1d6 as a standard action is utter garbage, not even worth it at level 1, even if you didn't have to burn a feat on it. The dungeoncrasher variant makes you lose your level 2 fighter feat to do 4d6 + double strength (probably 6 points at this level). 4d6+6 (20) if you can actually set that up, and push them far enough justifies the use of the action instead of just hitting them in the face for 2d6+4 (11). Then you lose your level 8 feat to make that 8d6 + triple strength (likely 15 points at this level). 8d6+15 (43) again justifies the conditional maneuver instead of hitting twice for 2d6+9 (16). Those aren't counting any damage bonuses you have other than strength and weapon enhancement, stab it in the face comes out better with said things.
Level 20 he has something like 8d6+33 (61) here, which is nowhere near as good as full attacking but if you're feeling mean you can always slap on Brutal Surge, Knockback, etc to do it more than once a round. Then it will keep up.
Powerful Charge is utter garbage. No one cares about bonus dice on a charge. You want straight bonuses for obvious reasons.
If you are going to take a random chance on something it must be significantly better than your reliable option, especially if it costs resources to get it. Period. Otherwise you spend feats to get weaker... Logic Fail.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Did I say anything abouty making the 1d6 damage a feat??? Nope, I said 1d6 for standard everyday old Bull Rush into walls, fences, etc.
A feat might be worth 4d6, but 8d6 seems a bit much. Thats way better than Powerful charge!
I think pushing them into a wall should count as a successful unarmed attack for whatever size you are. The damage is a plus but you bullrush someone because you want them to move somewhere. The damage is bonus.
|
|
I really want to build a character that specializes in maneuvers... If I was willing to pay for it in feats, how could I do it?What if every improved maneuver feat added +1 to all combat maneuver checks in addition to +2 with one particular maneuver?
So if you take just Improved Trip, you get +3 while tripping and +1 while doing any other maneuver. If you later take Improved Disarm, you then get +4 while tripping and disarming and +2 when doing any other maneuver. And so on.
Kind of like a synergy bonus. I could run with that idea.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I was thinking along similar lines but more in terms of combat styles. Looking at the prerequisites, I grouped Improved Disarm, Improved Feint, and Improved Trip under "Defensive Combat Style" and Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, Scorpion Style, Gorgon's Fist, and Stunning Fist as "Unarmed Combat Style". Improved bull rush, overrun, and sunder would be grouped together too. Is this too much?
Defensive Combat Style
You are well-trained in fighting defensively and catching your opponents off-guard.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, BAB+8.
Benefit: You gain additional benefits from the following feats: Improved Disarm, Improved Feint, and Improved Trip. When attempting these maneuvers, you get +4 on the attempt (instead of +2 allowed by the feat) and get to make a an immediate attack upon a successful attempt.
Unarmed Combat Style
You are well-trained in fighting well unarmed.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, BAB+8.
Benefit: You get additional benefits from the following feats: Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, Scorpion Style, Gorgon's Fist, and Stunning Fist. The fortitude saves to avoid the effects of Scorpion Style, Gorgon's Fist, and Stunning Fist now equals (DC 10 + your character level + your Wis modifier) instead of (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wis modifier). Your bonus when attempting to grapple is now +4 instead of +2 allowed by Improved Grapple.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I really want to build a character that specializes in maneuvers... If I was willing to pay for it in feats, how could I do it?What if every improved maneuver feat added +1 to all combat maneuver checks in addition to +2 with one particular maneuver?
So if you take just Improved Trip, you get +3 while tripping and +1 while doing any other maneuver. If you later take Improved Disarm, you then get +4 while tripping and disarming and +2 when doing any other maneuver. And so on.
Yours is simpler and allows for higher bonuses if one wants them bad enough. It would probably work better for what I want. ;-)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
1d6 as a standard action is utter garbage, not even worth it at level 1, even if you didn't have to burn a feat on it... Logic Fail.
Crusader why are you so caustic? Try making your arguments with a smile on your face... it might bleed through to your text and make it sound happier.
Now 1d6 isn't garbage, it's more than you had before. It's also the damage that Telekinesis does with the Violent Thrust option. Again it matches an established game mechanic.
--Vrock the Vote!
|
If you are going to take a random chance on something it must be significantly better than your reliable option, especially if it costs resources to get it. Period. Otherwise you spend feats to get weaker... Logic Fail.
