RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
In various playtest-by-post games, I've set up encounters that just call for combat maneuvers ... Just beg for them.
Bullrush that bad guy off the ledge.
Disarm that cleric wielding a holy symbol in a crowd about to channel negative energy.
Unarmed monks jumping from table to table in a bar begging to be tripped.
The PCs seem to be reticent to try a combat maneuver and disappointed when they do. The DC of 15 seems to high for them. At the same time, the DC of 15 has kept them alive when I ...
... had six goblins try grappling one dwarf and dragging him off the edge.
... swung a flaming ogre-corpse at them on a winding staircase.
... had a giant bat grapple a half-orc and drag him off the ledge. (Yeah, I know, ledges, winding staircases, boats, and bridges feature prominently in my games).
I love the simplicity of the new mechanic and could see them creating wonderful options for martial combat-focussed classes. I hope there is a solution that will make these more attractive to players while still not making it too easy for every monster. I figure the solution might be in producing feats that improve chances of success at these maneuvers.
Ideas?
|
|
In various playtest-by-post games, I've set up encounters that just call for combat maneuvers ... Just beg for them.
Bullrush that bad guy off the ledge.
Disarm that cleric wielding a holy symbol in a crowd about to channel negative energy.
Unarmed monks jumping from table to table in a bar begging to be tripped.The PCs seem to be reticent to try a combat maneuver and disappointed when they do. The DC of 15 seems to high for them. At the same time, the DC of 15 has kept them alive when I ...
... had six goblins try grappling one dwarf and dragging him off the edge.
... swung a flaming ogre-corpse at them on a winding staircase.
... had a giant bat grapple a half-orc and drag him off the ledge. (Yeah, I know, ledges, winding staircases, boats, and bridges feature prominently in my games).I love the simplicity of the new mechanic and could see them creating wonderful options for martial combat-focussed classes. I hope there is a solution that will make these more attractive to players while still not making it too easy for every monster. I figure the solution might be in producing feats that improve chances of success at these maneuvers.
Ideas?
Try scaling it with the mosnters stats instead. Similar to a DC check. 10 + HD + stat mod. For most low levels the DC should be less than 15.
As the characters get higher level, the DC scales with the beasties. It works well for skills but then you get more points in skills than you generally get for CMB. You could try that and see how it goes, may make it more attractive at low levels.
I don't have a solution, but I have playtested all of Burnt Offering with the Beta Rules with real live players.. and my findings concur with the Original Posters.
CMB's are easier to figure out, but players won't use them. They're too difficult, from their perspective, and are simply invitations to A.O.O.'s. I've brought this up before, and I'm not bothered that it never got more attention, but now that I see this thread.. I have to speak up and try to get it noticed.
CMBs are easier to figure out, but are not getting used. Players say they're an inefficient waste of time and resources compared to a standard attack. I realize they should never eclipse standard attacks, but the balance is tipped because of the difficulty. They just don't bother using them at all.
When I use CMBs with monsters, they die fast from the AOO's. I practically have to give them 'Improved' Feats in order not to post ejaculate the encounter.
The recommendations the players have given me is a base DC of 12 instead of 15.
So I'm not the only one to notice this. As it stands now, melee brute vs melee brute means your maneuvers have a 30% accuracy, meaning your only option is to stab it in the face. If your moves have 30% accuracy, they had better be instant kills or similar scope moves. Since they're nowhere that good, they're naturally useless.
DC 12 is 45% accuracy. That's a bit better, but it's still a 55% chance of wasting your action and doing nothing. And since the ones that let you attack anyways with your attack action if they worked (trip) no longer do, you still lose out. Consider, your highest attack trips them and the next 3 hit at +4. That's +19/+14/+9. Or you could just hit them in the face for +20/+15/+10/+5, so it still ends up as a waste of an action even if it works. With the free regular attack if it works, either your first attack does nothing and then you hit at +15/+10/+5, or you trip them then hit at +24/+19/+14/+9, which gives you incentive to actually take Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Combat Reflexes as these feats are actually rewarding you in use.
I find removing the Attack of Opportunity aspect entirely from Manuvers works well, then just add a specific perk to the Improved Feats, like a scaled "degree of success" chart. That way only people who take the feat need the chart, but are still rewarded for taking the feat.
