I love the new Combat Maneuvers Bonus concept, it is a great improvement on the mechanics of 3.5
However, why not make it even more streamlined? Special combat actions should be encouraged. I propose the following changes to the general mechanics
- Drop the attack of opportunity your oppopnent get. One less die to roll
- Make all Special Combat Actions full-round actions and limit them to 1 attack per round.
- The penalty for failing your CMB roll is that your opponent immediately get an attack on you as a free action
Simple
I love the new Combat Maneuvers Bonus concept, it is a great improvement on the mechanics of 3.5
However, why not make it even more streamlined? Special combat actions should be encouraged. I propose the following changes to the general mechanics
- Drop the attack of opportunity your oppopnent get. One less die to roll
- Make all Special Combat Actions full-round actions and limit them to 1 attack per round.
- The penalty for failing your CMB roll is that your opponent immediately get an attack on you as a free action
Simple
I like them too, although some look like they need may need rebalanced a little, not sure till I actually get a chance to play pathfinder which wont be until tomorrow.
I like al of your suggestions too, except the one concerning losing all of your attacks, some of the combat maneuvers don’t seem worth losing multiple attacks for
Dropping the Attack of Opportunity but giving a free Attack of Opportunity for a failed check seems like a nifty idea to me.
I feel it makes combat more dynamic as well.
Making combat maneuvers full-round actions doesn't seem helpful for making combat mored dynamic though.
Eh, I kinda liked the attacks of opportunity... particularly when you had a high dex combatant with combat reflexes going up against a gang of humanoids... such as warrior:1 goblins or kobolds.
Not really trying to debate this one though, just offering my two cents.
|
I prefer the current version where you have to take a feat to be good enough to avoid an attack of opportunity. It means not just any Joe can afford to try to disarm you/bullrush you/etc. It also gives a great benefit to taking those "improved x" feats, which is lost in your system. Who cares about a +2 bonus without the "do not provoke an attack of opportunity" included?
I prefer the current version where you have to take a feat to be good enough to avoid an attack of opportunity. It means not just any Joe can afford to try to disarm you/bullrush you/etc. It also gives a great benefit to taking those "improved x" feats, which is lost in your system. Who cares about a +2 bonus without the "do not provoke an attack of opportunity" included?
How about the improved feat allows you to make a number of special combat attack up to your number of full attack as opposed to the only 1 attack you get without the feat?
I also believe you should drop the fix 15 used to calculate the CMB check. Replace it by a straight CMB vs CMB opposed roll because otherwise some PCs have absolutely no chance of landing a special move. With an opposed roll you can always roll 20 when the other guy rolls a 1
|
I prefer the current version where you have to take a feat to be good enough to avoid an attack of opportunity. It means not just any Joe can afford to try to disarm you/bullrush you/etc. It also gives a great benefit to taking those "improved x" feats, which is lost in your system. Who cares about a +2 bonus without the "do not provoke an attack of opportunity" included?How about the improved feat allows you to make a number of special combat attack up to your number of full attack as opposed to the only 1 attack you get without the feat?
I also believe you should drop the fix 15 used to calculate the CMB check. Replace it by a straight CMB vs CMB opposed roll because otherwise some PCs have absolutely no chance of landing a special move. With an opposed roll you can always roll 20 when the other guy rolls a 1
I think that there is a problem with the fixed 15 as well. The problem is that it becomes almost impossible to trip people. I'm currently playing a Factotum (Dungeonscape) since our party needed a primary fighter and rogue in one character. Under 3.5, I have a pretty good chance of tripping people with an opposed Str check do to the factotum's intelligence factoring into the equation. But I've got about a 60-70% chance of tripping a melee combatant. I also like the immediate attack after a successful trip as well. When you are trying to play a character whose job is to keep others away from your casters and ranged combatants it helps to be able to keep people at bay. Now, I've got a 25% chance of tripping someone and only get a +2 for taking a feat (plus my Combat Expertise is useless). I understand the over-poweredness of tripping when abused, but now tripping is almost pointless except in very few situations. Who is going to take a 25% chance of tripping, disarming, etc... your equal in melee when they have about a 50% chance of hitting you in melee and doing more damage. Trip is supposed to be powerful because you are sacrificing damage to do something interesting.
My recommendation would be to fix the DC at 10+CMB. That still makes it difficult to perform combat maneuvers, but there are actually benefits to it rather than having to lose everything for a 25% chance at having an effect on combat. What do y'all think? Does that make sense? Maybe having Weapon Focus, enhancement bonuses, and other things affecting the attack roll would help out as well.