The combat manuevers don't need to be "significantly better". They all have particular uses that makes them more valuable in specific situations than just a regular old hack 'n slash. The real issue here is that the DC to pull off a CM doesn't scale well. The goal of playtesting CMB should be to find a way to put it on level-footing with a standard attack. Then the average character (without CMB-related feats) is only choosing between doing damage and doing something interesting (tripping, disarming, grappling, moving his enemy, etc.)
|
|
If you are going to take a random chance on something it must be significantly better than your reliable option, especially if it costs resources to get it. Period. Otherwise you spend feats to get weaker... Logic Fail.The combat manuevers don't need to be "significantly better". They all have particular uses that makes them more valuable in specific situations than just a regular old hack 'n slash. The real issue here is that the DC to pull off a CM doesn't scale well. The goal of playtesting CMB should be to find a way to put it on level-footing with a standard attack. Then the average character (without CMB-related feats) is only choosing between doing damage and doing something interesting (tripping, disarming, grappling, moving his enemy, etc.)
I agree with Aerthos. The base DC is built on 15 and uses base attack bonus and relevant modifiers, which scales faster than most AC. In other words, the CM specialist is always behind. First off, in terms of standardization, the DC should use 11+modifiers, as this is used for "difficult" checks. Second, their needs to be a generic way to improve CMB with feats or class abilities (like the monk, which only catches the fighter's BAB).
1d6 as a standard action is utter garbage, not even worth it at level 1, even if you didn't have to burn a feat on it... Logic Fail.Crusader why are you so caustic? Try making your arguments with a smile on your face... it might bleed through to your text and make it sound happier.
Now 1d6 isn't garbage, it's more than you had before. It's also the damage that Telekinesis does with the Violent Thrust option. Again it matches an established game mechanic.
--Vrock the Vote!
1d6 as your entire action is garbage. It is less than you had before (if it isn't, I feel sorry for you), and you are having to pay more to get it. Getting less for more is garbage. Period. I don't play the Happy Fun Time game to obfuscate my words. I tell it like it is.
Violent Thrust to expend a 5th level spell and allow a save for that? Um, no. TK is for moving objects around (Sustained Force), Long range combat maneuvers round after round with no drawback (provided you have an ability that makes Concentrating on a spell a Swift action, so you can still do other stuff). Now using Violent Thrust to make 15 ranged attacks with some Greatswords... that might be worth it. But throwing the creature? Forget it. Waste of a spell, waste of an action, waste period.
If you are going to take a random chance on something it must be significantly better than your reliable option, especially if it costs resources to get it. Period. Otherwise you spend feats to get weaker... Logic Fail.The combat manuevers don't need to be "significantly better". They all have particular uses that makes them more valuable in specific situations than just a regular old hack 'n slash. The real issue here is that the DC to pull off a CM doesn't scale well. The goal of playtesting CMB should be to find a way to put it on level-footing with a standard attack. Then the average character (without CMB-related feats) is only choosing between doing damage and doing something interesting (tripping, disarming, grappling, moving his enemy, etc.)
*insert wall bang smiley here*
Standard attacks are something you can do for free. These are things you have to light a feat (and possibly more than one feat) on fire for just to achieve basic competence at. Who will pay for something they already have? If it is only 'as good' as hitting it in the face but has a greater cost it is still worthless.
It must be significantly better than auto attacking to even begin to be worth considering. This is why 3.5 Improved Trip was one of the few feats worth a damn in the core books. The follow up attack vs -4 AC if it works makes it worth trying and potentially failing. If you have more than one attack keep swinging.
I agree with Aerthos. The base DC is built on 15 and uses base attack bonus and relevant modifiers, which scales faster than most AC.
Except when it doesn't. :-)
The point is that you don't use grappling on creatures that are hard to grapple! This was true in 3.5, and it's still true now. So if you want to grapple, stick with grappling monsters like spellcasters* or air elementals and don't bother grappling giants or dragons.
*Note: Some adverse side effects have been reported. Consult your physician before trying Grapple.
Air elementals? You mean those things that are only slightly easier to grapple than anything else far bigger than you (which is most stuff)? Not a target.
Air elementals? You mean those things that are only slightly easier to grapple than anything else far bigger than you (which is most stuff)? Not a target.
Bigness has almost nothing to do with grappling difficulty now. Only Str and BAB matter.
For instance, a Large air elemental has a CMB of +9 (+2 Str, +6 BAB, +1 size). It's trivial for a level 5 melee fighter to have a CMB that high.
But hey...it's just an example. You're a smart guy; I'm sure you could come up with another example of a mobile, low-Str enemy that would be worth pinning in one place.
At level 5, everything doesn't automatically outclass you, only some of the stuff does. I was looking at huge and bigger stuff. Look forward a few levels.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Again how is getting 1d6 damage for bull rushing a creature into a wall garbage? Firstly it wouldn't require a feat, it'd be part of the baseline Bull Rush maneuver. Secondly you're still MOVING the creature which is the whole purpose of Bull Rush. As it stands now you get no damage whatsoever from a bull rush unless you move the foe into a hazard or over a fall. Bull Rush is a tactical option you utilize to set up a foe or draw AoO's. If it's better to just hit the enemy, hit them. However some people like to do oddball things besides Power Gaming.
