| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A house rule for dynamic combat
In this variant, every attack action has an accompanying maneuver, declared before the attack roll. If the attack roll exceeds the target's AC, the attack hits and deals damage as normal. If the same attack roll exceeds the CMD of target, the accompanying maneuver is successful. Any modifiers that the attacker has to perform the given maneuver are applied only against the CMD.
Executing a maneuver with an attack in this manner does not incur an attack of opportunity. All maneuvers are subject to their listed limitations, action cost and behaviors. You may still choose to perform a maneuver without a damaging attack, in which case use the rules as-written.
Big and little creatures: Creatures of a size other than medium apply a modifier before checking if the manuever was successful. This modifier is equal to: size modifier to AC x 2. (This is mechanically the same as replacing a standard attack with a CMB roll with the same modifiers.)
The objective of this variant rule is to encourage the frequent use of maneuvers, and to create combats that feel more chaotic and brutal.
Please discuss your opinions at length, but remember: it's just a house rule!
The gist of this rule is that I want combat to be more dynamic, with each attack creating visible consequences on the battlefield. As with a battle in the game Soul Calibur or similar, I want to see people hacking at legs with their sword to trip, stabbing through forearms to disarm, and dragging people across the ground to deal extra damage. Hence the title: brutal.
I fully understand that this is not for everyone. I am certainly not of the mind that this rule variant should replace the rules as they are now, nor do I think anything is really broken about the PF rules.
I do think I want more brutality in melee combat in the games I run.
I like the concept - with the cave-at that I don't like that you can use maneuvers without penalty without the associated feat.
I'd suggest that the effective CMB is calculated at -4 unless the attacker also has the associated "Improved [Maneuver]" feat (in which case he obviously gets the +2 he so richly deserves).
I like the concept - with the cave-at that I don't like that you can use maneuvers without penalty without the associated feat.
I'd suggest that the effective CMB is calculated at -4 unless the attacker also has the associated "Improved [Maneuver]" feat (in which case he obviously gets the +2 he so richly deserves).
Ah, yes. Your desire to increase the frequency of maneuvers is less extreme than mine, and therefore you make a great suggestion for those who feel the same.
For my part, I don't view it as "using maneuvers without penalty". I see it as "removing the option to NOT use a maneuver, and letting maneuvers deal normal damage."
You'll notice, the first post is worded to remove the option of a "vanilla" attack entirely. It is not possible to "stand and whack", you have to qualify your attack somehow.
Do you swing at his legs? Try to drive him backward? Do you try to circle around him? Hack at his shield or armor? Go for the eyes? No matter which you choose, you're still as likely as a normal attack to deal HP damage, so there's no reason not to get a little descriptive.
That is my favorite part, although I understand it is not for everyone, and more moderate (but less brutal) takes on this idea are completely valid.
I think that would work in a gameworld where there is no casters, Zero. Casters would be at a huge disadvantage unless you let them recalculate there CMB and CMD with their choice of stats. But this would almost normalize combat manuevers.
Or you could let full BAB players need more experience to gain levels than casters, like first edition.
Or you could enforce average hit points round down. Then stop them from gaining hit points past 10th level. I think this would be a more dramatic effect, crits, manuevers, arrows, spells would all be much more dangerous. So 5 players level 15 fighting cr 18 encounter with level 10 hit points.
Dotted.
double dotted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Red-Assassin, I'm not sure that this would leave the casters too badly off. Some can end fights in a couple of rounds and they always have an answer to everything once they get past a certain level.
Early on, it's a huge boost to the already powerful melee classes, but really, a caster who gets manoeuvred is in deep trouble anyway.
You may have a point, but I'm not really convinced and I can't say I like any of the possible solutions you've put forward. It's one to think about.
Evil Lincoln, will this not hand a vast advantage to whoever wins initiative once the fighters get lots of attacks?
It looks to me like it's in danger of leaving the slower participant in a duel not only behind his opponent, but incapable of keeping pace. The whole system could easily be limited to your first attack as part of a full attack, but that seems to fall short of your objective, so how about some kind of ability to ignore a number of manoeuvres each round equal to the number of extra attacks you have?
I suggest this:
As long as you have your Dex bonus to AC, you can attempt counteract one successful manoeuvre made against you each round for each extra attack you have from your base attack bonus.
The first time in a round you attempt to counteract a manoeuvre, roll your CMB-5 against your attacker's CMD. If you pass, their manoeuvre is treated as having failed.
Each successive time you attempt to counteract a manoeuvre in the same round, increase the penalty to the check by 5.
