Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could easily be wrong, but I have a recollection from the Alpha/Beta era that Jason pretty much deliberately build the CMB/CMD system to discourage players from using it. The justification I recall - and my memory is less than perfect - was that maneuvers inherently prolong a fight, rarely simplifying or shortening a combat. So the system was build as we see it today, to be a thing that monsters can use to enrich the variety of their actions, and optimized PCs under just the right circumstances can dip into if they insist.
Which isn't to say an optional "maneuvers that work" ruleset would've been unwelcome in Unchained.
As I recall, his reasoning was more along the lines of "a maneuver can be a big game changer and shouldn't be a consistent go-to option for players", which I respectfully and completely disagree with. Why anyone would think that making combat less interesting for players is a good idea is a bit beyond me.
For me, maneuver rich combat looks something like this:
1)Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, and Monk arrive at circus to see rampaging elephant tearing through the audience.
2) Wizard casts enlarge person on the Fighter.
3)Fighter, Rogue, and Monk carefully encircle rampaging elephant.
4) Enlarged Fighter hurls himself into elephant's knees, knocking it prone (trip attempt).
5) Rogue hurls dung into elephant's eyes (uses Dirty Trick) to further blind prone elephant and limit its ability to pose a threat.
6) Monk unleashes a flurry of nonlethal blows agains prone, blinded elephant (after all, the poor thing is the circus' property and there's probably a reason it's rampaging).
7) Rest of party joins in on elephant disabling, taking AoOs as appropriate if elephant tries to stand.
That whole sequence should take roughly 2-3 rounds, or about the same time as a normal fight, and it has the same chance of success or failure depending on the elephant's initiative and whether the Fighter succeeds at the trip, but it was, in my opinion, much more entertaining and encouraged teamwork far more effectively than "one of us should probably flank with the Rogue so he can get sneak attack".
Do your calculations take into account increased number of rolls due to iterative attacks? Individual success rates may drop, but with more attempts, rate of success on attempted maneuver likely rises substantially. You don't need to trip someone four times, just once.Interestingly, if you start with 20 Strength, level 14 is the last level where you get 50% success rate. This is for a non-weapon-using maneuver where the player doesn't have any buffs on them (haste, heroism, inspire courage, good hope, etc), doesn't have the ioun stone that helps out, isn't flanking, etc.
The %s then become:
1-6: 71.66%
7-12: 55%
13-20: 26.875%My guess is that in actual play, these %s will be fairly better, due to all the non-CRB options available that can help, as well as the use of buffs by the party. If they really failed as often as the percentages implied, then we wouldn't continue to see so many builds for them, I'd wager.
Still, there are a ton of oddities at play here, and the system could use a whack or three.
Nope, they were just the chance of the first hit. Not all ones can replace attack rolls, so I figured just the highest attack bonus would be best.
Let's see though:
1-6: 79%
7-12: 68.83%
13-20: 39.125%
When we add in the attack bonus from boots of haste (11th level), the ioun stone (14th level), and tomes (+2 at 16, +5 at 19), they become:
1-6: 79%
7-12: 76.5%
13-20: 72%
I chose not to include any other buffs but ones they can add to themselves.
Again, the above numbers are for starting with 20 Str. For starting with 17 Str, we're looking at:
1-6: 74%
7-12: 67.16%
13-20: 62.5%
Not horrendous, but still a little dicey if you don't receive any other buffs.
If we use a maneuver that gets weapon bonuses (and get a +1 at 3rd, +2 at 6th, +3 at 8, +4 at 11, +5 at 14, as well as wep focus at 5th level), and do the 20 starting Str:
1-6: 91%
7-12: 92.5%
13-20: 95.25%
Same factors, but with 17 starting Str:
1-6: 88%
7-12: 87%
13-20: 91%
So, for weapon-based maneuvers, I'd say that the math works out pretty damn well. For the other ones that can be subbed for attacks in a full-attack, you're flirting with 74% chance of landing it at low levels, 67% at mid levels, and 62% at high levels, which isn't horrendous.
