Specifically, roll a 17, get +1 to damage, roll an 18, get +2 to damage, roll a 19, get a minor effect like distract, move past, or knock back, roll a 20 get a major effect like disarm, stun, and impair. Roll a 1 something bad happens.
Is this unbalanced? How far away from the normal CMB-CMD system would it pull things?
I think this would be a pretty major change. Firstly, it would put the emphasis entirely on die roll, so combat specialist classes would gain no additional advantage compared to non-combatant ones.
Secondly, it overlooks the problem that the CMB/D system was put in place for: how to handle when a player wants to do something other than swing a weapon. In 3.0/5 that was a bit of a mess at times trying to resolve grapples, sunders, disarms, trips, and so on since each had their own individual equations and systems. CMB/D was an attempt to unify it into one simple system.
With what you're talking about, would you just say "I'm trying to trip the orc" then roll a d20, where a 20 means you trip it, a 1 means you fall, and 18-19 means you do it damage but fail to trip?
If I'm understanding correctly the way it was explained, I think it's an automatic bonus in the same way a crit would be. You attack, and if you roll a 20, you get to trip them as well as damage them. Not sure how defending against a trip would work though.
It can cause problems and cause immersion issues for some. Why woyld you want to do this?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that this change removes player agency even though you are potentially adding to what the class can do.
What the player can do is full attack and hope to roll high. This change doesn't let the player do things, it lets the player's dice do things.
It can cause problems and cause immersion issues for some. Why woyld you want to do this?
Why?
1. Saw it in Numenera rules and it looked cool.2. To cut down on math.
3. CMB and CMD seem to be used very infrequently. More trips, holds, pushes, disarms, etc, would make combat more interesting.
Why not?
1. Seems almost too easy. (You roll a 20. Would you like to trip the dragon?)
2. An itchy feeling in the back of my mind that maybe it'll mess up more than it fixes, and I should go ask someone to be sure.
What kind of problems are you referring to?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suddenly, swarms of low level critters become perma-stun death machines!
Suddenly, swarms of low level critters become perma-stun death machines!
Wouldn't they already be ultra-crit death machines though?
It can cause problems and cause immersion issues for some. Why woyld you want to do this?Why?
1. Saw it in Numenera rules and it looked cool.
2. To cut down on math.
3. CMB and CMD seem to be used very infrequently. More trips, holds, pushes, disarms, etc, would make combat more interesting.
1. Numenera has an entirely different ruleset. Raw porting of this mechanics is really bad.
2. 1d20+cmb vs cmd doesn't seem to be a huge math thing. You actually don't cut anything, because a to hit roll involve just as much math as a cmd vs cmb.3. Partially true, only until players get the improved maneuver feats.
Why not?
1. Seems almost too easy. (You roll a 20. Would you like to trip the dragon?)
2. An itchy feeling in the back of my mind that maybe it'll mess up more than it fixes, and I should go ask someone to be sure.
1. I wonder. You want to get something like "roll high, do stuff" without limitations? A dragon cannot be tripped if you don't match the max size difference allowed. Otherwise you heavily break the suspension of disbelieve.
2. As others noted, you literally nullify maneuver specialist with this method.
1. I wonder. You want to get something like "roll high, do stuff" without limitations?
I think this is the key for me as to whether this mechanic can/should be borrowed. Somehow need to slap a scaling penalty on it, a very heavy penalty in some cases (like to trip a dragon).
CMB and CMD seem to be used very infrequently. More trips, holds, pushes, disarms, etc, would make combat more interesting.
If you want to see them used more often, eliminate the requirement to have a feat in order to attempt them without eating an attack of opportunity. One common approach I've heard described here is "you only suffer an AoO if you fail". Considering you need to invest feats in each maneuver you want to try, it's a prohibitive system currently.
Another reason you might see them used infrequently is that they lose effectiveness against many types of opponents. Trip, for example, is worthless against multi-legged foes, sepentine foes, flying foes, and others. If you allow it more function, it'll see more use. Maybe "tripping" a flying foe makes it lose altitude. Maybe "disarm" can be used to disable natural attacks for a few rounds. Maybe with each "improved" and "greater" feat, you can use size restricted maneuvers on bigger foes. Stuff like that.