As for Concentrating as a swift action, if you're using the Skill Trick Swift Concentration you can only do it once per encounter unless you have a feat or class ability that gives you more uses. You'd need the Extraordinary Concentration feat from CAdv and still have to beat a DC 35 + spell level.
--Vrock you like a Hurricane!
Again how is getting 1d6 damage for bull rushing a creature into a wall garbage? Firstly it wouldn't require a feat, it'd be part of the baseline Bull Rush maneuver. Secondly you're still MOVING the creature which is the whole purpose of Bull Rush. As it stands now you get no damage whatsoever from a bull rush unless you move the foe into a hazard or over a fall. Bull Rush is a tactical option you utilize to set up a foe or draw AoO's. If it's better to just hit the enemy, hit them. However some people like to do oddball things besides Power Gaming.
As for Concentrating as a swift action, if you're using the Skill Trick Swift Concentration you can only do it once per encounter unless you have a feat or class ability that gives you more uses. You'd need the Extraordinary Concentration feat from CAdv and still have to beat a DC 35 + spell level.
--Vrock you like a Hurricane!
Because it does not justify blowing your entire round on it. Action Economy. 1d6 might as well not exist. Hell, I think the person that said 1d6 specified 1d6 nonlethal which just adds to the general ineffectiveness. And if you don't have the feat (Improved Bull Rush) you might as well disregard the existence of Bull Rush entirely since you will either fail because you do not have basic competence at it, or fail because you gave the enemy a free shot at you and they hit you on a 2 thereby negating the attempt.
You're welcome to play around with your random oddball things while stuff is trying to kill you, and probably doing a good job of it. Me? I'm going to play my character as someone facing hazards and adapt accordingly by having them act as if they are facing real threats. Not turn the battlefield into my Super Happy Fun Time playground and do random crap Jester style while everyone dies.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
[thread jack]I apologize to everyone else for this...
Action Economy huh... you must be a joy to play with. Crunching the numbers for every round finding the most efficient action to take to WIN, WIN, WIN!!!
You do realize some people play this game for fun, not optimizing the crap out of it. People like you make DMing hard because your character requires a DM to build a monster or npc so nasty it'll simply kill the rest of the group unless they are just as Optimization-happy as you are.
I've seen you tearing down deisgners of 3rd edition on these boards basically telling them that even though they helped make this game you came along tore it down and built it back up and play it better than they do. Guess what buddy the game isn't just built for Optimization jockeys like you, it's built for the average player too. There are people who like doing screwball things or trying something out for the FUN of it. The game doesn't have to play at Mach 1 taking advantage of every loophole and rules gray area.
In short why don't you tone back your bad attitude and be more helpful instead of being so devisive. This is a playtest and the Constructive portion of constructive criticism is what's appreciated.
[/thread jack]
[thread jack]I apologize to everyone else for this...
Action Economy huh... you must be a joy to play with. Crunching the numbers for every round finding the most efficient action to take to WIN, WIN, WIN!!!
It's not really any different than certain baseball fans talking about sabermetrics or "moneyball" (even though many fans couldn't care less).
Ok. So let me get this straight. You're over in Iraq, or some other warzone. You get in an encounter. What do you do? Because if it's 'goof around while you and your buddies are getting shot at' the enemy, your allies, and I are all questioning your sanity.
Betcha ten bucks you stick with tactics that actually work instead of random BS that won't do much even if it does work.
Now. To be roleplaying, you must be portraying your fictional character as if they were a real person. If you would think a real person was high on crack for doing something, chances are the people in the game world think the same of your character. Now ask yourself, if the guy beside you in your squad was high on crack, would you want him around? I would hope the answer is a resounding hell no. So why would your buddies in the fictional world think any differently?
It's not even about optimizing. It's about roleplaying. If your character is just your disposable sprite, and the other guys think the same by all means do stupid stuff intentionally and get yourself killed. If those characters remotely matter to you, and you are at least attempting to play them realistically you aren't going to goof off.
So the question is do you play D&D for mindless hack and slash, or something more?
Oh and I am for around Tier 3, which is the balanced tier. Nice try with the strawman, but I don't sic Druid 20s and Shadowcraft Mages on my DMs unless they are total douchebags, in which case they had it coming and learned a very important lesson as I would have used this to correct some blatantly false belief like 'spiked chain fighters/tome of battle/warlocks are overpowered' so I show them real overpowered and they get the point fast.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Ok. So let me get this straight. You're over in Iraq, or some other warzone. You get in an encounter. What do you do? Because if it's 'goof around while you and your buddies are getting shot at' the enemy, your allies, and I are all questioning your sanity.