Attempting to counteract a manoeuvre costs no action.
If we want to get even more over the top with this, we can potentially allow characters who roll a 20 to counteract to attempt the same combat manoeuvre on the person who tried to use it against them (without the damaging attack).
I like the concept - with the cave-at that I don't like that you can use maneuvers without penalty without the associated feat.
I'd suggest that the effective CMB is calculated at -4 unless the attacker also has the associated "Improved [Maneuver]" feat (in which case he obviously gets the +2 he so richly deserves).
Ah, yes. Your desire to increase the frequency of maneuvers is less extreme than mine, and therefore you make a great suggestion for those who feel the same.
For my part, I don't view it as "using maneuvers without penalty". I see it as "removing the option to NOT use a maneuver, and letting maneuvers deal normal damage."
I see. In that case, at least sweeten the deal that for times when you want to do a non-damaging maneuver: double the bonus from the respective feats.
Regarding casters: that is why there are feats like Defensive Combat Training. There is no reason why casters should be treated specially - if they feel vulnerable, they can invest feats and build their stats to be less 10 10 10 20 10 10; and more 12 14 12 16 12 10.
Thanks all of you for your contributed thoughts so far!
All maneuvers are subject to their listed limitations, action cost and behaviors.
To clarify, any maneuver that requires a Standard Action to perform must be attacked to a Standard Attack. Maneuvers that can be performed as part of any melee attack may be used as part of a full attack action.
Now... this is strange because it runs up against my goal of making every attack into a maneuver. If you have a full attack, your entire battery would have to be sunders, trips, or disarms. Does that sound problematic?
Another question is, how does this interact with effects like Vital Strike? My suggestion is that you just do your vital strike damage as normal in addition to the maneuver... that's what this rule is all about, making maneuvers so free as to have no drawback to their use! That way, people will use them!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see. In that case, at least sweeten the deal that for times when you want to do a non-damaging maneuver: double the bonus from the respective feats.
This I like!
Regarding casters: that is why there are feats like Defensive Combat Training.
The less we talk about caster-martial disparity here, the better. But I must put my two cents in: I have little sympathy for casters who get anywhere near melee types.
The wizard in my campaign has adroitly avoided bruisers for a loooong time, despite their best efforts. Mirror image is a terrific spell. So, anything that makes melee scarier for casters sounds pretty fair to me. Casters should fear melee, otherwise they're clerics or druids who I am sure will find a way to cope.
And that's all I am gonna say about that, I promise!
|
Thanks all of you for your contributed thoughts so far!
All maneuvers are subject to their listed limitations, action cost and behaviors.To clarify, any maneuver that requires a Standard Action to perform must be attacked to a Standard Attack. Maneuvers that can be performed as part of any melee attack may be used as part of a full attack action.
Now... this is strange because it runs up against my goal of making every attack into a maneuver. If you have a full attack, your entire battery would have to be sunders, trips, or disarms. Does that sound problematic?
Another question is, how does this interact with effects like Vital Strike? My suggestion is that you just do your vital strike damage as normal in addition to the maneuver... that's what this rule is all about, making maneuvers so free as to have no drawback to their use! That way, people will use them!
This could make them overpowered at low levels when you only have one attack as a standard action.
Feat chain fixes this, but would also preclude any use at lower levels.
Having targeted attacks is another way to go, taking the combat maneuvers out of the equation, but that isn't so different than existing things like stunning fist.
Ah, I see. That makes full attacks still very horrible to be one the receiving end of, but perhaps not so bad as I thought. I still think it might be too much though.
Sunder, trip and disarm is quite limiting, but maybe not too limiting.
I foresee another potential problem here, which is that too much stuff will be sundered and the players will go nuts.
This could make them overpowered at low levels when you only have one attack as a standard action.
Feat chain fixes this, but would also preclude any use at lower levels.
Having targeted attacks is another way to go, taking the combat maneuvers out of the equation, but that isn't so different than existing things like stunning fist.
Could you elaborate?
I'm not going to implement this as a feat myself, but I love the idea. Generally I prefer to solve problems with plug-in rules like feats.
I have my reasons for wanting to treat this as a blanket house rule in my own Campaign (11th level, stone giant enemies), but I am quite eager to hear about other versions.
My big concern, I believe we discussed in the other thread, is that Maneuvers already cost a bunch of feats. And we're not going to successfully encourage their use by adding more feats to the entry fee — unless it is a bottle-neck überfeat that makes the whole concept of maneuver feats pay off. Presently, they do pay off, but nobody can afford to be great at more than one (fighters can maybe pick three).