Like improved trip giving posibilities of throwing the tripped person, or going straight into a grapple (like a police takedown). Or bull rush being able to not have to follow them, or knocking them down at the end. Disarm can be the toss the weapon further away, or even harm them with their own weapon.
I find DC 10 + HD and such, as illustrated earlier, helps balance the mathematical side.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
So I'm not the only one to notice this. As it stands now, melee brute vs melee brute means your maneuvers have a 30% accuracy, meaning your only option is to stab it in the face. If your moves have 30% accuracy, they had better be instant kills or similar scope moves. Since they're nowhere that good, they're naturally useless.
DC 12 is 45% accuracy. That's a bit better, but it's still a 55% chance of wasting your action and doing nothing. And since the ones that let you attack anyways with your attack action if they worked (trip) no longer do, you still lose out. Consider, your highest attack trips them and the next 3 hit at +4. That's +19/+14/+9. Or you could just hit them in the face for +20/+15/+10/+5, so it still ends up as a waste of an action even if it works. With the free regular attack if it works, either your first attack does nothing and then you hit at +15/+10/+5, or you trip them then hit at +24/+19/+14/+9, which gives you incentive to actually take Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Combat Reflexes as these feats are actually rewarding you in use.
Of course, you probably aren't the only one hitting them when they're down. The bard, the rogue, your henchmen, ... get the whole gang in there to give them a kick.
I think the answer is probably going to be a combination of a slightly lower DC and improvements to the "improved CM" type feats.
HD based systems don't work, because monster HD scales much faster than CR whereas player HD is equal to or lower than CR meaning you might as well remove the system for humanoid use and just keep it as a monster thing.
Edit: The above still doesn't solve the fact that the low accuracy means a net loss in damage output overall. Feats are supposed to make you better, yes? Not trick you into thinking you're better, when you're actually a fool to use them.
|
Started a second game running Burnt Offerings last night testing the Beta rules. Tried some grappling but th epoor goblins just didn't have a chance. Needed to role 16 or higher to succeed on the grapple. Biggest problem was the poor goblins didn't stay alive long enough.
In this playtest we are testing "Backwards Compatability." They can use other soucebooks. The half-orc barbarian was a slaughterfest. If he hit he killed it. I was lucky on my first swing of the game and critted him. If we had not been using added HP from Con Score, he would have died. That was cool that he survived and was hurt so bad. Then he raged and it was over.
When I did try to get the grapple in the Goblin Commando had to roll 16. I of course roll a 3. Next round he was obliterated.
I will need to use grapple and maneuvers later when I have higher level bad guys, or a swarm of goblins. There is a frightening thought... a swarm of goblins. lol *shudder* I am hoping when they get to thistletop and fight the bugbear that I can disarm the barbarian and get into a grapple.
|
|
HD based systems don't work, because monster HD scales much faster than CR whereas player HD is equal to or lower than CR meaning you might as well remove the system for humanoid use and just keep it as a monster thing.
Edit: The above still doesn't solve the fact that the low accuracy means a net loss in damage output overall. Feats are supposed to make you better, yes? Not trick you into thinking you're better, when you're actually a fool to use them.
That depends upon how and why you use them.
Disarm is a great maneuver to use to get the attacker to do less damage to you to start with. Overrun is awesome for movement and attacking. Of course tripping is nice to give you additional bonuses to hit and prevent the enemy from attacking you.
The problem with just a straight forward standard attacks is that the enemy gets to attack back. Have an NPC disarm and trip the fighter once or twice and the PCs will get the idea. Nothing makes PCs think about alternatives better than making their fighter being helpless.
Now at lower levels, yes it is more difficult to land a maneuver. Especially with that 15 threshold. By level 5, though, a fighter should be lowering that threshold bit by bit. By 10 the fighter should likely need only a 10 or higher to succeed, due to high BAB and high STR and buffs. Additionaly maneuvers like Disarming and Overrun get to use any enhancement bonuses from weapons.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Edit: The above still doesn't solve the fact that the low accuracy means a net loss in damage output overall. Feats are supposed to make you better, yes? Not trick you into thinking you're better, when you're actually a fool to use them.
Well, if 'better' means damage output, I can't think of many better things for a giant bat to do than grapple, drag, and drop the dwarf off a 500' cliff. That's damage output.