Betcha ten bucks you stick with tactics that actually work instead of random BS that won't do much even if it does work.
Now. To be roleplaying, you must be portraying your fictional character as if they were a real person. If you would think a real person was high on crack for doing something, chances are the people in the game world think the same of your character. Now ask yourself, if the guy beside you in your squad was high on crack, would you want him around? I would hope the answer is a resounding hell no. So why would your buddies in the fictional world think any differently?
Sorry I'm not into method acting. No actually for the most part I DM, and when I do play I like to have fun. No I don't always play an optimised player, sometimes I play a weak one or choose feats, spells, equipment, etc that matters more to the storyline than what would be best for that character build. Hell I think I'm the only player in my group that keeps the art objects found in treasure to decorate my pad or wear as jewelry and don't sell them for gear!
The group I DM which has ranged from 4 to 10 players for the last 16 years has had it's share of gamers like you. In every instance they outshine the other PC's in ability and hog the limelight. I personally find that gaming style to be disruptive and less than fun as have several in my group.
Now I'm not up on these tiers you speak of but I could probably find out what they are if I were remotely interested. But I'm not. I'm only interested in making the PFRPG as FUN as possible and keeping it feeling as much like the classic D&D I've been playing for the last 20 years. So far it's doing that and this playtest will hoepfully continue that. I do however find players like you to be extremely disruptive and counterintuitive to polite debate and discussion.
Truthfully when I read anything you've written it seems to me that you're either an unmittigated jerk or you simply lack any tact in your communication style. Now obviously you are passionate about this game, as am I, but for the sake of decorum try to make your arguments without coming off like a righteous know-it-all. Turn the volume down a couple notches from 11.
Thank you kindly.
|
|
Would allowing combat manuevers to affect initiative be too overpowering? Say, if a frontline fighter type (or Big Dumb Fighter as Crusader is fond of saying) was able to grab/trip/sunder opponents into a -5 or -10 initiative, wouldn't that be a way to mediate incoming threats against backline types? It would also create a little more opportunity between the maneuver effect and the opponent's recovery.
Combat Maneuvers could be a useful way for allies to get a shot off before the opponent can react.
Too wonky? Not compatible?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I always wondered if Thunderstones could effect that past the opening round of Combat but figured they're only good in a suprise round for the -4 Initiative, deafness works normally anytime in the combat.
I could see however a condition like dazed or checked or staggered to be applied if a certain DC was failed (Will or Fort 10 + 1/2 HD + Str mod).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Ok. So let me get this straight. You're over in Iraq, or some other warzone. You get in an encounter. What do you do? ...
Okay, I'm with you. You're in warzone. Your tank is surrounded. A car pulls up in front of you blocking your path but you're getting shot at from all sides. Oh, what's that in the window? A rocket launcher ... What are we going to do? I got it! Let's bull rush the tank!
The main focus of combat maneuvers is to gain a specific advantage on the battlefield. I don't need my bullrush to do more damage than a 30' fall. I need it to move guys around.
I want combat maneuvers to be better at this and couldn't give a rat's ass about whether or not they do damage as that is not what I'm using them for nor is it what they are there for. When I want to hurt something, I'll hit it.
|
|
I always wondered if Thunderstones could effect that past the opening round of Combat but figured they're only good in a suprise round for the -4 Initiative, deafness works normally anytime in the combat.
I could see however a condition like dazed or checked or staggered to be applied if a certain DC was failed (Will or Fort 10 + 1/2 HD + Str mod).
Why not make it something simple, say
"If [combat maneuver] is successful, on the target's next turn he is only allowed a partial action unless he succeeds on a Fortitude save with a DC equal to 10 + 1/2 your level."
Cannon. Also, moving things around < killing them. Dungeoncrasher was the only thing that managed to save Bull Rush, therefore Dungeoncrasher is the solution. If you want to ensure Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things then by all means, keep arguing to deny them any meaningful options.
I am ignoring Prime on the grounds he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about and is just making up random false stuff.
Dungeoncrasher was the only thing that managed to save Bull Rush, therefore Dungeoncrasher is the solution.
I don't think anything is needed to "save" Bull Rush. It's a niche maneuver (for pushing people into pools of lava, or off cliffs, or just plain out of the way), and it's fine to have it remain a niche maneuver. If that makes Improved Bull Rush a useless feat, who cares?
The main focus of combat maneuvers is to gain a specific advantage on the battlefield. I don't need my bullrush to do more damage than a 30' fall. I need it to move guys around.I want combat maneuvers to be better at this and couldn't give a rat's ass about whether or not they do damage as that is not what I'm using them for nor is it what they are there for. When I want to hurt something, I'll hit it.
I've refrained from many more comments in this thread, but I'm back.