So talk to me, how would you plug damaging maneuvers as a feat? On a maneuver-by-maneuver basis? Or maybe one "brutal maneuvers" feat that added damage to any maneuver, for some kind of tradeoff? My one request is that, at the end of the day, maneuvers be more tempting than "vanilla attacks".
Attacks that do not beg for a gory description are my sworn enemy,
I foresee another potential problem here, which is that too much stuff will be sundered and the players will go nuts.
Yes. Although, not as bad as people seem to think. The broken condition is not so bad, is it? Okay, that's pretty bad. Ug. Well, I'm prepared to deal with that as a GM, but... is anyone else?
What I will probably do is loosen the action cost on a few of the more obvious maneuvers. Overrun for instance... maybe allow people to overrun one creature for each iterative attack, that seems pretty cool.
(...)
My big concern, I believe we discussed in the other thread, is that Maneuvers already cost a bunch of feats.
(...)
My own house rule is to allow the "Improved (...)" feats without the initial other feat (power att. or comb. expt. mostly) pre-requisites so they come around earlier in the game and the players got use to them and had FUN with them.
Note that I do require that initial feat for the Greater (...) Feats and the players actually got them to grow more in the maneuver or just got more Improved (...) after seeing others use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've included Brutal Maneuvers as a feat in and of itself, requiring an Improved Maneuver feat.
BRUTAL MANEUVERS
Prerequisites: Improved Combat Maneuvers (any one of Forcing, Tricky, Weapon or Wrestling), BAB +11
Benefit: Once per turn, if during any melee attack you make against your foe, you beat their Combat Maneuver Defense, you may apply any single Combat Maneuver that you have the Improved version of. This applies whether or not you beat the AC of your opponent.
If you beat both your opponent’s AC and CMB, you apply both your normal attack and your maneuver, in any order you wish.
Normal: Combat maneuver checks are made in place of attacks.
@Slime: That is something I've considered doing, seems cool!
@Kilbourne: Cool! Yeah, Brutal Maneuvers does sound more like a feat than a houserule. Thanks for posting that! It still seems like a big investment to get into, but if you've already paid your way into a maneuver that one looks very tempting!
As for me, I'm going to try my free-for-all version and report back here on just how crazy it gets!
This is a REALLY cool idea, and I will playtest it as soon as our new sandboxcampaign begins.
A few thoughts:
1. Whether lethality will increase or not is hard to determine. On one hand, combats will be decided faster - on the other hand, the chances of getting into a position where the losing side will flee or get captured rather than killed seems to increase somewhat
2. There is a risk of making characters just use the same CM over and over. A disarm machine doesn't feel that much dramatic or brutal than a spear-in-your-chest machine. From what I could gather, you want varied combats where characters use different maneuvers and a lot of "stuff" happens; not just combat where instead of 13 points of damage per turn, you have that and a trip per turn. If I'm correct in my assumption, then we share that want. One suggestion is to simply make it so that once you're hit by a combat maneuver, you're immune to that specific maneuver for a while. That way, characters are forced to vary themselves.
3. I don't know how CMD vs. attack bonus holds up at higher levels; does it get outpaced like AC? Since BAB is part of CMD I could see that it wouldn't, but I rarely play >7 so I haven't done the map.
4. There should probably be increased options at defending from combat maneuvers, especially several per round. Mortuum had an idea on active defense, but though it looks good on paper I'm afraid it will add too much math and time to combats (which will already be increased due to the CM). A feat that simply grants +4 CMD vs. the first attack every turn would go a long way.
5. Since this is a pretty big increase in power for martials, I don't mind taking something away from them. And that something would be some of their extra attacks. Iteratives are a lot of work anyway, especially with maneuvers. My suggestion would simply be that at BAB +6, you get an attack at -10 to your normal, and never get a third attack. So a 6th level fighter has BAB +6/-4. Also change TWF to match.
Having damaging combat maneuvers without AoO's mean even regular attacks are really worth the trouble, so this will free up their move action. They CAN stand still to get an extra attack, but only one.
6. I think some combat maneuvers have to be toned down in terms of power, or combat will be decided when initiative is rolled.
Thoughts on specific maneuvers:
Bull Rush - Fine as it is. Circumstantially it's incredibly powerful (lava pool behind enemy) but as standard attack only, it's good as-is.
Dirty Trick - Remove the Blinded condition, it's too strong for a standard action attack that deals damage. Otherwise fine.