At other times, reducing the enemy's damage output is 'better'. The cleric holding a holy symbol about to channel negative energy needs to be disarmed. Channeling negative energy does not provoke attacks of opportunity. There is no spellcraft check to succeed. Children are gathered around the evil cleric. (I love this scene bruhahhaha). The PCs need to disarm him now. Forget damage output ... doing damage output won't matter enough to save the children! Think of the children, Crusader.
In another scene, 'better' might mean doing no damage. A PC has become enraged through inhaling Red Ague (see, River Into Darkness). He needs to be restrained before he becomes a danger to himself or others. Doing damage would suck.
If you just want damage, hit them and hit them hard. Combat maneuvers should be designed to do something other. They may help you to hit them harder next round. They may help you control the situation.
BUT ... They should work more effectively.
Edit: The above still doesn't solve the fact that the low accuracy means a net loss in damage output overall. Feats are supposed to make you better, yes? Not trick you into thinking you're better, when you're actually a fool to use them.Well, if 'better' means damage output, I can't think of many better things for a giant bat to do than grapple, drag, and drop the dwarf off a 500' cliff. That's damage output.
At other times, reducing the enemy's damage output is 'better'. The cleric holding a holy symbol about to channel negative energy needs to be disarmed. Channeling negative energy does not provoke attacks of opportunity. There is no spellcraft check to succeed. Children are gathered around the evil cleric. (I love this scene bruhahhaha). The PCs need to disarm him now. Forget damage output ... doing damage output won't matter enough to save the children! Think of the children, Crusader.
In another scene, 'better' might mean doing no damage. A PC has become enraged through inhaling Red Ague (see, River Into Darkness). He needs to be restrained before he becomes a danger to himself or others. Doing damage would suck.
If you just want damage, hit them and hit them hard. Combat maneuvers should be designed to do something other. They may help you to hit them harder next round. They may help you control the situation.
BUT ... They should work more effectively.
I'm Lawful Evil. I look at the evil Cleric, laugh, and mock him for thinking me another weak fool that would actually be dissuaded by such silly emotions. I then blow him away regardless of what he does. If he kills the kids, well that was him not me. It's not as if he could be trusted anyways. *makes Bluff check with huge modifier, auto succeeds*
On a slightly more serious note (I wasn't joking by the way)... Ok, so this Cleric is trying to channel negative energy. You're right next to him, otherwise the point about disarming is moot. The children are all around as well, which means they're next to you as well. Um... why didn't you do something about that again?
Subduing an ally not in his own mind = take a -4 to do nonlethal damage. Some characters may not have to take the penalty. Nonlethal damage never kills, even if a Monk 20 sits there punching an old Commoner 1 in the head for hours. Your chance of success is still better than 30%, and you don't have to worry about holding the guy constantly to keep him contained since once he goes out you can just sling him over your shoulder like a sack of potatoes until you figure out how to cure the disease(?). For that matter, who is failing a save vs disease on anything other than a 1 at any level higher than 5? The DCs are pathetic, a very minor Heal modifier gives auto success on a take 10... They just don't work that often.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Now at lower levels, yes it is more difficult to land a maneuver. Especially with that 15 threshold. By level 5, though, a fighter should be lowering that threshold bit by bit. By 10 the fighter should likely need only a 10 or higher to succeed, due to high BAB and high STR and buffs. Additionaly maneuvers like Disarming and Overrun get to use any enhancement bonuses from weapons.
Against what kind of creature? I just grabbed River Into Darkness off my desk and looked at the first few encounters:
CR 6. Enraged dragonnel with a BAB of 8, size modifier of 2, and a STR bonuse of 8. CMB (unadjusted for any feats) = 18 so that's a DC of 33.
CR 5. Two Kapoacinth Rogues with a BAB of 5, size modifier of 0, and a STR bonuse of 4. CMB (unadjusted for any feats) = 9 so that's a DC of 24.
CR 3. Five Pygmy Keches with a BAB of 5, size modifier of -1, and a STR bonus of 0. CMB = 4.