I'm 100% with Tarren here, he has the right idea.
A combat maneuver should not be an alternative way to do damage. The standard straight forward attack addresses that need to score damage just fine.
A combat maneuver is a means to gain a tactical advantage in the fight, as an alternative to simply doing damage.
Making an opponent fall down, move to another space, drop their weapon, or be wrestled to the ground (etc), are all tactical advantages in combat that result in serious advantages for the attacker. They're a worthwhile trade off from simply doing damage.
Having more options than simply doing damage ultimately leads to role-playing, and away from a video game 'attack and destroy' mentality. Note, I'm not saying that combat maneuvers is role-playing in of itself, but whenever the thought process of the player expands to more than binary 'attack and react' it promotes creativity and different approaches in problem solving.
Players and monsters need to have a reasonable chance at pulling off combat maneuvers, as opposed to a standard attack, or otherwise they won't be used.
In my playtest, they're not being used by the PCs at all. They're not a viable alternative to just attacking.
And has it occurred to you the reason they are not is because *wait for it* you are always better off hitting it in the face than moving it a little?
If falling into lava/a pit/whatever didn't mean breaking or otherwise losing your own treasure it could be considered tactically valid. But since it does mean that, it is counterproductive. Don't look at Dungeoncrasher bull rushes as alternatives to doing damage. Look at them as incentives to slam enemies over and through things instead of just hitting it in the face. Right now, I can pull anyone here that knows their stuff and they'll agree that bull rush was a waste of time until Dungeoncrasher, which shortly after got a thread to the effect of 'Bumping up against the wall OR Bull Rush finally gets its day!' which explored uses for what is now a valid tactic.
If falling into lava/a pit/whatever didn't mean breaking or otherwise losing your own treasure it could be considered tactically valid.
Why would pushing someone off a cliff for 8d6 damage be any more damaging to equipment than smashing them into a wall for 8d6 damage?
At any rate, I said it's a niche. If you're fighting an enemy with a bunch of treasure, you don't push your enemy into a Sphere of Annihilation. I didn't think I specifically needed to state that, but I guess I do.
Sigh.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
And has it occurred to you the reason they are not is because *wait for it* you are always better off hitting it in the face than moving it a little?
If falling into lava/a pit/whatever didn't mean breaking or otherwise losing your own treasure it could be considered tactically valid. But since it does mean that, it is counterproductive. Don't look at Dungeoncrasher bull rushes as alternatives to doing damage. Look at them as incentives to slam enemies over and through things instead of just hitting it in the face. Right now, I can pull anyone here that knows their stuff and they'll agree that bull rush was a waste of time until Dungeoncrasher, which shortly after got a thread to the effect of 'Bumping up against the wall OR Bull Rush finally gets its day!' which explored uses for what is now a valid tactic.
Not every creature carries treasure and sometimes you need to move an enemy away from an ally at all costs. It doesn't have to be the fighter that's doing the moving as Bull Rush is an option for everyone. Sometimes you can't do enough damage to an opponent or hell even hit them and it's better to use Bull Rush or Trip. There are pletny of circumstances where combat maneuvers can be better than just attacking.
If falling into lava/a pit/whatever didn't mean breaking or otherwise losing your own treasure it could be considered tactically valid.Why do people always make arguments like "In some situations, you don't want to do X; therefore, you never want to do X"? (E.g. "Your enemy may have a pocket full of gems; therefore you would never want to push any enemy into lava.")
And aren't DMs encouraged to add extra treasure if the PCs happen to be below the "wealth-by-level" guidelines?
And why would pushing someone off a cliff for 8d6 damage be any more damaging to equipment than smashing them into a wall for 8d6 damage?
No need for a pocket full of gems. I mean all his shiny magic stuff. And if for whatever reason he lacked said shiny magic stuff, he's automatically so non threatening to you there's no reason not to just beat him down hard to make a point. If you're at very low levels, substitute magic with masterwork. It amounts to the same thing. You don't have to know which of the two is the case. You just have to know one or the other always is, therefore it is a bad idea.
The encouragement bit assumes they are behind through no fault of their own, such as not finding the secret treasure vault or just not fighting enough stuff that has shiny loot. If they're behind through their direct and conscious efforts such as the most gear dependent classes thinking it would be a good idea to break their own treasure, or throwing the guy decked out in shinies into a river of lava... eh, not so much. Otherwise, PC actions do not matter and you go sliding down a slippery slope with such things as 'well, we spent half our gold on expensive consumables to easily nova slaughter encounters and now we're behind, so catch us up DM' which manage to be even bigger examples of Logic Failure.