Disarm - Kinda hard to know. It can be circumvented quite easily by having several weapons (and quickdraw) or by having a locked gauntlet. On the other hand, a character ending up with 20 swords on the ground and one in hand might seem silly. Here I think a "cooldown" would be important.
Drag - See Bull Rush, but even weaker. Having it as "as part of a melee attack" should be fine.
Grapple - A very strong maneuver. I think that instead of doing full weapon damage, it should be unarmed damage or armor spikes, or in the case of monsters, natural attack damage of the limb that grapples if appropriate (bite damage for a grappling dragon)
Overrun, Reposition, Steal - Fine as is.
Sunder - I do think this is fine. It's strong, but I don't think it's too strong.
Trip - This is one of th biggies. It's a harsh condition, and it's hard to get away from. At the very least, I think, to balance this standing up from prone shouldn't provoke. Or halve the penalties. Or both.
Feint - Seems fine as is. Don't know for sure though. Improved feint would make it into "part of attack action" instead of allowing on a move, I think. Or allowing non-damaging version on a move, only.
Overall, it's a really cool idea.
StringBurka, thanks for the thoughts.
I can't answer all of the problems you've raised, but...
It's worth noting that I use the Trailblazer variant on iterative attacks in my own game. That will make a huge difference here in the math I am willing to do an each attack. Most characters top out at 2 attacks/round, and both attacks always have the same bonus!
I agree with you on lethality undetermined. My party currently has a monk specialized in grappling. The net effect of this rule will be... an extra turn of unarmed damage. Really, for a worst-case character build, that's sort of underwhelming.
I am considering what a "Parry" option might mean in this new context.
If anything, I think a few options need to be opened up for full attacks, or else we need to invent a useful "basic maneuver" to use during full attacks where you don't want to sunder, disarm or trip...
|
I kinda like Kilbourne's idea of linking it to a feat, but would prefer for Fighters to get it for free, and anyone else have to pay for it (and to chop the BAB requirement of +11 out completely).
Linking it to the Improved Disarm, etc. feats seemed like a good idea, until I remembered that they all had Combat Expertise and Int 13 as a prereq, and I didn't want to limit this wonderful idea to the 1 in 100 Fighters who have an Int 13...
It looks like the concept is 'Maneuver plus damage' and I think it might work better as 'damage plus maneuver.' The hit happens, on a successful attack roll, and *if* the attack roll beats the CMD for the maneuver, the maneuver also happens.
And, IMO, brutal maneuver should be a standard action. I don't like the idea of someone attempting three different iterative brutal maneuvers.
The range of options, IMO, should be;
1) attack + brutal maneuver
2) sequence of iterative attacks
3) vital strike
Perhaps at a higher level, vital strike + brutal maneuver could be done together, even getting a bonus to the brutal maneuver (+2 / iterative attack?) for each iterative attack given up, but I'm not sure that should be an option out of the box.
+1 to Set´s idea, basically making a new Standard ¨Brutal Maneuver¨ action that does melee damage + maneuver if the first hits.
You aren´t doing this on Full Attacks, or on AoO´s, Cleaves, etc. (and Vital Strike wouldn´t either, since you´re specifically going for big damage) Having the Maneuver trigger after a melee attack has a certain sense and attraction, you actually have to hurt them before taking advantage of the situation and twisting the blade, stepping into their step, etc.
I´ve also toyed with removing the AoO for all Maneuvers (which should IMHO also be part of this system, esp. if the Maneuver only triggers after Melee Hit, i.e. for Uber High AC cases you can still just try a straight Maneuver without AoO), although the issue there is the Imp. Maneuver Feats become slightly less useful... Then again, if you will be making free Maneuver checks whenever you make a Standard Brutal Maneuver Action, that let´s you leverage the +2 more, besides other benefits and qualifying for Greater Maneuver Feats.
I think it´s fair to say that the weapon used for melee attack must be able to deliver the maneuver, ie. Greatswords don´t trigger Grapples (but UAS should? RAW UAS doesn´t deliver Grapple, but probably it should). I might go ahead and say Charges also get free Bullrushes if you want (this is based on the current RAW of Charge Bullrushes using ´in place of melee attack´ wording). For Full Attacks, allowing the FIRST attack a free Maneuver seems reasonable, but I really don´t want all of them getting a free, separate maneuver roll.
And yeah, to Red-Assassin scared for Casters: Play 2nd Edition. Casters can learn to get by. Really.
|
|
This could make them overpowered at low levels when you only have one attack as a standard action.
Feat chain fixes this, but would also preclude any use at lower levels.