That's a broad range. What do you think a fighter's CMB should be at level 5. Taking Harsk at 5th level, he'd have a CMB of 7. So, on a roll of 10, he wouldn't even be able to squeeze the monkeys (keches). Valeros at 7th level would have a CMB of 10 so he'd be able to squeeze the monkeys. I want Valeros to grab the monkey!!
|
Tarren - you never state what level you were running this at? See the above post about Fighters and monks around level 5, and that is just due to stats, never mind bonuses from feats. To run the percentages as stated above, you really need a graph. I would suggest taking the iconics as shown in the APs and graphing out the ranger, fighter, and monk.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Subduing an ally not in his own mind = take a -4 to do nonlethal damage. Some characters may not have to take the penalty. Nonlethal damage never kills, even if a Monk 20 sits there punching an old Commoner 1 in the head for hours. Your chance of success is still better than 30%, and you don't have to worry about holding the guy constantly to keep him contained since once he goes out you can just sling him over your shoulder like a sack of potatoes until you figure out how to cure the disease(?). For that matter, who is failing a save vs disease on anything other than a 1 at any level higher than 5? The DCs are pathetic, a very minor Heal modifier gives auto success on a take 10... They just don't work that often.
Ahh, so we don't need combat maneuvers at all then. There, that's settled. Let's wrap this thread up and move on. Jason, please remove that whole 'grapple' thing. It's not wanted.
Seriously, you're arguing the combat maneuvers aren't good enough to replace damage-doing attacks and I'm arguing that combat manuevers should be good enough to replace damage-doing attacks. Seems like we're in agreement.
Have anything substantive to contribute?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Tarren - you never state what level you were running this at? See the above post about Fighters and monks around level 5, and that is just due to stats, never mind bonuses from feats. To run the percentages as stated above, you really need a graph. I would suggest taking the iconics as shown in the APs and graphing out the ranger, fighter, and monk.
I've tried combat maneuvers at various levels. Someone did generate a graph during the alpha that showed a DC 12 was closer to what was in the PHB. The problem is, just lowering the DC makes it more deadly for everyone (the reason for the higher DC). Keeping the DC high makes it unappealling to bother trying.
Jal Dorak suggested improvements in the feats and I'm inclined to agree. Any other solutions?
Subduing an ally not in his own mind = take a -4 to do nonlethal damage. Some characters may not have to take the penalty. Nonlethal damage never kills, even if a Monk 20 sits there punching an old Commoner 1 in the head for hours. Your chance of success is still better than 30%, and you don't have to worry about holding the guy constantly to keep him contained since once he goes out you can just sling him over your shoulder like a sack of potatoes until you figure out how to cure the disease(?). For that matter, who is failing a save vs disease on anything other than a 1 at any level higher than 5? The DCs are pathetic, a very minor Heal modifier gives auto success on a take 10... They just don't work that often.
Ahh, so we don't need combat maneuvers at all then. There, that's settled. Let's wrap this thread up and move on. Jason, please remove that whole 'grapple' thing. It's not wanted.
Seriously, you're arguing the combat maneuvers aren't good enough to replace damage-doing attacks and I'm arguing that combat manuevers should be good enough to replace damage-doing attacks. Seems like we're in agreement.
Have anything substantive to contribute?
Already have. It's called let it work more often, and improved trip gets its free attack vs prone back. Since the main issues are low accuracy and poor use of your action even if it does work... There you go.
Another aspect that you touched on earlier Tarren was the colour and roleplaying flavour that can come from using CMB... yeah a scoring a crit is a great feeling, but then so's disarming that aforementioned evil cleric, bullrushing an ogre off a cliff [my half orc character's finest moment] or tripping the platemailed "tank"... all great dramatic moments and surely a major part of the game?
Yeah the attack!attack!attack! option is pretty easy but its also pretty unimaginative - ironic in a game that really is driven by imagination.
I recognise that I'm not factoring in the "mechanics" of the game into my musings, and agree there needs to be parity and perhaps making attacks of opp against Combat Manuevers more difficult might be an option to encourage your players..?
BD
Grapple - no payout. No seriously, you don't stop them from making attacks with larger than light weapons anymore, where's the payout?
The payout is that the enemy can't move (not that big a deal perhaps, but still...) and also that you can pin the opponent next round. It's mostly in fighting "solo" spellcaster bad guys (by making them waste actions on getting out of grapples that could be spent pulverizing the PCs).