Mostly because DMs like messing with you for long falls, but not for being hit in the face (or being shoved backwards into a wall). Even if everything is intact, have fun retrieving it and getting it back up the cliff. Some DMs take this a step further and kick Evokers between the legs by making their Fireballs break stuff. As if they didn't have enough issues. There's just something about those that appear weak that makes many people want to take them down even further.
The creatures that don't carry treasure are also the hardest to move. If hitting it in the face doesn't work, the other melee stuff won't either because it is simply far easier to be resistant to those other things without even trying than it is to overcome the fact offense scales faster than defense and get your AC high enough to rarely if ever be hit.
I repeat again: it's O.K. to have rules for something that you don't want to do all the time.
Read that sentence and think about it a little bit. Mull it over.
That's what I found a bit awkward about the 3.5 version of Improved Trip; if you had the feat Improved Trip, you would basically use it all the time (maybe not versus snakes or centipedes or really, really big creatures). So it's not really adding any variety, it just substitutes one move (hit monster with sword) with another (trip + hit monster with sword).
And has it occurred to you the reason they are not is because *wait for it* you are always better off hitting it in the face than moving it a little?
I believe it did occur to me. Please review my very last sentence. Perhaps we disagree on why that is a true statement. I believe it is true because it is so much easier to make a standard attack (as opposed to a CM) that there is no incentive to try a combat maneuver.
I am interpreting your point is that they are inefficient in killing.
Your statement 'you're always better off hitting' is exactly the binary thinking I was referring to.. CMs lead to alternatives to simply killing the enemy, while still contributing to defeating the opponent. They are meaningful things to do in combat. A trip for example forces an enemy to either take a standard action to stand up, take a penalty to hit, and can lead to an attack of opportunity. Disarm can lead to non-lethal victory, which is handy against opponents like town guards, who you might not want to kill outright.
Also, please don't speak to me like you choose to speak to others. You didn't say anything specifically insulting, but I don't need the sarcasm or the histrionics. Just make your point without theatrics, if you do, I will listen.
If falling into lava/a pit/whatever didn't mean breaking or otherwise losing your own treasure it could be considered tactically valid.
The acquisition of treasure shouldn't be mandated in the combat rules. It's a choice whether you bullrush or not. If you're concerned about the loss of treasure, then don't bullrush. That doesn't make it an invalid game mechanic, merely one with a consequence. Also, the example is extreme, not every bullrush is into a pit of lava, and I don't think magic weapons and rings break upon falling into a pit. To argue that the bullrush rules need to be altered so that treasure is not lost is just removing consequence and responsibility from action.
I restate the position that CMs allow for alternatives to a binary 'attack and react' responses, which ultimately lead to creativity.
But since it does mean that, it is counterproductive.
Only in object oriented gaming. This isn't sarcasm, but what you're describing is akin to a video game. In Doom you shoot the demon, pick up stuff. In a Mario game, you jump on monsters and pick up gold coins. You're essentially saying that every time you defeat a monster you need your metaphoric 'gold coin.' That's not storytelling.
Now.. just so that I am not misconstrued or taken out of context, I do acknowledge and agree that there needs to be a reward system ('treasure'). I'm not saying that is wrong or it needs to be taken out of the game. I'm just saying bullrush is not 'wrong and bad' because it might in some situations lead to loss of reward. Survival with minimal risk is sometimes its own reward.
...for what is now a valid tactic.
We may have a different definition of validity.
Mostly because DMs like messing with you for long falls, but not for being hit in the face (or being shoved backwards into a wall). Even if everything is intact, have fun retrieving it and getting it back up the cliff. Some DMs take this a step further and kick Evokers between the legs by making their Fireballs break stuff. As if they didn't have enough issues. There's just something about those that appear weak that makes many people want to take them down even further.
Those are valid reaons for being frustrated, but those are issues with the DM, not the game.
Unfortunately this game does have a habit of promoting an adverserial relationship between DM and player. That shouldn't exist. The function of the DM is not to 'compete' or 'win' but to provide meaningful challenge. To tell a good story that involves some risk and offers some positive reward.
However, what you're proposing is to change the rules in order to prevent abusive DMing. That's not the solution. Educating and/or retraining the DM is a better answer.
|
|
I restate the position that CMs allow for alternatives to a binary 'attack and react' responses, which ultimately lead to creativity.
But since it does mean that, it is counterproductive.Only in object oriented gaming. This isn't sarcasm, but what you're describing is akin to a video game. In Doom you shoot the demon, pick up stuff. In a Mario game, you jump on monsters and pick up gold coins. You're essentially saying that every time you defeat a monster you need your metaphoric 'gold coin.' That's not storytelling.