And also assumes that there are no other buffs on you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could easily be wrong, but I have a recollection from the Alpha/Beta era that Jason pretty much deliberately build the CMB/CMD system to discourage players from using it. The justification I recall - and my memory is less than perfect - was that maneuvers inherently prolong a fight, rarely simplifying or shortening a combat. So the system was build as we see it today, to be a thing that monsters can use to enrich the variety of their actions, and optimized PCs under just the right circumstances can dip into if they insist.
Which isn't to say an optional "maneuvers that work" ruleset would've been unwelcome in Unchained.
As I recall, his reasoning was more along the lines of "a maneuver can be a big game changer and shouldn't be a consistent go-to option for players", which I respectfully and completely disagree with. Why anyone would think that making combat less interesting for players is a good idea is a bit beyond me.
For me, maneuver rich combat looks something like this:
1)Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, and Monk arrive at circus to see rampaging elephant tearing through the audience.
2) Wizard casts enlarge person on the Fighter.
3)Fighter, Rogue, and Monk carefully encircle rampaging elephant.
4) Enlarged Fighter hurls himself into elephant's knees, knocking it prone (trip attempt).
5) Rogue hurls dung into elephant's eyes (uses Dirty Trick) to further blind prone elephant and limit its ability to pose a threat.
6) Monk unleashes a flurry of nonlethal blows agains prone, blinded elephant.
7) Rest of party joins in on elephant disabling, taking AoOs as appropriate if elephant tries to stand.
That whole sequence should take roughly 2-3 rounds, or about the same time as a normal fight, and it has the same chance of success or failure depending on the elephant's initiative and whether the Fighter succeeds at the trip, but it was, in my opinion, much more entertaining and encouraged teamwork far more effectively than "one...
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE FUN OF MARTIALS!!!!
WE WHO ARE ABOVE ALL HAVE DEEMED THE OPTIMUM FUN FOR MARTIALS IS TO STAND STILL AND TRADE FULL ATTACKS!!! TO ASK FOR OTHERWISE IS HERESY!
NO MOVEMENT! NO MANEUVER!
/sarcasm :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I find sad is that a Wizard can actually pull off many combat maneuvers better than a fighter with his spells...
Oh, and for the ones that can't replace attacks, the numbers are (assuming 17 Str, and using boots of haste, ioun stone, and tomes):
1-6: 64.16%
7-12: 48.3%
13-20: 33.75%
With 20 starting str:
1-6: 71.67%
7-12: 56.67%
13-20: 41.25%
I actually have little problem with the current system. Honestly, I think some of it is too easy. It should be very difficult for even a very strong and well trained person to wrestle with a bear, take the sword away from a giant, trip a rhino, bull rush a balrog, etc...
Now I do understand the whole "it is more entertaining/fun way of handling the combat" attitude. But that is a completely different point than complaining that it is too hard to make it your go-to strategy.
I would be more likely to agree with a system of some sort of weakness for various creature types. Like a +6 to trip a 4 footed creature that is charging. Or something like that. Then there would be instances where it could be used, but it would just make every fight "I grapple, he can't do anything, I tie him up, etc..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE FUN OF MARTIALS!!!!
WE WHO ARE ABOVE ALL HAVE DEEMED THE OPTIMUM FUN FOR MARTIALS IS TO STAND STILL AND TRADE FULL ATTACKS!!! TO ASK FOR OTHERWISE IS HERESY!
NO MOVEMENT! NO MANEUVER!
/sarcasm :P
Remember, questioning any aspect of the divine perfection of Holy Pathfinder, as it was handed down from on high by the all-knowing and all-powerful God-Developers themselves, is the worst sort of heresy.
Report to your nearest Paizo Defense Force center for immediate reeducation.
Truth be told I mainly play 2/3 casters or full casters... xD
But the main reason is precisely BECAUSE I find the whole "I full attack, now I take a 5 ft step" to be really... well... dull.