Lastly, it can be a matter of example. If all the players see is full attacks from enemies, they might not realise that there are other options. Show them. Have some monsters use maneuvers, and give your players a taste of tactical thinking.
Remind me to load up on abilities that let me reroll a d20 under this system. I can then hit my enemies with more disarms/stuns/trips/bull rushes than the big dumb fighter, the master of combat.
I think this is the key for me as to whether this mechanic can/should be borrowed. Somehow need to slap a scaling penalty on it, a very heavy penalty in some cases (like to trip a dragon).
1. I wonder. You want to get something like "roll high, do stuff" without limitations?
Basically, you can't possibily trip a thing that is like a building size while you're an average human size. Nor you can easily grapple him, or drag. I think that if it's "roll 20 = effect" you can't add up penalties. Unless you make impossible do certain things. Or let the player decide the effect. But really, PF it's really different from numenera.
If you want to see them used more often, eliminate the requirement to have a feat in order to attempt them without eating an attack of opportunity. One common approach I've heard described here is "you only suffer an AoO if you fail". Considering you need to invest feats in each maneuver you want to try, it's a prohibitive system currently.
I wouldn't eliminate AoO. I rather get rid off of power attack/combat expertise as requisite feats. The concept behind the aoo if you don't have the iproved version is that you can try, but since you don't have specific training, it's more difficult. Remember that the aoo damage is added as penalty at your attempt. If you go on with the "you get aoo only if you fail", I think you should add something to give some "counterattack". Else it would be really too easy use the combat maneuvers.
Another reason you might see them used infrequently is that they lose effectiveness against many types of opponents. Trip, for example, is worthless against multi-legged foes, sepentine foes, flying foes, and others. If you allow it more function, it'll see more use. Maybe "tripping" a flying foe makes it lose altitude. Maybe "disarm" can be used to disable natural attacks for a few rounds. Maybe with each "improved" and "greater" feat, you can use size restricted maneuvers on bigger foes. Stuff like that.
Thast could be an interesting modification. With a bit of tuning could be great.
Lastly, it can be a matter of example. If all the players see is full attacks from enemies, they might not realise that there are other options. Show them. Have some monsters use maneuvers, and give your players a taste of tactical thinking.
Especially wolves with free trip and monsters with free grab. Try to use them in combo, and enjoy.
If you want to see them used more often, eliminate the requirement to have a feat in order to attempt them without eating an attack of opportunity. One common approach I've heard described here is "you only suffer an AoO if you fail". Considering you need to invest feats in each maneuver you want to try, it's a prohibitive system currently.I wouldn't eliminate AoO. I rather get rid off of power attack/combat expertise as requisite feats. The concept behind the aoo if you don't have the iproved version is that you can try, but since you don't have specific training, it's more difficult. Remember that the aoo damage is added as penalty at your attempt. If you go on with the "you get aoo only if you fail", I think you should add something to give some "counterattack". Else it would be really too easy use the combat maneuvers.
The problem with requiring the feats to prevent AoO, and the penalties that applies, is that it discourages maneuvers unless you plan to use them often enough to justify a feat. Given the declining returns of maneuvers, this is generally a poor investment unless you're playing a low-levels only game (in which case, limited number of feats would be an issue). Perhaps a single feat that eliminates AoO for attempting any maneuver would be worth it, but requiring a feat for each maneuver individually serves only to help guarantee that maneuvers go overlooked and unused.
The problem with requiring the feats to prevent AoO, and the penalties that applies, is that it discourages maneuvers unless you plan to use them often enough to justify a feat. Given the declining returns of maneuvers, this is generally a poor investment unless you're playing a low-levels only game (in which case, limited number of feats would be an issue). Perhaps a single feat that eliminates AoO for attempting any maneuver would be worth it, but requiring a feat for each maneuver individually serves only to help guarantee that maneuvers go overlooked and unused.If you want to see them used more often, eliminate the requirement to have a feat in order to attempt them without eating an attack of opportunity. One common approach I've heard described here is "you only suffer an AoO if you fail". Considering you need to invest feats in each maneuver you want to try, it's a prohibitive system currently.I wouldn't eliminate AoO. I rather get rid off of power attack/combat expertise as requisite feats. The concept behind the aoo if you don't have the iproved version is that you can try, but since you don't have specific training, it's more difficult. Remember that the aoo damage is added as penalty at your attempt. If you go on with the "you get aoo only if you fail", I think you should add something to give some "counterattack". Else it would be really too easy use the combat maneuvers.
