Is there a way for a heavy armor wearer to still be pretty good at stuff like shoving or grappling?
Because in the playtest, armor check penalties have a HUGE negative penalty on the success of these.
This isn't a complaint or anything like that; I just want to know how to make it work (if possible).
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armor Check Penalties do not apply to actions with the 'Attack' Trait. Like all maneuvers.
So maneuvers get to ignore it (well, there's a weird exception that should maybe be fixed in Break Grapple, but aside from that). This is listed under 'Check Penalty' on p. 176.
Armor Check Penalties do not apply to actions with the 'Attack' Trait. Like all maneuvers.
So maneuvers get to ignore it (well, there's a weird exception that should maybe be fixed in Break Grapple, but aside from that). This is listed under 'Check Penalty' on p. 176.
While it's certainly a weird exception, I think I like the idea that you're easier to hold because of the bulk/rigidity of your armor. Harder to squirm away when it's an extension rather than the arm itself. Though, I'd only find this acceptable if you could use your free hand to grapple the other person back.
Honestly, I don't see any reason for Combat Maneuvers to be skill checks instead of attack rolls except "5E did it." It means that the Rogue will probably wind up being the best at maneuvers instead of the fighter or the monk. If it were an attack roll, then you'd roll roughly the same bonus (level + STR or DEX) but the fighter would be the one benefiting from the expert proficiency bonuses and you wouldn't need a special rule to exempt it from ACP.
Honestly, I don't see any reason for Combat Maneuvers to be skill checks instead of attack rolls except "5E did it." It means that the Rogue will probably wind up being the best at maneuvers instead of the fighter or the monk. If it were an attack roll, then you'd roll roughly the same bonus (level + STR or DEX) but the fighter would be the one benefiting from the expert proficiency bonuses and you wouldn't need a special rule to exempt it from ACP.
But combat maneuvers are very different from "how hard and fast I can swing my sword at the correct spot." They're generally much more complicated (dare I say it, athletic or acrobatic) movements. Well, except Bull Rush, which I think the Fighters and Paladins in heavy armor should be dope at.
Honestly, I don't see any reason for Combat Maneuvers to be skill checks instead of attack rolls except "5E did it." It means that the Rogue will probably wind up being the best at maneuvers instead of the fighter or the monk. If it were an attack roll, then you'd roll roughly the same bonus (level + STR or DEX) but the fighter would be the one benefiting from the expert proficiency bonuses and you wouldn't need a special rule to exempt it from ACP.But combat maneuvers are very different from "how hard and fast I can swing my sword at the correct spot." They're generally much more complicated (dare I say it, athletic or acrobatic) movements. Well, except Bull Rush, which I think the Fighters and Paladins in heavy armor should be dope at.
Not really? They're a kind of attack. It seems much more tied to how good you are at fighting than how good you are at climbing or gymnastics. Disarming someone is something you see all the time in swordfighting scenes in movies, and it's always portrayed as a matter of sword skill, not backflipping. Being able to trip or grapple people ought to be tied to your skills in unarmed combat, because that's what it is: fighting someone with your hands and feet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm with The Narration. Just go back to CMB and CMD-style numbers.
Martial artists know how to shove, trip, and disarm people. Gymnasts don't.
Yeah, I'm with The Narration. Just go back to CMB and CMD-style numbers.
Martial artists know how to shove, trip, and disarm people. Gymnasts don't.
I feel like both of you are conflating acrobatics with athletics. Athletics handles all of those things you just mentioned, which is a far cry from the acrobatics of a gymnast. Acrobatics handles escapes, balancing and tumbling. Tripping and disarming are still a distinct skill set from "hit things" that fit well into athletics. Shove could go either way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't see any reason for Combat Maneuvers to be skill checks instead of attack rolls except "5E did it." It means that the Rogue will probably wind up being the best at maneuvers instead of the fighter or the monk. .
Thus doesn't seem true at all. As is, the rogue has very little reason to invest in strength and no way to get Dex to athletics checks. Lots of weapons with the trip or disarm trait aren't finesse or agile, so that isn't an edge. No skill feats add to maneuvers.
Anyone can get athletics to expert at level 3. The rogue technically has more opportunities to get it raised at higher levels, but also has way more competing to be raised. How many rogues do you think will prioritize athletics over stealth or thievery? Heck, even acrobatics seems tempting by comparison. Then there's all the secondary skills for a rogue, like Society and Deception. This becomes more pronounced at level 7 when signature skills start mattering. This same principle applies for a rogue raising their strength. Pretty much every other Stat has more reason to be invested in.
Meanwhile, fighters, barbarians, paladins, and to a lesser extent some monks all want strength maxed, and have very few signature skills competing for their skill increases by default. And they have far more flexibility in choosing weapons that add item bonuses. (Several agile and finesse maneuver weapons are in fact uncommon monk weapons, for example.) At level 1 they look to have a 4 point edge on maneuvers over the average rogue and there's a very good chance that edge will only increase with level. A rogue that focuses on athletics is looking very much like they will be a worse rogue.
Athletics for maneuvers wasn't the problem in 5e. The problem was Expertise letting bards and rogues break the math progression.