Trip - You trip them. They suffer a minor penalty to attacks and an ok penalty to AC. Bring back the free attack with improved trip - that was enough payout to make the action worthwhile.
Even without the free attack it's modestly useful if you have enough melee fighters in your party who can benefit from it.
Spellcaster escapes as a Swift action without fail if you manage to grab him. He laughs at you for wasting your attack opportunity not breaking him in half, and unleashes Hell upon you.
I didn't notice that grapple got nerfed too, aside from the general nerf to everything melees could do except stabbing it in the face. Wow. That's bad. Monsters don't care, because they only grapple as an Improved Grab safe freebie anyways. PCs are even worse at it than before.
Bring back free attack = trip is worth it.
Then give all Fighters Dungeoncrasher and Bull Rush might be worth it.
That's a good start.
|
In various playtest-by-post games, I've set up encounters that just call for combat maneuvers ... Just beg for them.
I really wanted the Trip and Grapple ideas to work in that Monk playtest, but they just didn't.
There's no substitute to punching people in the face, it seems, and as levels increase, I expect that monster Str + size benefits will add up to CMBs that I won't even want to waste my time doing the math to realize how depressingly useless these actions have become.
The 'Irish boxing' tradition of just standing there punching each other in the face until someone falls down appears to be the pinnacle of melee combat science.
'Combat maneuver' so far seems to be French for 'wasted action.'
Spellcaster escapes as a Swift action without fail if you manage to grab him. He laughs at you for wasting your attack opportunity not breaking him in half, and unleashes Hell upon you.
You only start your campaigns at level 15 (quickened Dimension Door)? Or they all start at level 7 and every wizard has the Universal School ability? Or does every spellcaster have the Travel domain in your game?
I'd hate to have you as a DM.
Having said that, I agree that grappling is only for characters who don't contribute much anyways (I'm thinking of monks, for instance).
CMBs are easier to figure out, but are not getting used. Players say they're an inefficient waste of time and resources compared to a standard attack. I realize they should never eclipse standard attacks, but the balance is tipped because of the difficulty. They just don't bother using them at all.
I agree that CMBs aren't being used despite the simplified mechanics. My group has been playtesting since Alpha and we've tested CMBs to death(literally sometimes)
I like the previously mentioned idea of scaling opponents CMB with Hit Dice rather than the flat 15.
We also feel there needs to be more specific rules surrounding CMBs. Does fighting defensively, Combat Expertise, or Total Defense affect CMB? Should it? What about Casting defensively? What about a Bull Rush, should that affect a characters CMB as well as AC?
Some food for thought.
|
In various playtest-by-post games, I've set up encounters that just call for combat maneuvers ... Just beg for them.I really wanted the Trip and Grapple ideas to work in that Monk playtest, but they just didn't.
There's no substitute to punching people in the face, it seems, and as levels increase, I expect that monster Str + size benefits will add up to CMBs that I won't even want to waste my time doing the math to realize how depressingly useless these actions have become.
The 'Irish boxing' tradition of just standing there punching each other in the face until someone falls down appears to be the pinnacle of melee combat science.
'Combat maneuver' so far seems to be French for 'wasted action.'
Sadly, there is a place they work. black tentacles is so powerful now as to deserve a higher level spell slot. Multiple opponents, damaging grapple, bonus on subsequent checks, just deadly. In my playtest a single spell took out 4 4th level fighters (and then only because that was all the caster could fit in the area due to spacing - it could have taken out 30).
Spellcaster escapes as a Swift action without fail if you manage to grab him. He laughs at you for wasting your attack opportunity not breaking him in half, and unleashes Hell upon you.You only start your campaigns at level 15 (quickened Dimension Door)? Or they all start at level 7 and every wizard has the Universal School ability? Or does every spellcaster have the Travel domain in your game?
I'd hate to have you as a DM.
Having said that, I agree that grappling is only for characters who don't contribute much anyways (I'm thinking of monks, for instance).
Actually I assumed a very cheap item anyone could get around level 4-5. Even if they aren't a caster. Grappling alone won't bother a mage much. Grapple and silence or tanglefoot bag and silence will get the low ones, and sometimes the mid ones. Otherwise forget it.
My campaigns usually start in the 3-5 range. 1-2 I have to tiptoe too much to avoid a slaughter, and very high levels work better if built up to but then that requires people to be reliable and stick around a while. Relying upon the unreliable is a suboptimal life tactic.