Having targeted attacks is another way to go, taking the combat maneuvers out of the equation, but that isn't so different than existing things like stunning fist.
Could you elaborate?
I'm not going to implement this as a feat myself, but I love the idea. Generally I prefer to solve problems with plug-in rules like feats.
I have my reasons for wanting to treat this as a blanket house rule in my own Campaign (11th level, stone giant enemies), but I am quite eager to hear about other versions.
My big concern, I believe we discussed in the other thread, is that Maneuvers already cost a bunch of feats. And we're not going to successfully encourage their use by adding more feats to the entry fee — unless it is a bottle-neck überfeat that makes the whole concept of maneuver feats pay off. Presently, they do pay off, but nobody can afford to be great at more than one (fighters can maybe pick three).
So talk to me, how would you plug damaging maneuvers as a feat? On a maneuver-by-maneuver basis? Or maybe one "brutal maneuvers" feat that added damage to any maneuver, for some kind of tradeoff? My one request is that, at the end of the day, maneuvers be more tempting than "vanilla attacks".
Attacks that do not beg for a gory description are my sworn enemy,
I would be ok with a feat that allowed damage on certain manuvers, like trip or bull rush. It may need a minimum level, so that everyone isn't just using it as their base 1st level attack.
Maybe make it a fighter feat/rage power.
Stringburka, I don't think you'd need a rule that give somebody a bonus against disarm after they've already been spammed with disarm. They've probably lost their weapon by then anyway, at which point their enemies will be trying to trip them or something.
Looking through the manoeuvres again, full attacks would seem much more fun if you could somehow use dirty trick. I'd suggest allowing you to use it in place of any attack, but reducing the number of rounds the condition lasts by 1, to a minimum of zero unless it's used as a standard action, or something like that. It'd be nasty, but it would really open up possibilities on full attacks and nasty is what this is all about, right?
Using trailblazer full attacks makes much more sense for this. That stops things getting too insane and probably means you don't need an inelegant system like the one I came up with, which would be far from ideal.
Hmm, since disarms will be SO much more common, I suggest increasing unarmed damage so that you CAN attack without your weapon. Giving everyone unarmed damage as a monk one size smaller (so a medium fighter has unarmed damage as a small monk), not allowing this with a cestus, gauntlet or anything else, might be a good idea to "nerf" disarm (or rather, make it easier to work around so you don't have to have 20 weapons or pick up-drop-pick up-drop your weapon against a disarmer)
EDIT: I agree on dirty trick though, it would be fun to use as a melee attack. Maybe allow only unarmed damage with it instead of lowering duration? So it's a low-damage high-effect maneuver.
Dirty Trick needs to be an melee-equivalent maneuver rather than standard action. Though the "blinding" dirty trick should probably still be a standard action.
Maneuvers should probably be re-classified based on their end-condition, so that a more debilitating condition takes a standard action, while less debilitating conditions are attack actions.
One thing to consider is size differences. While CMB averages out it's size differences to CMD, if attack bonuses are used instead it gets weird - the larger the creature the harder it is to perform maneuvers on it, twice over; two titans grappling has a much harder time than two humanoids.
What would happen if we simply dropped size modifiers to attack rolls, CMD and AC? Or is this really a non-issue? I don't know. Just something to consider.
Here are two ideas I came up with
First idea. Many weapons have the ability to allow the user to perform a type of combat maneuver with that specific weapon. We could simply allow the weapon to deal it's normal damage when the maneuver is successful. For example, the heavy flail can be used to perform disarm and trip. Using a heavy flail to perform these maneuvers would certainly invoke images of sweeping at the targets legs or bashing an opponents arm to make them drop their weapon.
The second idea is to create a feat that allows the user to modify their attack to add a maneuver, much the same way as vital strike or spring attack would.
Brutal Maneuvers:
You have learned to attack with greater efficiency
Prerequisites: At least one improved combat maneuver feat
Benefit: You can use a combat maneuver as part of a melee attack (instead of replacing the attack that round). When ever you use this feat, your attack roll is equal to your cmb, and your opponent uses their cmd in place of their AC.
+1 to Set´s idea, basically making a new Standard ¨Brutal Maneuver¨ action that does melee damage + maneuver if the first hits.
You aren´t doing this on Full Attacks, or on AoO´s, Cleaves, etc. (and Vital Strike wouldn´t either, since you´re specifically going for big damage)
Really, I want to respond to both Set and Quandary for this. I like the idea of making a feat (or other easily attainable "plug-in" type rule). My issue is that, if you leave it as Damage + maybe-a-maneuver then it will still lose out to direct attacks. For my part, I am unable to explain why you would bull rush effectively while vital striking, one would imagine that the pile of extra damage would work too. As my friend/player puts it: joules are joules.