Personally I love things like the Magus "Ok First I swift action, use an point to enchant my sword, now I full attack into the BBEG, at the end of my full attack, I spell Combat my Greater Bladed Dash to move away from the BBEG and cut through every other enemy in my way"
Like that is just awesome. Things like Inquisitors, Warpriests, Alchemists, and Magus are my favorite classes. I like wizards/sorcerers well enough but I preer to play 2/3 casters.. or druids... because who doesn't like playing a World Shattering ooze...
Subtract 10% from 1-6, and 20% from 7-12 & 13-20 to see how they'll do in combat maneuvers they haven't taken the Improved and Greater Combat Maneuver version of the feats.
Of course, all numbers should be modified by the number of creatures immune to any given combat maneuver, etc. etc. YMMV.
I'm kind of sick of spreadsheets for today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually have no problem with the current system. Honestly, I think some of it is too easy. It should be very difficult for even a very strong and well trained person to wrestle with a bear, take the sword away from a giant, trip a rhino, bull rush a balrog, etc...
Now I do understand the whole "it is more entertaining/fun way of handling the combat" attitude. But that is a completely different point than complaining that it is too hard to make it your go-to strategy.
maybe for a basic mortal (E-6 type characters) but remember, Mid to high level martials are like demi-gods to us... they are REDICULOUS in their feats. Using RL "logic" is just dumb. Things like this is WHY martials are stuck to "Use a great sword..."
|
Design Manager
|
Oh, and for the ones that can't replace attacks, the numbers are (assuming 17 Str, and using boots of haste, ioun stone, and tomes):
1-6: 64.16%
7-12: 48.3%
13-20: 33.75%With 20 starting str:
1-6: 71.67%
7-12: 56.67%
13-20: 41.25%
I really appreciate you running the numbers Cheapy! That being said, I think it also helps underscore my point: in levels 13-20, a min/maxed Fighter who's invested substantial resources into performing a given combat maneuver has about a 40% chance to successfully Steal/Grapple/Bull Rush/Dirty Trick a level appropriate opponent. That's a 60% chance of completely wasting his turn every single round.
It also conflicts with Paizo's other examples of how classes "should" be played; none of the iconics are min/maxed and focused that much on a single task, instead branching out into Skill Focus feats, defense boosters like Iron Will, etc.
It also leads back into my previous statement at the end of the last page; including the size modifiers creates an environment where you have to introduce items that give you a shake at using your maneuvers against larger foes, while simultaneously making you ridiculously good against medium and smaller foes.
I actually have no problem with the current system. Honestly, I think some of it is too easy. It should be very difficult for even a very strong and well trained person to wrestle with a bear, take the sword away from a giant, trip a rhino, bull rush a balrog, etc...Function of level. As levels rise [in particular right around the level these become CR appropriate] these tasks first become doable, and then become reliable, and then become easy.
Or at least they should, given that their magical counterparts are hurling orbs of flame, flying, or creating their own demiplanes (in that order as analogues for bear-wrestling, rhino tripping, and balor bull-rushing).
maybe for a basic mortal (E-6 type characters) but remember, Mid to high level martials are like demi-gods to us... they are REDICULOUS in their feats. Using RL "logic" is just dumb. Things like this is WHY martials are stuck to "Use a great sword..."I actually have no problem with the current system. Honestly, I think some of it is too easy. It should be very difficult for even a very strong and well trained person to wrestle with a bear, take the sword away from a giant, trip a rhino, bull rush a balrog, etc...
Now I do understand the whole "it is more entertaining/fun way of handling the combat" attitude. But that is a completely different point than complaining that it is too hard to make it your go-to strategy.
Disagree. They are almost demi-gods to us, so yes it is possible for them to perform those activities. That doesn't mean it should be easy to perform those activities. Most of the proposed changes I've ever seen to the system just change if from 'full attack with falchion' to every fight becomes 'I grapple (or whatever) and it can't do anything'
To me, that is just as boring.
maybe for a basic mortal (E-6 type characters) but remember, Mid to high level martials are like demi-gods to us... they are REDICULOUS in their feats. Using RL "logic" is just dumb. Things like this is WHY martials are stuck to "Use a great sword..."I actually have no problem with the current system. Honestly, I think some of it is too easy. It should be very difficult for even a very strong and well trained person to wrestle with a bear, take the sword away from a giant, trip a rhino, bull rush a balrog, etc...