By the way, why in the Nine Hells of Baator do Wizards get free Quicken and other metamagics anyways?
Actually I assumed a very cheap item anyone could get around level 4-5.
A non-core item, I presume (Anklet of Get Out of Jail Free). To say that a Pathfinder ability is made useless by a non-Pathfinder item is not a very good argument against the ability.
Even if they aren't a caster. Grappling alone won't bother a mage much. Grapple and silence or tanglefoot bag and silence will get the low ones, and sometimes the mid ones. Otherwise forget it.
I don't know what to tell you. I have seen grappling (and specifically pinning) used to great effect against low- to mid-level wizards in the Core Coliseum. I think it's a poor choice to make grappling a standard action (instead of an attack action), and I think it should still be an opposed check, but I don't think it's totally useless in Pathfinder.
By the way, why in the Nine Hells of Baator do Wizards get free Quicken and other metamagics anyways?
I'm not going to defend that particular design choice. :-)
I argue from the perspective of balance. Since the core is about as unbalanced as it gets, and the non core adds a lot less to the high end (casters) than the low end (everyone else) I assume this is also from the perspective of balance, therefore the MIC is available. Casters can use it, but everyone else gets a lot more mileage out of it. PF further imbalances the core, magnifying the above condition.
With that said all you need is anything that doesn't have a somatic component and will let you escape assuming that they grab you in the first place instead of taking advantage of their attack opportunity to smash your face in.
With that said all you need is anything that doesn't have a somatic component and will let you escape assuming that they grab you in the first place instead of taking advantage of their attack opportunity to smash your face in.
That's why grappling is best used by feeble classes like the monk who don't do much damage face-smashing damage anyways (as I noted above). I like to think of the monk as a scroll of Evard's Single Black Tentacle. :-(
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
With that said all you need is anything that doesn't have a somatic component and will let you escape assuming that they grab you in the first place instead of taking advantage of their attack opportunity to smash your face in.That's why grappling is best used by feeble classes like the monk who don't do much damage face-smashing damage anyways (as I noted above). I like to think of the monk as a scroll of Evard's Single Black Tentacle. :-(
How do we make combat maneuvers more attractive to classes like the monk without making them more likely to be used to even more deadly effect by every eight legged creature out there? Right now, the monk applies her level to CMBs (to make up for a lower attack bonus). Could this be improved?
|
|
How do we make combat maneuvers more attractive to classes like the monk without making them more likely to be used to even more deadly effect by every eight legged creature out there? Right now, the monk applies her level to CMBs (to make up for a lower attack bonus). Could this be improved?With that said all you need is anything that doesn't have a somatic component and will let you escape assuming that they grab you in the first place instead of taking advantage of their attack opportunity to smash your face in.That's why grappling is best used by feeble classes like the monk who don't do much damage face-smashing damage anyways (as I noted above). I like to think of the monk as a scroll of Evard's Single Black Tentacle. :-(
Make it part of their attack style
Sweeping leg kick as a standard attack. Does full damage and allows you to attempt a trip. Like a wolf's trip attack.
Monkey style or Jujitsu techniqe. As part of your attacking style you automatically attempt grapples. As this is a standard attack it doesn't provoke AoO. You deal damage because of pressure point manipulation or twisting locks. The to hit is just for the grab on the opponent, but since its the way you've been trained you're not just striking your opponent with force, your reaching out to grab and twist in extremely uncomforatable ways. You manage to get the twist in, the grapple is then just to maintain a hold. But its free. (Thinking aloud for the moment so this one really needs some work on its justification)
Alteratively, allow monks to make CMB moves against opponents touch AC instead. Watch everyone squirm if that rule gets allowed :)
Hell, you could even make this last one a feat for any one to take, but make the requiremnts steep enough that it's not overly used (requires improved whatever before taking). This one would make fighters better at it as well.
A trip is good for stopping movement of opponents btw. It allows for some battlefield control by the fighter types, as they are getting to dictate where the opponent stays.
Hope these are helpful, or at least stimulate some more discussion in the right direction.