I think this is an important point. I think combat maneuvers, at least for fighter types, needs to have a reasonable chance of success in order to make them a viable option when it's tactically advantageous to shove someone, get behind someone. But there's not reason to expect combat maneuvers to be needed often. The only times I've seen them used often are when there's story reasons behind their use - most often when someone needs to be captured an not killed, or is preferred captured, or when there's a paladin in the party, or you're low level citizens in a city where murder will cause you significant problems. :)
Anyways, all I'm saying is providing roleplaying reasons your characters don't want to just smash in someone's face can be another way to encourage combat maneuvers in a game - as long as it's reasonably likely to accomplish it's goal (work, and work well enough that it's worth the chance of failure and the loss of damage opportunity).
Thanks for the support Jess and Iron Sentinel!
Ideally, with no offense to CoL, I'd like to steer the conversation back to discussing how easy or difficult CM's should be to pull off...
... as opposed to justifying their existence or trying to redesign their effects.
For my part my issue is the difficulty level in making them happen at all. Players will use them when appropriate, and when they're a storytelling alternative to killing, but they have to be able to do so with a reasonable chance of success.
My actual playtesting shows that they're not desirable alternatives because of the low chance of success and the punitive results of failure.
SIDE NOTE: If I am not offering a fix, it's because in one of my understanding from Jason is that devising my own solution to the problem isn't necessarily the best thing we can do (though it has been beneficial in some cases!). Rather what is critical is reporting what is not working, and allowing him and his team to come up with a fix for it.
To Jason
Its not working here Jason, the PCs won't use them (disclaimer: 1st through 5th level). They're too hard, too much risk to be practical. Others may have different experiences. If they're intended to be only effective for much higher level PCs, we need to know that intention in order to understand why you've set the difficulty the way you have. Also, I'd counter-argue that CM's are just as necessary at low levels as they are at high levels.
I believe it did occur to me. Please review my very last sentence. Perhaps we disagree on why that is a true statement. I believe it is true because it is so much easier to make a standard attack (as opposed to a CM) that there is no incentive to try a combat maneuver.
I am interpreting your point is that they are inefficient in killing.
Your statement 'you're always better off hitting' is exactly the binary thinking I was referring to.. CMs lead to alternatives to simply killing the enemy, while still contributing to defeating the opponent. They are meaningful things to do in combat. A trip for example forces an enemy to either take a standard action to stand up, take a penalty to hit, and can lead to an attack of opportunity. Disarm can lead to non-lethal victory, which is handy against opponents like town guards, who you might not want to kill outright.
Also, please don't speak to me like you choose to speak to others. You didn't say anything specifically insulting, but I don't need the sarcasm or the histrionics. Just make your point without theatrics, if you do, I will listen.
Getting up is a move action. My point is that they are inefficient in taking out the enemy. Not necessarily killing them, as anyone can take a -4 to strike for nonlethal and still likely auto hit or close. Some characters don't have to take the penalty to do so. You try to move the enemy. Either it fails and nothing happens, or it succeeds and they're now 5 feet away. Maybe 10. Great. Especially when they 5' step and full attack you anyways. You've spent your round doing nothing. They've spent their round attacking you.
As stated several times before, tripping was worth it when you got the follow up attack, so it became fail and accomplish nothing, or succeed and attack with a bonus vs a disadvantaged opponent. That justifies lighting two feats on fire, as this is clearly superior to just attacking. I say two feats because Improved Trip requires Combat Expertise which is otherwise useless. No, turtling doesn't help you. It gets you ignored, which is exactly what you don't want happening when you're supposed to be holding the enemies' attention. Please don't try to argue that, I've had quite enough of that nonsense from Aelryinth (primary troll) and this thread doesn't need any more stupid bickering.
The acquisition of treasure shouldn't be mandated in the combat rules. It's a choice whether you bullrush or not. If you're concerned about the loss of treasure, then don't bullrush. That doesn't make it an invalid game mechanic, merely one with a consequence. Also, the example is extreme, not every bullrush is into a pit of lava, and I don't think magic weapons and rings break upon falling into a pit. To argue that the bullrush rules need to be altered so that treasure is not lost is just removing consequence and responsibility from action.
I restate the position that CMs allow for alternatives to a binary 'attack and react' responses, which ultimately lead to creativity.
Shouldn't be mandated, but is. Money is Power, and if you deprive yourself of money (gear = money) you are weaker as a result. It renders it an invalid game mechanic for the same reason targeting yourself with a full attack is an invalid mechanic. Sure you can do it, but why are you being so masochistic? I am arguing that using bullrush in a way that deprives you of your own treasure is counterproductive. Without dungeoncrasher rules, it's either move enemies slightly without any real effect, or shove them into a hazard which is counterproductive in the end. With it, option three is added: Set the enemy up so you can push them into something, then slam them through it to kill them faster without hurting yourself.