Now I do understand the whole "it is more entertaining/fun way of handling the combat" attitude. But that is a completely different point than complaining that it is too hard to make it your go-to strategy.
Yeah, it's a bit silly to apply real-world physical limits to a guy with magically enhanced strength who could potentially be strong enough to bench press an elephant.
You do understand that the steal combat maneuver isn't a stealthy pick pocket but rather a grab and yank don't you?When you have Greater Steal the enemy doesn't even know something's been taken. True "grab and yank" items such as cloaks, sheathed weapons, or pouches, are harder to take, and held items can't be stolen at all, but require the Disarm skill. You can read, can't you?
If it sounds like I'm replying harshly, it's because I find it extremely insulting when people ask leading questions with no relevant rules backing them in response to detailed and researched posts.
I think you have proven my point. Without greater steal they automatically know it is taken. Granted, greater steal makes it unnoticeable, but the base maneuver most certainly is not. And in the pixie and ogre example, you made it clear that neither had improved, let alone greater steal.
|
Design Manager
|
I'm just checking here Ssalarn, you ARE thinking of PF's size modifiers right?
Because in PF the size modifiers don't scale nearly as fast as 3.5's did, they're a much lesser factor in Combat Maneuvers as opposed to in 3.5
[Large is +1, Huge is +2, Gargantuan is +4, Collossal is +8, I think? Maybe I'm the one taking it wrong here?]
Yeah. They're here. By removing them entirely you shore up smaller creatures (thus removing the ridiculousness of a hill giant pickpocketing a pixie he can't hit) and you bring larger opponents into more reachable territory (thus removing the need for scads of maneuver-improving items and abilities that make large creatures manageable but overpower smaller creatures).
|
Most of the proposed changes I've ever seen to the system just change if from 'full attack with falchion' to every fight becomes 'I grapple (or whatever) and it can't do anything'
To me, that is just as boring.
Yeah, "making things different" doesn't automatically mean "making things interesting." I was playing Iron Gods last weekend and found myself facing off against
And she basically then stood there for the next round and a half while the rogue and I beat on her, because I'd single-handedly removed her ability to do most of her stuff. It was completely boring; there was no interaction whatsoever.
In fact, that's why I think so many GMs hate maneuver-focused characters: not because they're any more effective than damage dealers are (it still took us two rounds to kill her, which would probably have been true either way), but because the action-denial makes running the encounters more boring for everyone involved...
That actually is kind of a funny story, huh.
'course, then the level 20 fighter needs to explain why he thought it was a good idea to grapple an elephant. Although at that point, I'm sure the answer is "Why not?!"
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you have proven my point. Without greater steal they automatically know it is taken. Granted, greater steal makes it unnoticeable, but the base maneuver most certainly is not. And in the pixie and ogre example, you made it clear that neither had improved, let alone greater steal.
You do understand that the steal combat maneuver isn't a stealthy pick pocket but rather a grab and yank don't you?When you have Greater Steal the enemy doesn't even know something's been taken. True "grab and yank" items such as cloaks, sheathed weapons, or pouches, are harder to take, and held items can't be stolen at all, but require the Disarm skill. You can read, can't you?
If it sounds like I'm replying harshly, it's because I find it extremely insulting when people ask leading questions with no relevant rules backing them in response to detailed and researched posts.
Nope, I didn't actually. Your point remains groundless and unproven. It takes finesse to lift an item out of a person's pocket or off their belt, regardless of whether or not the person being robbed notices it. Otherwise you never even get close enough to grab the item. Greater Steal just means you're so good they don't even know they've been robbed. To be a bit pedantic, I also didn't "make it clear" that neither of them had Improved Steal; Improved Steal increases your CMB and CMD for the steal maneuver, so they could just as easily both have had it and my numbers would have been just as accurate.