Cheers
|
|
I must disagree with you folks who think grapple is useless. In our RotRl campaign, both the fighter and the monk have used grapple many times, and often with great success. Hell, our fighter grappled a goblin, and on the following round stuck it into a fire. Maybe not neccesarily the smartest thing to do, but very "flashy", and provided good enertainment, but the point is they both use it fairly often right now (still on the first book), and don't seem to have to much trouble pulling it off.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I must disagree with you folks who think grapple is useless. In our RotRl campaign, both the fighter and the monk have used grapple many times, and often with great success. Hell, our fighter grappled a goblin, and on the following round stuck it into a fire. Maybe not neccesarily the smartest thing to do, but very "flashy", and provided good enertainment, but the point is they both use it fairly often right now (still on the first book), and don't seem to have to much trouble pulling it off.
I don't think they are useless, I just think they are pretty hard to pull off and make work. Most of the players in my games who have used them have ended up saying, "It would have been better just to keep hitting the guy."
Take a first level human fighter with a strength of 16. Her CMB will be +4.
A goblin has a CMB of 0. So, the fighter has a +4 advantage. She succeeds 50% of the time but gives the goblin an attack of opportunity.
Now, same fighter. Take a hobgoblin. A hobgoblin has a CMB of +2. So, the fighter has a +2 advantage. She succeeds 40% of the time but gives the hobgoblin an attack of opportunity.
If the fighter had taken a sword to the goblin and hobgoblin, she would have had similar chances of hitting (less chance for the goblin better chance for the hobgoblin) and wouldn't have provoked an attack of opportunity.
Now, a gnoll (at CR 1) has a CMB of +3. We're down to a 35% chance of hitting. The attack provokes an AoO. The chances of our fighter holding onto her gnoll long enough to do something is about about 50%. Meanwhile, the gnoll has had yet another attack. Grappling that gnoll would be a mistake, perhaps a deadly one.
|
|
Who cares how many 4th level fighters a 7+th level wizard can kill? Those are CR2 mooks (in pathfinder), they're meant to die in large numbers and not pose much of a challenge. At 22hp each (probably plus a small con mod) a 7th level mage almost expects to kill them with a *fireball*. And as fireball is a bad 3rd level spell instead of a good 4th level spell...Under the old grapple rules, Black Tentacles also kills arbitrarily many 4th level fighters. In fact, it has a 25% better chance of doing so, because the expected roll of d20 is 10.5, not 15.
This is why playtesting is valuable and spewing numbers is not. It was a large battle pitting the PCs and 10 guardsmen against 10 dwarven fighters, their cleric leader and a gnome sorcerer. The outcome wasn't just win/lose - the objective was to minimize friendly casualties and try to capture an enemy alive.
Before you assume anything, I will point out that said fighters had over 40 hit points each (10+5+6+5+8 Con+4 Favored Class+7 Toughness).
The fact is the dwarves needed to roll a natural 20 to escape the spell. The tentacles received a +14 on their check (+19 if already grappling). Even if the fighters had been 9th level, the caster would need around a 14 to start the grapple (15+9 BAB+4 Str). This was a wide open field with large gaps - in confined conditions the spell is even more deadly. It isn't the initial grapple that is worse, it is the escape attempt against 15+19 versus the old version of 1d20+18.
I don't think they are useless, I just think they are pretty hard to pull off and make work. Most of the players in my games who have used them have ended up saying, "It would have been better just to keep hitting the guy."
That's why you don't grapple in cases where it would be more useful to hit the guy. You save it for cases like high AC/low BAB enemies, creatures with Flyby Attack, pinning spellcasters, etc.*
*This advice does not apply in campaigns where everyone has cheap, easy access to teleportation.
Sadly, there is a place they work. black tentacles is so powerful now as to deserve a higher level spell slot.
It's not that Black Tentacles is more powerful, it's just that in cases where grappling has a decent chance of working, it's harder to escape. But in Pathfinder (for instance) if I'm grappled it doesn't stop me from using one-handed ranged weapons or full-attacking with natural weapons; that part isn't an increase in power.
I must disagree with you folks who think grapple is useless. In our RotRl campaign, both the fighter and the monk have used grapple many times, and often with great success. Hell, our fighter grappled a goblin, and on the following round stuck it into a fire. Maybe not neccesarily the smartest thing to do, but very "flashy", and provided good enertainment, but the point is they both use it fairly often right now (still on the first book), and don't seem to have to much trouble pulling it off.