Only in object oriented gaming. This isn't sarcasm, but what you're describing is akin to a video game. In Doom you shoot the demon, pick up stuff. In a Mario game, you jump on monsters and pick up gold coins. You're essentially saying that every time you defeat a monster you need your metaphoric 'gold coin.' That's not storytelling.
Now.. just so that I am not misconstrued or taken out of context, I do acknowledge and agree that there needs to be a reward system ('treasure'). I'm not saying that is wrong or it needs to be taken out of the game. I'm just saying bullrush is not 'wrong and bad' because it might in some situations lead to loss of reward. Survival with minimal risk is sometimes its own reward.
The Wealth by Level system ensures D&D is always object oriented gaming. You may not be specifically setting out to get rich and loaded with shiny loot, but regardless you have to in order to stay relevant. Otherwise you retire your character as an NPC, or die as a result. The term 'storytelling' is often used as a self descriptive term by railroaders. You, the DM are not telling a story. If you want to do that, write a novel. See those other guys at the table? They want to influence the world. And they will, unless prevented. I doubt you meant it in that context, but storytelling is a very dirty word to any experienced player.
If you go breaking your treasure, you are taking things away from yourself that you must have to function. Think of it as taking a large blunt object to your own car, and you get the idea. To really get the point across, imagine it as picking out a car at a lot, taking the aforementioned large blunt object to it, then buying it at full price. Don't forget that in D&D, a single moderate magic item is worth more than your own character's life. You are literally better off dead than being robbed after a certain point, because the res has less of an effect on your pocketbook. Which is why any DM trying for a capture and rob scenario is automatically cause for great suspicion.
Getting up is a move action.
Let us not sully ourselves with 'gotchyas'. You can be attacked while you're prone at a bonus. You attack while prone at a negative modifier. If you stand up, you get an AOO. If you try to move away staying prone, your movement is limited. You know what I meant.
My point is that they are inefficient in taking out the enemy.
They're not intended to take out the enemy. They're intended to alter the circumstances of the combat.
You try to move the enemy. Either it fails and nothing happens, or it succeeds and they're now 5 feet away. Maybe 10. Great. Especially when they 5' step and full attack you anyways. You've spent your round doing nothing. They've spent their round attacking you.
In your example you're describing pushing someone away so that they'll stop attacking you. That's not what bullrush is intended to be used for. No offense, but this is like trying to open a tin can with a screwdriver and then protesting that the poor screwdriver is a lousy tool.
Bullrush can be used to push someone to a specific space. Perhaps where there is a trap, or a ledge, or out a door. It can be used to push something out of the way so the way is unobstructed for another character.
Just because it doesn't work in your example doesn't mean that it is broken.
As for thr rest of your post; I don't wish to change this discussion to wealth and the reward system. You either see my point or you don't, but further exploration of the concept might lead to the topic being derailed.
I know your post was directed at CoL, but there's a good point here that needs some rephrasing and thought.
CMs *should* lead to alternatives to simply killing the enemy. They should be meaningful things to do in combat. The first question is 'how meaningful?'.
This was a good post Squirreloid. I don't have a pat answer for you, and I agree with some of your points.
If a CM isn't used with some regularity, it's not worth the feat. I can easily see bullrush, despite my disagreement with CoL, not being popular. Bullrush will never be a common used CM. The application is just not that broad. I know that. I'm just saying that doesn't necessarily make it broken.
Trip, grapple, and disarm?
Eh.. I think that depends on how often the player elects to use them, as well as the GM allowing them fair opportunities to use them without undermining them with that 'Adverserial GM' syndrome I mentioned to CoL earlier. In the course of a campaign you're going to fight lots of people with hand to hand weapons (instead of claws), if I was your GM, I would say disarm the bastards as much as you feel comfortable doing so. It's YOUR CM and possibly your feat.
On a side note, I can come to terms with your point Squirrelloid, because you're not making an "all or nothing" supposition on whether something is good or bad.
Most relevantly, if you are going to spend a feat to get better at one combat maneuver with few to no side benefits that increases the frequency of its meaningfullness, how often should using said combat maneuver be a good idea? Because when its not useful its a wasted feat, and that feat is a spent resource which isn't helping you.
I agree that Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, Improved Bull Rush, etc. are pretty much wasted feats. But I'd rather get rid of them than make them so good that they're just begging to be used ("If I overrun that enemy, I have a chance of stepping on his jugular and killing him!").
A good suggestion I saw (I don't know if it was K/Frank Trollman or Monte Cook) was the idea of "Combat Advantage". Basically, if your BAB is better than your opponent's, you don't provoke an AoO for disarming, sundering, bull rushing, etc. No feats required. (There was more to it than that, but that's the gist of it.) Then maybe you could have a generic feat that gives a bonus to all combat maneuvers.
It's a neat idea (although it doesn't sound very "backward compatible").