Most of the proposed changes I've ever seen to the system just change if from 'full attack with falchion' to every fight becomes 'I grapple (or whatever) and it can't do anything'
To me, that is just as boring.Yeah, "making things different" doesn't automatically mean "making things interesting." I was playing Iron Gods last weekend and found myself facing off against ** spoiler omitted ** Deciding I didn't want to be on the receiving end of what was about to happen, I pulled out my whip and disarmed her.
And she basically then stood there for the next round and a half while the rogue and I beat on her, because I'd single-handedly removed her ability to do most of her stuff. It was completely boring; there was no interaction whatsoever.
In fact, that's why I think so many GMs hate maneuver-focused characters: not because they're any more effective than damage dealers are (it still took us two rounds to kill her, which would probably have been true either way), but because the action-denial makes running the encounters more boring for everyone involved...
That's not called "maneuvers make things boring" that's called "having a bad GM who doesn't know how to react to players who don't run into the meat grinder". That assassin, if it is who I think it is (and I've run Iron Gods), had a whole arsenal of other options available. The fact that she stood around letting you pummel her face means your GM screwed up, not that maneuvers make for boring combat.
Funny story on the Elephant thing.
IF a 20th level Fighter were somehow able to grapple with a Huge sized creature [which he should be able to, as with Gargantuan. Colossal I can sort of respect forbidding grappling/tripping], and he took the Close Weapon Group and Improved and Greater Grapple...
With an 8 strength, this Fighter- while in the buff and not buffed by any magic- could only fail to pin the Elephant on a natural 1 [which is the same exact odds of failure he has to pin a level zero human child.]
Close weapon group doesn't add to grapple. No weapon bonuses do, except weapon focus grapple, and grapple is a special case in that you can take weapon focus in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much what Ssalarn said. Poor GMing is poor GMing.
How is it any different than a Wizard who casts Heat Weapons on the enemy and causes the enemy to drop their weapon?
Or a God wizard doing... well... anything really xD.
Why are wizards allowed to have all these lock down abilities, but when the martial gets JUST 1 the whole world loses it mind?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People apparently hate the idea of martial doing fun or cool things. It has really made me think about leaving the hobby. In movies, books and cinema fighters are cool, they are strong and capable. In pathfinder they can move and full attack, or they are wasting their turns.
Imagine the game of pathfinder brought to other media where the hero just 5ft steps forward, full attacks. The need for martial realism has killed the life of the game for me. Real life is not fun to me. If it was I would play it instead.....
|
|
Pretty much what Ssalarn said. Poor GMing is poor GMing.
Since the guy in question isn't a poor GM, I'd dispute the assessment and the armchair quarterbacking. "You have a bad GM" is just a variation on the Rule 0 fallacy, and insulting to boot.
How is it any different than a Wizard who casts Heat Weapons on the enemy and causes the enemy to drop their weapon?
Or a God wizard doing... well... anything really xD.
Why are wizards allowed to have all these lock down abilities, but when the martial gets JUST 1 the whole world loses it mind?
In my experience, most GMs hate save or lose too, so I don't think that's actually a counterargument.
EDIT: To put things another way, "let's add more save or lose effects to the game" is not making the game better, whether it's martials that get them or not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
126 posts before the "But, wizards!" argument was brought up in a post about martial combat.
Maybe the forums are starting to get better about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
126 posts before the "But, wizards!" argument was brought up in a post about martial combat.
Maybe the forums are starting to get better about that.
Yes because martials accepting defeat and acknowledging their caster overlords is really the route we should be going.
126 posts before the "But, wizards!" argument was brought up in a post about martial combat.
Maybe the forums are starting to get better about that.
Well its actually a legitmate question especially since Shisumo was talking about how they hated disarm because it made the encounter boring.
My counter argument was simply how is it any different than when a Wizard casts any spell other than a blasting or buffing Spell? Maybe giving martials options to be able to do things like disarm would actually be quite nice!
126 posts before the "But, wizards!" argument was brought up in a post about martial combat.
