoOs. This way not every single fighter, monk, barbarian, paladin, ranger and rogue will be tripping as AoOs. It would more likely be fighters who have more feats to use. This also allows fighters to "tank" which is essentially denying the enemy movement and actions.
i would prefer not feats... why? because then it is not a real option for anyone except the fighter... you will be adding just for themage as someone above would add optionsonly for the monk
i think that if its an option of attack you can do it, ok maybe you have a -2 because you do it rushing and not prepared for it... and only able to do it 100% right if you have the feat
please, more options, but not for a single class.
EDIT: i think its just a matter of dynamism and cinematic...
when you would try to trip an enemy more? when he is standing on guard, looking at you and getting ready to stab you? or when he passes running by your side, either running away from combat or trying to charge into your ward?
maybe what we need is some logic in how theycan be used
for example i won't try a trip if someone is drinking a potion, but i might try to "disarm" him
while i believe in common sense, other would need guidelines for what could or could not be done, we just want the freedom of the rules to make combat much more than just 'tactical-combat-in-a-mat'
I've seen these used from time to time, and I have had one very strategic player that liked options like this, and I think this would be a major turn off for him (in fact, I hadn't noticed it, and I'm pretty sure he used these a few times during out Alpha tests).
I really get the feeling that between the simplification of combat maneuvers in general, and the change to trip (i.e. no automatic attacks when someone is tripped), that this change really isn't needed.
Currently, the section maked “Making an Attack of Opportunity” on page 133 refers to a single melee attack being an option. Should not Combat Maneuvers be possible under an AOO?
I thought Combat Maneuvers still fell under the "melee" category (they're certainly not ranged), why wouldn't they be allowed?
Again rule zero... if it doesn't contradict common sense, adds to a session's fun, and it's not explicitly forbidden...
I thought Combat Maneuvers still fell under the "melee" category (they're certainly not ranged), why wouldn't they be allowed?
Again rule zero... if it doesn't contradict common sense, adds to a session's fun, and it's not explicitly forbidden...
But, Jason, in this very thread, mentioned that the intention was indeed to disallow combat maneuvers, even those that only take up an "attack," to be substituted for an attack when an opponent provokes an AoO.
|
|
Jason, in this very thread, mentioned that the intention was indeed to disallow combat maneuvers, even those that only take up an "attack," to be substituted for an attack when an opponent provokes an AoO.
I would like to state that I am in favor of allowing trip, disarm, and sunder to be used as an AoO. I do not believe that this is game unbalancing considering the difficulty increase Pathfinder has given all Combat Maneuvers. I also do not feel that it bogs down combat. A CMB is simply 1 d20 roll. An attack is a D20 roll and a damage roll. Now I understand how it can make a sad panda out of the guy who was going to drink that sundered potion or charge past the barbarian instead of falling down next to him but all of these outcomes are logically very likely in combat. AGAIN 15+opponents CMB seems to already do a good job keeping CMBs from automatically succeeding (as I feel grapple is for high STR/Base Attack chars in 3.5)
and that friends... is called tag team
and after the 1st time the players use it make sure to repeat the same tactitc with some npcs vs the players :Dthat will showthe dangers of teaching monsters new tactics
My players learned that lesson in my Age of Worms game. They used the same tactics so much that an opponent specificly faced them with the means to counter their tactics. He effectively shut down two PCs and force the group to fight his kind of battle. The players won, but they learn the lesson and changed you their tactics (which was my way telling them they were heading for a TPK because they were getting cocky).
Choppity chop chop
If you want to curtail maneuvers, why not allow characters with improved trip/disarm/etc (or even greater trip/disarm/etc) to use them as attacks of opportunity? It would make those feats slighty more valuable to take ...
Yes please. As a "tank" the ability to deny movement is critical to party safety, most criticaly at low levels before things like flight, etc become available. Even if a feat is needed to allow this. This will also make those feats more "valuable".
I too want more options so put my vote in for adding the ability to use maneuvers with opportunity attacks if the Imp. Maneuver feats are taken in order to avoid the provocation chains and make the feats a little more meaty. I'm not particular where in the chain the ability should land, but I'd like the option available for those maneuvers that aren't' full round actions.
Action denial and fighters being able to tank are aspects I want added to combat even if the players may get the short end of the exchange sometimes in the trade offs. I think such things encourage excitement and energy at the table.
If not feats, as some suggest this would put the option solely in the realm of fighter types, then something that allows the option for the cinematic of situations then just a boff on the head when you can't ready an action.