It reveals a larger problem with feats. Limited slots means that feats are not the ideal for making sweeping changes throughout the system. You can't take on something like "stand and whack" with a feat because few if any might qualify for the feat, and fewer still might take it.
Look at the barbarian PC in my party. If anyone was a candidate for Brutal Maneuvers + Vital Strike, she would be. But if Brutal Maneuvers costs a feat, and making it play nice with vital strike costs a feat, we're already out of slots. We're entering a world where only fighters can have any of this stuff.
@Stringburka: Unarmed, cool idea. Agree on dirty trick. Check the first post for my answer to the Attack/CMB thing. I just apply the differential to the roll. It's a little Kludgy, but in my test runs it had been easy enough (mainly because of Trailblazer iterative attacks).
---
Now, it's obvious that I want to push things a little further than some of you, but here is my take on a feat version that I believe is balanced but still good enough that people would take it early and use it often:
You are unwavering in your drive to crush the enemy, even whilst maneuvering for a tactical advantage.Prerequisite: Base Attack Bonus +1
Benefit: You may attempt any maneuver as a Standard action. Maneuvers that are normally executed in place of a single melee attack become standard actions as Brutal Maneuvers.
Make an attack roll that includes any bonuses you have to perform the chosen maneuver. If the attack roll result was higher than the target's AC and CMD, you deal damage as a normal standard attack, plus the effect of the maneuver. If your check is below either AC or CMD, the Brutal Maneuver has no effect.
Special: Creatures of a size other than Medium get a special modifier to beatings CMD as part of a brutal maneuver. Small creatures have a -2 penalty to only the CMD portion of the roll, and Large creatures have a +2 bonus. For other sizes, simply add twice the creature's special size modifier to CMB.
This leaves Attacks of Opportunity unaddressed, but that might be fine for those of you who don't want to invalidate existing maneuver feat investments.
This version has a "drawback". I don't believe feats should have drawbacks all the time, but it is certainly the convention, isn't it? Making a brutal maneuver is with this feat is situationally risky, depending on the opponents CMD, you might be throwing away an action entirely. This makes sense to me, when I imagine it.
Anything that can be done to alleviate the feat tax on maneuvers helps me toward my goals here. Anything that can be done to make maneuvers a more appealing choice in the game than the non-descriptive HP attack is also helpful.
I love that there are a lot of different approaches and ideas in this thread. Please keep them coming!
...
Great minds think alike.
If anyone actually likes the crazy direction I was going in the first post, I suggest maybe use my version of the feat as a Virtual Feat, and removing the triggered Attack of Opportunity from all maneuvers.
If the feat tax on maneuvers has got you down, maybe introducing Battle Adaptation will help.
This has been a shameless plug.
Casters...
Manuevers are very bad for them, sure some feats can help, as well as spells.
If you can grapple a caster you put them in a world of hurt.
Casters are very vulnerable to manuevers.
Casters will fail at surprise rounds, as well as roll bad sometimes on initiative.
I would say about 1/3 of the time a caster won't have the time to cast a single spell. Before and enemy attacks. Sure some times casters will attack attack. Likely it will go to an iniative roll. Flatfooted will also hurt on the first round.
It is a good tactic to grapple a caster even taking an attack of oppurtunity.
Against some enemies, a combat manuever trained or not is still the best tactic to use.
If you are going to implement a feat I am not saying it is bad but it should not be unbalanced. If it is and free manuever, there should be a penalty to tring it and failing, such as flatfooted or ~2 or more to ac.
If it is a free campaign house rule the penalties should be greater or at least something in place for classes weaker to manuevers.
If the idea is to get players to experiment with combat manuevers then you could make missions to not hurt npc. Rob npc's weapon or item.
While I like the idea of trying to use manuevers more as a player and a dm. I have both used a witnessed the main caster being grappled and overcame with a manuever.
As I have said I have done this and dm'd when this has happend. A bard is good at escaping with escape artist but even escaping a grapple take a action.
Nothing is more anti climatic than a 1st round grapple on a main npc.
I like the new change for CMD and CMB. I think it is still a little funny at times. I like hearing about any changes in the mechanics of this.
Let's say you want to use this option but remove the bab requirements of CMB put in place Level. This would equalize it a little. Then it would be nice seeing a wizard try to disarm someone with a magic missle. Or a rogue try to reposition with a sneak attack.