Maybe the forums are starting to get better about that.
Which is funny anyway, because the problem affects casters as well. Look at the maneuver spells at later levels (bigby's and the like), your chances with them are a joke.
yes, big colossal foes are less effected with maneuvers.
and a beholder is immune to spells.a one trick pony = fail.
i had 2 characters with maneuver usage and it worked great. both had a solid "plan b" - like all character need.
even a blaster wizard take 1-2 summoning in case it's better...
1) a beholder is only in D&D not pathfinder
2) a beholder is not immune to spells, it just has a cone of antimagic from it's front eye.
3) Golems has shown that even if something is immune to spells doesn't mean a Wizard is helpless. In fact, wizards have the easiest time with Golems.
4) Comparing a Maneuver specialists with a Blaster wizard using conjuration spells is a really weak comparison. A Wizard has a literal wal of spells. There is very little sacrificed for the wizard to prepare some Summon Monsters. A martial doesn't have that luxury.
|
Design Manager
|
Pretty much what Ssalarn said. Poor GMing is poor GMing.Since the guy in question isn't a poor GM, I'd dispute the assessment and the armchair quarterbacking. "You have a bad GM" is just a variation on the Rule 0 fallacy, and insulting to boot.
Sorry you find it insulting, but you said that the GM threw an opponent with an ice pistol at you, and after you took the pistol away she just stood there and let you guys beat her up. That's poor GMing, doubly so if it's the character I think it is. As you described it, it's the equivalent of going "Waaah!! You took away my favorite toy and now I don't want to play anymore". So either you left out critical information in a failed attempt to make a point, or your GM didn't know how to utilize the many, many options available to any character when they're disarmed (let alone that one). Your point was that "I disarmed an enemy and they couldn't do anything so the fight was boring". My counterpoint is "If your GM didn't know what to do when a character with multiple options available to them got disarmed of one of their tricks, it's not a problem with disarm or other combat maneuvers, it's a problem with your GM" and that's just the truth. If your GM stood there and let you beat up a potent NPC just because you took her gun away, that's a failure on his part, not a reflection on issues with the system.
To Pixie Dust's point, it's not even something limited to the combat maneuver system; just about every single spellcaster has at least one spell (often more) available to them that could have achieved the same or greater effect. So then the only point you could possibly have left to make with any validity is "taking away weapons from characters is bad", which many people wouldn't agree with (myself amongst those dissenters). The assassin could have withdrawn and come back later with extra weapons and thugs, could have tumbled to her weapon and regained it, could (if it's who I think it is) have cast any number of effective spells, or a variety of other options. Those options could have brought a level of interest and dynamic realism to the combat.
here are a few builds:
lore warder 10, maneuver master monk 2.
the maneuver is free action bonus every round. mostly trip or dirty tricks. all while you full attack with a heavy flail.lore warden 9, thug 3.
you can still maneuver well, but also strike fear. every attack = free action indimidate, win= opponent is running.
also, add no check sicken and extra -3 to hits.
(cornogoun smash, skill focus, dazzling spear)
You ever notice how when people start talking about how maneuvers work, they usually bring up the Lore Warden? It's because it's a poorly designed archetype in a non-hardcover splat book that exchanges a defensive ability for an overpowered offensive ability. The existence of poorly thought out non-core line materials that attempt to solve a problem by throwing more numbers at it doesn't mean there's not a problem. And the Lore Warden doesn't actually gain any ability to use his maneuvers against opponents barred by size category, so he doesn't even address many of the concerns (though it is a prime example of how abilities designed to make CMB viable against larger opponents break the system in the other direction against smaller opponents).
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the Lore Warden is a very well designed archetype that acknowledges that fighter is a massively under-par class that needs a major upgrade. It's kind of like the Quiggong of fighter archetypes, but not quite as general.
The fact that you have to give enormous bonuses to maneuvers to make them viable is not an endorsement of the maneuver system so much as an inadequate patch job over its flaws. If everyone got +2 to maneuvers per 4 class levels then they'd be patched.