--------------------------
An example options for opportunity attacks that hasn't been mentioned thus far is setting spears against charges. I've rarely seen it happen in my games because the initiative mechanic. Either the target has readied the action before the charge (so you don't charge) or your target's initiative is after yours and therefore gets run over after a possible bonk on the head. To me setting a spear fits the provoked opportunity attack mechanic perfectly in that specific situation.
In order to prevent it getting out of hand, the suggestion upthread of adding it as an option for those who've taken the appropriate Improved Manoeuvre feat.
Agreed on all points.
As a DM, I have had a nunmber of situation were a PC have been willing to run past an opponent just because it is hp damage and the cleric can fix that on his turn.
At the same time, I have had PCs complain that they cannot effectively block an opponent from getting to an important NPC.
Allowing for some option of this is far better than not allowing it.
I'm all for allowing CMB during an AoO.
1} It is far, far easier for a DM to convince his players that an action he considers unfair/unbalanced/difficult is banned than it is for any number of players to convince their DM that something that is written as forbidden should be allowed.
2} Rule simplicity dictates fewer exceptions should be sought. Players know about these need CMB thingies and they're absolutely thought of as attacks. Having AoO be melee attacks except this special kind of attack is counter-intuitive. Players will assume it's allowed because it makes sense.
3} Faith in the system. Either CMB is simple or it isn't. In our playtests, it's reasonably simple though some wording should be worked on. It's basically as fast as a melee attack because that's really what it is.
4} It's more fun. If a player has invested in a feat to let him grapple and a caster enemy decides to provoke and cast... let the player grab the caster.
I'm all for allowing CMB during an AoO.
1} It is far, far easier for a DM to convince his players that an action he considers unfair/unbalanced/difficult is banned than it is for any number of players to convince their DM that something that is written as forbidden should be allowed.
2} Rule simplicity dictates fewer exceptions should be sought. Players know about these need CMB thingies and they're absolutely thought of as attacks. Having AoO be melee attacks except this special kind of attack is counter-intuitive. Players will assume it's allowed because it makes sense.
3} Faith in the system. Either CMB is simple or it isn't. In our playtests, it's reasonably simple though some wording should be worked on. It's basically as fast as a melee attack because that's really what it is.
4} It's more fun. If a player has invested in a feat to let him grapple and a caster enemy decides to provoke and cast... let the player grab the caster.
Certainly you already stated every point I could have mentioned, all I can say is.... my thoughts exactly.
|
|
Certainly you already stated every point I could have mentioned, all I can say is.... my thoughts exactly.I'm all for allowing CMB during an AoO.
1} It is far, far easier for a DM to convince his players that an action he considers unfair/unbalanced/difficult is banned than it is for any number of players to convince their DM that something that is written as forbidden should be allowed.
2} Rule simplicity dictates fewer exceptions should be sought. Players know about these need CMB thingies and they're absolutely thought of as attacks. Having AoO be melee attacks except this special kind of attack is counter-intuitive. Players will assume it's allowed because it makes sense.
3} Faith in the system. Either CMB is simple or it isn't. In our playtests, it's reasonably simple though some wording should be worked on. It's basically as fast as a melee attack because that's really what it is.
4} It's more fun. If a player has invested in a feat to let him grapple and a caster enemy decides to provoke and cast... let the player grab the caster.
i agree
i agreeCertainly you already stated every point I could have mentioned, all I can say is.... my thoughts exactly.I'm all for allowing CMB during an AoO.
1} It is far, far easier for a DM to convince his players that an action he considers unfair/unbalanced/difficult is banned than it is for any number of players to convince their DM that something that is written as forbidden should be allowed.
2} Rule simplicity dictates fewer exceptions should be sought. Players know about these need CMB thingies and they're absolutely thought of as attacks. Having AoO be melee attacks except this special kind of attack is counter-intuitive. Players will assume it's allowed because it makes sense.
3} Faith in the system. Either CMB is simple or it isn't. In our playtests, it's reasonably simple though some wording should be worked on. It's basically as fast as a melee attack because that's really what it is.
4} It's more fun. If a player has invested in a feat to let him grapple and a caster enemy decides to provoke and cast... let the player grab the caster.
Just wanted to chime in with an opinion, and there it is - I agree. My players almost got mad at me when I told them that they couldn't trip the running bad guy anymore with an AoO... =)
...
Furthermore, if you make an AoO as a maneuver and you don't have the imp feat, your AoO now provokes an AoO and now it just gets silly.
So perhaps limiting the AoOs as maneuvers that you have feats to substantiate it is the way to go.
Robert
Just to be clear as to my use of CMs as AoO: I allow them when the CMs doesn't cause AoO themselves, i.e.: The attacker as reach, the victims isn't threatening (no melee weapon in hand) or the attacker as an Improved CM feat.