Just a couple thoughts
I don't know if casters will suffer that much more than melees under these rules. They'll get less of an offensive boost, but on the other hand, most attacks against casters are in my experience ranged attacks of different sorts.
Warriors have a much larger risk of being swarmed, and being swarmed will be MUCH more dangerous with the brutal maneouvers rule. I already usually go for trip or grapple when swarming the PC's already, because 10 goblins has a larger chance to team up and trip the fighter than they have of killing him. Not causing attacks of opportunity and still possibly dealing that 1d6-1 damage (woopiedoo!) will be a big boost for them.
On the other hand, the fighter can fling them away with a brutal maneuver bull rush. Or, if we convert bull rush to "in place of melee attack" (which we should IMO), then it's a brutal maneuver bull rush cleave! Ah, I love picturing him swinging his greatsword, goblins flying left and right...
Also, any boost to combat maneuvers will be a boost to battlefield control for the party. The warrior will have an easier time keeping attackers away from casters if he can trip them without losing out on damage.
EDIT: And really, so what if the caster gets grappled some time now and then? He'll live. Or maybe not, but the fighter is in risk of dying every single turn from a few lucky criticals.
Yes, this means a warrior can end the battle in turn one, with enough luck and good placement. So can a caster, and has been able to do for many years now. You want to know what's as anticlimatic as a grapple on a BBEG? A glitterdust, hold person, sleep or whatever on a BBEG. And those don't require melee range.
Dotted. Interesting variant concept that would be well worth fleshing out further.
I definitely like the spirit of the idea!
I've been messing around with it in my head for my own game. I'm currently thinking maybe something along the lines of:
1. Remove all AoO's from combat maneuvers generally (essentially give everyone improved X combat maneuver for free.
2. Make a feat with small to mild pre-reqs called 'Brutal Maneuvers' that allows combat maneuvers to be added to all successful attacks that exceed the targets CMD by 4+1/2 the targets HD (round up).
- This allows free maneuvers against medium to easy targets but still makes them rare or impossible against truly dangerous opponents (or hopefully it does :D )
3. One more feat in the chain 'Greater Brutal Maneuvers' with higher level pre-reqs: removes the +4 from the target number and makes all natural 20's automatic 'brutal maneuver' successes (regardless if the crit is confirmed or not)
- Opens up the chance for brutal maneuvers to hit truly nasty opponents and makes it easier in general by removing the previous +4 over targets CMD.
I also think it would be interesting to add 'Brutal Magic' as a similar and parallel feat chain that allows combat maneuver effects from ordinary damage spells given an opposed roll.
Specifically: The Casters must declare a spell as being brutal or not. If the target fails its saving throw the caster then makes an opposed roll(+1/2 level) against the failed save of the target (+4+1/2 level)
i.e- A level 6 sorcerer shoots a brutal fireball a hobgoblin. The Hobgoblin rolls a 6+2(reflex) =8 to save against the 'Brutal' Fireball and fails. The Caster then rolls a 12+(1/2)level = 15 against the targets 8+4+(1/2)HD = 13. The brutal fireball succeeds and the sorcerer chooses to knock the hobgoblin prone (ala trip) in addition to all the damage coming his way (lets of course ignore the fact that 6d6 would probably kill the hobgoblin). YOu get the idea :D
This wouldn't work for every spell. It would need to be firmly house-ruled and need to make sense in context. But sometimes it just seems like it would be nice if you could magic missile someone in the groin (sickened) or fireball someone off a ledge (bull rush). etc.
Also- I agree with some form of limited damage for all maneuvers. Unarmed dmg sounds about right.
Totally agree on not adding any new Feats,
I was talking about a new action that anybody could do without a Feat,
just like anybody can do any of the maneuvers now currently without a Feat...
And like I mentioned, even in normal rule-set, I`m partial to removing the AoO of all Maneuvers,
and would definitely include that in this type of revision... (maybe I would boost the Imp Maneuver Feat, since it no longer removes the AoO, to grant an additional plus 2 o the triggered maneuver if a Brutal Maneuver melee attack Critted)
(I`m also prone to granting Heighten Spell as a Free Feat to any Caster, and letting it apply for free on top of any Metamagic which doesn`t affect Casting time or conditions, e.g. Swift, Still, or Save condions, e.g. bouncing spell, persistent spell - most of which I wouldn`t allow anyways)
As an unrelated change, but which I think matches the vibe you`re into, I`d suggest blanket allowing Readying Charges if you otherwise took no other actions (besides Swifts) on your turn. There`s an actual Feat in the Sargava Guide that allows Moving AND Readying a Charge which is still worth a Feat IMHO even with my suggested house-rule. I don´t thin I have to explain how this helps melee specifically, and physical damage types in general.