No, they'd be even more broken in the other direction and anyone with the misfortune of being less than 4'5" would be slaves to their maneuver using overlords. Lore Warden is, unequivocally, a poorly designed archetype, trading out defensive options for offensive options without sacrificing existing offensive options at any point; the designer was trying to fix a systemic problem by throwing numbers at it, which is almost universally a bad idea. The Fighter already has a better chance of using maneuvers on other opponents than any other class, slapping a +8 on there isn't helping matters (neither for that matter is increasing his damage output; it ignores the fact that hitting things is not the Fighter's problem, having no way to contribute outside of combat or deal with magical obstacles is), it's moving the problems to other areas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you have proven my point. Without greater steal they automatically know it is taken. Granted, greater steal makes it unnoticeable, but the base maneuver most certainly is not. And in the pixie and ogre example, you made it clear that neither had improved, let alone greater steal.
You do understand that the steal combat maneuver isn't a stealthy pick pocket but rather a grab and yank don't you?When you have Greater Steal the enemy doesn't even know something's been taken. True "grab and yank" items such as cloaks, sheathed weapons, or pouches, are harder to take, and held items can't be stolen at all, but require the Disarm skill. You can read, can't you?
If it sounds like I'm replying harshly, it's because I find it extremely insulting when people ask leading questions with no relevant rules backing them in response to detailed and researched posts.
Nope, I didn't actually. Your point remains groundless and unproven. It takes finesse to lift an item out of a person's pocket or off their belt, regardless of whether or not the person being robbed notices it. Otherwise you never even get close enough to grab the item. Greater Steal just means you're so good they don't even know they've been robbed. To be a bit pedantic, I also didn't "make it clear" that neither of them had Improved Steal; Improved Steal increases your CMB and CMD for the steal maneuver, so they could just as easily both have had it and my numbers would have been just as accurate.
I'm surprised you didn't point this out:
His point of "yank and grab" has nothing to do with your original point that a big ol' ogre with fat fingers who has a coin's flip chance of hitting a pixie can somehow manage to steal an even smaller item off of said pixie with those same big ol' fat fingers.
Actually, the Lore Warden is a very well designed archetype that acknowledges that fighter is a massively under-par class that needs a major upgrade. It's kind of like the Quiggong of fighter archetypes, but not quite as general.
The fact that you have to give enormous bonuses to maneuvers to make them viable is not an endorsement of the maneuver system so much as an inadequate patch job over its flaws. If everyone got +2 to maneuvers per 4 class levels then they'd be patched.
actually the designed admitted it was a poorly designed archetype. Archetypes are not supposed to be all around better than the base class but the archetype broke their design standard by being an almost no brainer to take. It is rediculously good...
|
One thing no one here has mentioned is Aid Another. It's generally a bad idea to do just to let someone else hit them. After all - at high levels their first swing is already probably going to hit, and why not just take the swing yourself?
But it could easily be worth it for a manuever, especially situationally, and if any resources are put into being good at it, it's rather easy to give someone +5 to their manuver check, and that's without trying hard. I'm sure there are ways to jack it up futher. (I just picture a halfling getting down on all fours so that his buddy can tabletop an ogre over him.) Not a bad use for a secondary combatant's turn such as a bard who is done buffing.
Of course - probably the easiest way to jack up aid anothers is to get a caster to summon up a bunch of level 1 eagles or some such to help you out. By level 10ish - they're pretty worthless in combat, but they can each help you trip that BBEG with an extra +2, not to mention the +2 from a flank.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poor GMing is poor GMing.Since the guy in question isn't a poor GM...
I'd hasten to point out that calling out one instance of poor DMing is not an overall blanket assessment of someone as a poor DM.
I am a very smart guy. Sometimes I do very dumb things.
There is no actual contradiction inherent in those two statements.
Why does everyone keep saying Fighter is best at maneuvers? They're not even the best martial who does maneuvers. Strength Surge makes everything but True Strike look like a joke. Then the Magus comes along and uses True Strike to laugh at the fighter even more. The benefit of Fighter is to make the feat taxes you need to pay to specialize in maneuvers less burdensome.