As for why you would want to use athletics over CMB/CMD, it is less numbers cluttering up the sheet for rarely used circumstances. And making fortitude the relevant Stat to defend against stuff makes constitution remain relevant despite the HP inflation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like both of you are conflating acrobatics with athletics. Athletics handles all of those things you just mentioned, which is a far cry from the acrobatics of a gymnast. Acrobatics handles escapes, balancing and tumbling. Tripping and disarming are still a distinct skill set from "hit things" that fit well into athletics. Shove could go either way.Yeah, I'm with The Narration. Just go back to CMB and CMD-style numbers.
Martial artists know how to shove, trip, and disarm people. Gymnasts don't.
Track and Field, then. Or Swimming.
Is Michael Phelps going to be an expert at disarming people?
Just because you *can* simplify things by combining similar rules doesn't mean you need to. Doing so can cause you lose out on interesting nuance and variety.
With the general +Level to everything and the smallish bonuses for skills, it frankly doesn't matter that much if you're rolling Athletics or CMB or Lore-basketweaving; the basic bonus is much the same. The main difference you'll see is in your Strength stat and maybe an item.
As for why you would want to use athletics over CMB/CMD, it is less numbers cluttering up the sheet for rarely used circumstances.
Just using your attack roll would achieve the same thing. The only reason CMB/Grapple was different from your attack bonus was size modifiers, and those no longer exist.
With the general +Level to everything and the smallish bonuses for skills, it frankly doesn't matter that much if you're rolling Athletics or CMB or Lore-basketweaving; the basic bonus is much the same. The main difference you'll see is in your Strength stat and maybe an item.
How is +Level to everything (including combat maneuvers) any different from Base Attack Bonus or skill ranks or scaling base saving throws? Besides that it's easier to use, that is? This is a stance that I'm having a very hard time understanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't see any reason for Combat Maneuvers to be skill checks instead of attack rolls except "5E did it." It means that the Rogue will probably wind up being the best at maneuvers instead of the fighter or the monk. If it were an attack roll, then you'd roll roughly the same bonus (level + STR or DEX) but the fighter would be the one benefiting from the expert proficiency bonuses and you wouldn't need a special rule to exempt it from ACP.
Funny you mention that, the moment I saw that grappling bestows the flat-footed condition I got to work making a Rogue that puts her enemies in a chokehold so she can bash them over the head with a club. "Sneak attack" indeed.
With the general +Level to everything and the smallish bonuses for skills, it frankly doesn't matter that much if you're rolling Athletics or CMB or Lore-basketweaving; the basic bonus is much the same. The main difference you'll see is in your Strength stat and maybe an item.How is +Level to everything (including combat maneuvers) any different from Base Attack Bonus or skill ranks or scaling base saving throws? Besides that it's easier to use, that is? This is a stance that I'm having a very hard time understanding.
I agree with you there. I love having +1/level to everything instead of some unholy mix of +1/level (Good BAB, Skills), +3/4 level (Medium BAB), +1/2 level (Bad BAB, Good Saves), +1/3 level (Bad Saves) and not at all (AC). But some classes do have some slight advantage over others due to proficiency rank, and I think the advantage on grappling, tripping and disarming--which are forms of melee combat--should go to the classes and characters that specialize in melee combat and not the ones that specialize in skills.
Honestly, I don't see any reason for Combat Maneuvers to be skill checks instead of attack rolls except "5E did it." It means that the Rogue will probably wind up being the best at maneuvers instead of the fighter or the monk. If it were an attack roll, then you'd roll roughly the same bonus (level + STR or DEX) but the fighter would be the one benefiting from the expert proficiency bonuses and you wouldn't need a special rule to exempt it from ACP.Funny you mention that, the moment I saw that grappling bestows the flat-footed condition I got to work making a Rogue that puts her enemies in a chokehold so she can bash them over the head with a club. "Sneak attack" indeed.
Ah, the classic Splinter Cell maneuver. I dig it. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, the Rogue advantage is variety, not capability; Rogues advance to Master and Legendary at the same rate as anyone else, and Barbarians and Fighters have Athletics as a signature skill so there's nothing stopping them from being Legendary at Athletics at the exact same time the Rogue is, it's simply a larger proportion of their total character resources than it is for a Rogue.
What really holds Fighters and Barbarians back from exploiting combat maneuvers is that you have to have a free hand to use any of them, or alternatively one of the specific weapons that lets you disarm or trip with the weapon. Gives flails an interesting niche as the only weapons that can both disarm and trip, I suppose.
With the general +Level to everything and the smallish bonuses for skills, it frankly doesn't matter that much if you're rolling Athletics or CMB or Lore-basketweaving; the basic bonus is much the same. The main difference you'll see is in your Strength stat and maybe an item.How is +Level to everything (including combat maneuvers) any different from Base Attack Bonus or skill ranks or scaling base saving throws? Besides that it's easier to use, that is? This is a stance that I'm having a very hard time understanding.
It's different because before, you only got +level to skills you actually invested in. Now you get it to all of them, and it's really weird.