Indeed. The AoO and penalty equal to damage mean that there are only a few corner cases where it's ever a smart move to use a maneuver you don't have the feats for. I have played and GMed in a fair number of games, and never seen my players invest in combat maneuvers—nobody likes to invest a lot of their feats into a feat chain that becomes useless against many common enemy types.
It can cause problems and cause immersion issues for some. Why woyld you want to do this?Why?
1. Saw it in Numenera rules and it looked cool.
2. To cut down on math.
3. CMB and CMD seem to be used very infrequently. More trips, holds, pushes, disarms, etc, would make combat more interesting.Why not?
1. Seems almost too easy. (You roll a 20. Would you like to trip the dragon?)
2. An itchy feeling in the back of my mind that maybe it'll mess up more than it fixes, and I should go ask someone to be sure.What kind of problems are you referring to?
A gnome knocking a colossal creature down is one example, and even doing it to a smaller creature by accident will not happen 5% of the time. Takedowns are not easy to do, even by trained martial artist. Now supposedly anyone can trip anyone else despite their martial skill or lack there of. CMB, and CMD are represent that skill.
The same also goes for stunning. Some things should be attempted, and not just accidental happening.
I checked Numenera's rules again. Looks like rolling a nat 19 is supposed to reduce difficulty by 3 for a round, and rolling a nat 20 is supposed to reduce difficulty by 3 for the rest of the encounter. A lot of GM/player negotiation involved, looks like. So no tripping dragons, but maybe something else that lowers AC by 3 or increases attack by 3.
I think it could work, but needs an active thinking GM instead of just autotrip or auto whatever on the roll.
Maybe the high roll represents an opening in the fight created by the player's dazzling moves, giving him enough time to kick or shove or what have you.
Sorry for the Necro'ing the thread. I found some very relevant info, and wanted to add it in case anyone was searching for an answer to the same problem:
From the Quick Primer to Old School Gaming:
"It’s also your job to inject events from outside the rules during combat. “You rolled a 1. Your sword goes flying.” “You rolled a 1. You trip and fall.” “You rolled a 1. Your sword sticks into a crack in the floor.” “Hey, you rolled a 20. You spin around and gain an extra attack.” Hey, you rolled a 20. You slay the orc, kick his body off your sword, and blood spatters into the eyes of one of the orcs behind him. He’s not getting an attack this round.” “Hey, you rolled a 20. You knock his sword out of his hand even though you didn’t do enough damage to kill him.” That’s just a set of examples for the various ways you could handle natural rolls of 1 or 20. Each result is different, and none of them were official – you just made them up out of nowhere. You’re being consistent – the high and low rolls always generate a good or bad result – but exactly what happens is pretty much a matter of you deciding what seems realistic, or really fun."
So the idea has a lot of history, but is one that has been moved away from in recent editions. More active DMing, less being tied to a specific rule.
Suddenly, swarms of low level critters become perma-stun death machines!Wouldn't they already be ultra-crit death machines though?
No, because of confirmation rolls. You would need to enforce a similar roll in your system to make it not ridiculous... at which point, why not just use CMD/CMB?
Having 1 do something spectacularly bad ('your sword goes flying') is just as awful. In this case, as you rise in level and skill, gaining more attacks over time, you become increasingly more likely to fumble.
|
I've always used fumble rules in home games. They work exactly like criticals. Roll a 1, roll again to confirm. If your confirmation attack misses then its a fumble. Fumbling provoke an ao.
As to having rolling high do some random maneuver I think that's a terrible idea. The rules should support player's choices, not limit them. If a character says I want to grab the chandelier rope swing on it and kick the villain off the balcony I can say great, roll a cmb check. There should always be rules like that to support player creativity, not to stifle or streamline into random rolling.