I generally agree that there's a problem with combat maneuvers but as I said last time, the solutions proposed by the OP don't actually address the issues they were complaining about. As far as I can tell a lot of the issues stem from the "one monster versus four PCs" paradigm (so the monsters has to be significantly better than the PCs).
Cheapy, is there any way you could run the numbers assuming CR-2 and CR-4 monsters? I have a feeling that the numbers will come out a lot more in the player's favor but I just don't know.
The Defiler Hexcrafter build is actually VERY nasty xD. One of the most OP Magus builds by and far. Not sure how it stands up to the Trip based Lore Warden though
|
|
But then you get people in here talking about how Aid Another is just as OP as letting maneuver specialists have an easier time by allowing their maneuvers to be useful against more enemies and reducing feat taxes.
Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that I thought Aid Another was OP. I just meant to mention another tactic which makes manuvers viable in situations they otherwise wouldn't be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People seem to keep bringing up trip and disarm and what not. These are weapon based maneuvers. The main problem is with non weapon based maneuvers. These are the ones with huge issues with scaling. That's precisely why that's one of the suggested changes, making them all weapon based.
Yeah, because the monk I mentioned totally relied one weapons. *rolls eyes*
Lore Warden is a broken archetype that ignores all the rules of making balanced archetypes...
Lore Warden is one of the few BALANCED archetypes out there.
I've seen it in practice. My buddy who is a SERIOUS powergamer is always making tripper builds. He trips them, gets a free attack, like stomps them or something, then hits them again when they get up. Any melee in the area gets their attack as well, and the target is easier to hit because it's prone... Throw in some reach weapons and armor spikes and it even works on larger critters.
I almost told him not to make another one in my last game. It's scary how effective it can be.
If you build a character who does one thing really well, and then complain that the one thing he does well doesn't work in every combat, people probably aren't gonna side with you.
Like the whole 'two handed fighter can't attack flying monsters' thing... No one approach works for everything. if it did, this game would be very dull.
Yep. Combat maneuver builds are extremely viable, powerful even. I've seen exactly what you are describing and have one such player in my group.
A hammer isn't always the tool for every job.
Sometimes you gotta pick up a wrench.
Specializing in one thing makes you better at it. Spreading out resources makes you more flexible.
If by being worse at tripping you become better at hitting and killing, so be it.
Saying that combat maneuvers suck because they don't work 100% of the time is like complaining about spells allowing for saving throws.
There will always be something to challenge you, that is sort of the point of the game. Overcoming challenges.
Some things will be straight up immune to it, that's why you diversify and/or rely on party members for help.
Damned straight!
What I find sad is that a Wizard can actually pull off many combat maneuvers better than a fighter with his spells...
If you are referring to spells that allow combat maneuvers, like strangling hair or telekinesis then I disagree. A martial specialized in combat maneuver(s) will best his numbers nearly every time.
However, if you mean disabling spells in a more general sense (such as hold person, sleep, or flesh to stone), then I would totally agree.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But then you get people in here talking about how Aid Another is just as OP as letting maneuver specialists have an easier time by allowing their maneuvers to be useful against more enemies and reducing feat taxes.Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that I thought Aid Another was OP. I just meant to mention another tactic which makes manuvers viable in situations they otherwise wouldn't be.
Whoooooosh....
People seem to keep bringing up trip and disarm and what not. These are weapon based maneuvers. The main problem is with non weapon based maneuvers. These are the ones with huge issues with scaling. That's precisely why that's one of the suggested changes, making them all weapon based.Yeah, because the monk I mentioned totally relied one weapons. *rolls eyes*
Oh, you mean the tripping monk you mentioned, where he trips using his unarmed strike? The unarmed strike that's considered a weapon in game and gives all the pertinent bonuses to trip attempts? Is that the one you're referring to, where you're embarrassingly wrong?
Yeah, the "*rolls eyes*" thing wasn't necessary. Try to keep it civil in the future, and I'll extend the same courtesy.