Somebody mentioned Grapple as something to worry about, I THINK there is some assumption that the weapon must be able to deliver the maneuver, and most weapons can do that for Grapple. I don´t know if IUS would be able to in this house-rule system, but that`s a pretty weak weapon, and also getting IUS instead of just Grappling as a Stanard Action just isn´t going to break the game IMHO. Nobody thinks Casters break the game when the damage and Grapple everybody in Black Tentacles` AOE, or Summon creatures with Grab who do a Full Attack and Grapple, or Grasping Hand, etc, etc...
I don't think the Improved feats lose in power by this change. Yes, they no longer grant immunity to AoO's, but on the other hand, since maneuvers themselves are worth using far more, the +2 bonus to them is a much better bonus.
1) Remove AoOs in general.
2) Add weapon damage if the maneuver allows a weapon and you have the 'improved' feat.
3) Add weapon damage if the weapon has the maneuver quality (trip, etc).
What bothers me about maneuvers right now is that they seem kind of dorky. The premise is that you stop fighting to kill, and for a moment focus entirely on the opponent's weapon or position. Pain and wounding is an excellent method of disarming an opponent.
I like it. Kinda makes maneuver characters not suck and have to take like 15 different feats.
What bothers me about maneuvers right now is that they seem kind of dorky. The premise is that you stop fighting to kill, and for a moment focus entirely on the opponent's weapon or position. Pain and wounding is an excellent method of disarming an opponent.
I cannot disagree with this its a big issue. My issue is even investing 3-4 feats into one maneuver you still have an extremely limited chance of sucess to pull it off against the monsters in the beastiary due to the size differential/ stat inflated CMD's. Sure Tripping a quadraped should be difficult but lets look at a CR 6 monster (when a fighter can take "greater" combat maneuver X) the Babau AC 19 CMD 23, ettin ac 18 CMD 23, as examples of biped weapon using type monsters of that CR. To make it so you have to beat both in an all or nothing attack effectively raises the AC of the monsters to 23 or increase the miss chance by 20%. The bonuses for improved and greater cancel out this increased "AC" at this level but as the CR increase the differential between CMD and AC increases:
CR 10 Fire Giant AC 24 CMD 31,CR 11: barbed devil AC 26 CMD 34, Cloud giant AC 25 CMD 37,
CR 12: lich AC 23 CMD 25 (hooray for a caster type)
This has as much to do with why folks dont use maneuvers as anything else, they are harder to do. Until you address this issue or make the damage and the effect not an all or nothing then you are penalizing melee types.
Evil Lincoln I know in your early drafts this was the case that each effect was resolved seperately is that still where you are thinking? Where the check is made for both and you may get one without sucessfully doing the other. This may also be advantageous for DR/whatever monsters that the party cannot easily overcome they could still be tripped, pushed into tar etc even if the strikes do little to no damage to make them disadvantaged on thier rebuttal attacks.
Evil Lincoln I know in your early drafts this was the case that each effect was resolved separately is that still where you are thinking? Where the check is made for both and you may get one without successfully doing the other. This may also be advantageous for DR/whatever monsters that the party cannot easily overcome they could still be tripped, pushed into tar etc even if the strikes do little to no damage to make them disadvantaged on their rebuttal attacks.
I have posted three versions, I think:
Other people have made suggestions also. I encourage people to write up their ideal versions as complete rules so GMs can comb the thread for their favorite version.
I think my favorite version so far is the feat (#2 above) because the wording solves the action-economy issues, and it fits as a "plug-in" rule. Chances are I am going to allow that feat in my Runelords campaign.
I have posted three versions, I think:
A change to attack rolls where you use one roll to compare (Attack vs. AC) AND (CMB vs. CMD) — in this version an attack might succeed where the maneuver fails and vice versa. A +1 BAB combat feat where if either Attack or Maneuver fails, the other fails too. A "simple" version where you just drop AoOs on all maneuvers, and permit weapon damage with maneuver weapons OR if they have the "improved" feat. Other people have made suggestions also. I encourage people to write up their ideal versions as complete rules so GMs can comb the thread for their favorite version.
I think my favorite version so far is the feat (#2 above) because the wording solves the action-economy issues, and it fits as a "plug-in" rule. Chances are I am going to allow that feat in my Runelords campaign.
Ok then I would love to hear some feed back on if the difference in AC/CMD makes a big difference in your runelords game.