2 rounds to do something funny that probably won't work, or 1 round to do something effective that probably will work (and if you attempt it twice, success is practically assured). I rest my case.
Oh and enemies get free hits on you.
As stated multiple times before, Trip would go back to being worth using with the free attack and the +4.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Would upping the benefits of 'Improved' Combat maneuver feats be enough? What about, instead of making the benefit +2, they allowed the BAB to be added in a second time. So, for that particular maneuver, your CMB was Size Mod + STR + (BABx2) instead of Size Mod + STR + BAB. Of course, the improved feat would become worth less until the BAB became 2 but then it would scale with level. The monk would multiply their level instead of their BAB. Is this too much?
|
|
Would upping the benefits of 'Improved' Combat maneuver feats be enough? What about, instead of making the benefit +2, they allowed the BAB to be added in a second time. So, for that particular maneuver, your CMB was Size Mod + STR + (BABx2) instead of Size Mod + STR + BAB. Of course, the improved feat would become worth less until the BAB became 2 but then it would scale with level. The monk would multiply their level instead of their BAB. Is this too much?
I don't know if 'too much' is the right word for it, but the BABx2 seems clunky to me. I'm leaning more towards a flat bonus like +4.
A 'double BAB' bonus ends up being useless to a 1st level Monk or Cleric or Rogue, while also being kind of insane in the hands of a 10th level Fighter, who has a +10 to hit with his sword, but a +20 if he wants to trip or disarm or sunder.
Lowering the target number for CMB from 15+CMB to 10+CMB, or perhaps 12+CMB, seems like a more ideal solution, although I'm also partial to the idea of Monks getting full BAB for CMB purposes, making them the masters of fancy maneuvers.
Combat Maneuvers: 12 + CMB. Improved whatever is a +4. 11 or 10 might work better, but then making the Improved +4 may be enough.
Bull Rush: Add a second level Fighter only feat that lets them do 4d6 + str mod doubled if they bull rush an enemy into a wall. Add a sixth level Fighter only feat that improves this to 8d6 + str mod tripled. For those of you paying attention at home, that's the important parts of the Dungeoncrasher variant which makes Bull Rush worth a damn, and it costs your 2nd and 6th level feats. The bonuses to breaking stuff don't really matter, especially since they will trick the gullible into breaking their own treasure so those are ignored. Given the degree of difficulty in set up, and the fact this takes your entire round even if it fails there is nothing remotely overpowered about it.
Trip: If you successfully trip an enemy, you can make a free attack against them. In other words, the old Improved Trip that was worth a damn.
If Disarm can be salvaged despite the ultra cheap immunity, put in that Improved Disarm, if successful makes the enemy roll an attack roll against themselves and if they hit they do whatever damage they would normally do.
Would upping the benefits of 'Improved' Combat maneuver feats be enough? What about, instead of making the benefit +2, they allowed the BAB to be added in a second time.
I'd rather see Improved Trip (say) allow you to do a free trip attempt once per round when you hit with a tripping weapon (like a wolf's Trip ability). Similarly, Improved Grapple would allow you to do a free grapple attempt when you hit with an unarmed attack, Improved Disarm would allow you a free disarm attempt, Improved Sunder would allow you a free sunder attempt, etc.
The problem with just adding a bunch of bonuses is that a specialized character quickly becomes impossible to resist (without specialized defenses like locking gauntlets, Freedom of Movement, etc.).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Yeah, I thought that the Improved Maneuver feats giving you double BAB instead of straight BAB would be a bit much. At the same time, I really want to build a character that specializes in maneuvers. After a while, the straight +2 (or even +4) will cease to be remarkable. Could this continue to scale? Could the feat be taken more than once? Could their be a 'Greater Improved' series? If I was willing to pay for it in feats, how could I do it?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
The Dungeoncrasher variants were too much... Awesome Blow only did 1d6 points of damage for a standard action. 4d6 and 8d6 is way too much for pushing someone into a wall... Ever play hockey? Slamming into the boards doesn't do that much damage in pads, let alone armor and you can skate a helluva lot faster than you can run!!!
I'd at most find 1d6 non-lethal damage acceptable for a standard Bull Rush into an unyielding object.
--Vrockey Player