|
I mentioned this in the Fighter design forum, and I'll mention it here. I proposed that instead of lowering the DC from 15 to 11 or 12, they give the fighter a bonus towards performing CMB's. Its a bonus that doesnt need scaling, because at higher levels his BAB will make it worthwhile.
Combat Manuevers should be one of the things that sets the fighter apart from all other classes.
A suggestion was to allow The Fighters Weapon Training to be added to his CMB...In rethinking this, I do not think thats enough.
A Fighter should need to be able to hit 50% of the time on the CMB at first level, so that if he is facing a fighter of an equal level at any level, he has a 50/50 shot at using a manuever against him. Currently at DC 15, all things considered equal...he succeeds 25% of the time, which is good for non-fighters.
so simple...
Give the Fighter an ability at 1st level...Lets call it Combat Manuever Training: +4 to combat manuevers....now he needs an 11 DC to succeed (+ the opponents CMB)
To me this is the cleanest way to make this worthwhile.
My mentioning that was not a gotcha. It was a correction. Simple as that.
The BAB advantage thing works out until you remember enemies have more BAB than you do which brings us back around to enemies are just flat out better than you at doing the things you are supposed to be doing.
I see no problem with something you've spent a minimum of 1-2 feats on demanding to be used. You only get about 10 of the things after all, so 1-2 is significant. Fighters get more like 20, but is still pretty important that they feel compelled to use the things that they have invested resources into performing effectively.
The BAB advantage thing works out until you remember enemies have more BAB than you do which brings us back around to enemies are just flat out better than you at doing the things you are supposed to be doing.
I believe there was more to it than that in order to address that issue. I'd have to look it up.
|
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?
Whilst it's a nice idea, you would have to take account of what happens when someone gets knocked below the Init of the guy who was previously going last in the round.
Do further attacks simply drive them further into Negative Initiative in the same round (which makes little difference-going last is going last), or do they get pounded into the next round?
And if so, what do you take as the Final Initiative of Round 1? 0? -5? -10?
What's the Top Initiative of Round 2? 25? 30? 35?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Wow. I go to work for 5 hours and look what happens. Lots of interesting conversation. I'm never leaving this chair again.
Now, combat maneuvers aren't going away. They have a certain role in the game. Certain combat-oriented characters should be able to get really good at them. I'm thinking specifically of monks. Given that, my main interest is how the possibility for steady progression could be made for either specific combat manuevers or groups of combat maneuvers or combat maneuvers in general.
Some of the suggestions we've had so far is to lower the DC for combat maneuvers, increase the bonus for 'Improved CM' feats, allow scaling of 'Improved CM' feats, allow 'Greater Improved CM' feats, allow advancement in groups of combat maneuvers, and allow acquiring one combat maneuver feat to benefit others. It has also been suggested that 'Improved CM' feats could allow damage to be done or allow extra attacks upon success. Finally, it has been suggested that bullrushing someone into a wall could result in damage.
These are all positive suggestions that made me glad I started this thread. Did I miss any positive suggestions?
These are all positive suggestions that made me glad I started this thread. Did I miss any positive suggestions?
I suggested that you could remove the AoO for situations where the attacker is "better" (e.g. higher BAB or something) than the defender, then have a single feat that improves all maneuvers. But that's a bit of a stretch for compatibility.
|
In an in-game example (10th level duskblade), Ive found trip to be very useful to one of my players. Not knowing what to do with his high-level feats, he picked up combat expertise and improved trip. Not, he has an awesome underhanded attack routine that fits his character concept to a T
Full Attack: Primary Attack: trip Attempt, secondary attack: channeled melee attack, the -4 prone penalty off-setting the -5 BaB. Then, next round, get a AoO when the opponent tries to stand. Wash Rinse, Repeat. Tripping people is a dirty move. I'm not sure the free attack is even necessary to put back in.
Another example: Alice doesn't have the right weapon to damage the monster, but maybe she can bull rush the monster past Bob and Cathy who do have the right weapons, giving them attacks of opportunity as it passes by.
(They're all fairly uncommon situations, though.)
On the other, if you're clever, bull rush is awesome.
Of course. :)
Just for clarity, I don't think the bullrush is bad, or that there shouldn't be a Feat. I was merely conceding the fact that its about the most specialized of the CMs (in terms of broad application).
I wouldn't change the CMs myself, just the chances of success or failure.
It moves 10 feet away from Bob. Bob gets an AoO. Shoving allies around reminds me of 'My rat bullrushes me into the ground.' which while amusing isn't likely to fly in very many games. Not to mention you have to beat the check by 5 to move them 5 feet beyond the initial 5 feet. This ensures it is very unlikely you'll ever push them more than one square even if you do succeed.
Uncommon situations are reasons I love spells like Arcane Lock. The thing is, Arcane Lock eats up a low level spell slot, of which the wizard by 15th level has more 1-3rd level slots than the fighter will ever have feats. We're asking a fighter to possibly burn a feat on Bullrush to be competent at it, which is a major relatively permanent investment. It had better be useful more often than uncommon situations, and the effect of the feat had better be noticeably good when it does come up if that feat is going to be worth spending.
Thank you.
Edit: Nope. Most specialized is Overrun. How many times have you heard that where trample wasn't involved? Next is Sunder because you have to somehow get a situation where you aren't breaking your own treasure, aren't breaking a cheap item carried in multiples so the enemy doesn't care, it's still worth your action to try... Well actually that's crossing the line from too situational to use to forget about it, but eh.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I would almost argue that bull rush and overrun should use the same "improved" feat. If you get a bonus to bull rush attempts, why shouldn't you also get a bonus to overrun attempts? Knocking someone around and just bowling them over seem quite similar to me.I don't think the bullrush is bad, or that there shouldn't be a Feat. I was merely conceding the fact that its about the most specialized of the CMs (in terms of broad application).
I wouldn't change the CMs myself, just the chances of success or failure.
This is what I'm suggesting with the 'combat style' feats above. In the case of bullrush and overrun it is even more obvious.
With the others, I wouldn't even mind if the benefits came later, as they worked in the feats I suggested.
I would almost argue that bull rush and overrun should use the same "improved" feat. If you get a bonus to bull rush attempts, why shouldn't you also get a bonus to overrun attempts? Knocking someone around and just bowling them over seem quite similar to me.
I wouldn't change the CMs myself, just the chances of success or failure.
That's actually a pretty good idea!
::snaps fingers::
I wish it was Combat's turn for internal playtesting..
E.M. Don't let this idea get forgotten.. I think its pretty noteworthy!
|
|
I would almost argue that bull rush and overrun should use the same "improved" feat. If you get a bonus to bull rush attempts, why shouldn't you also get a bonus to overrun attempts? Knocking someone around and just bowling them over seem quite similar to me.
I would agree, and argue further, that bull rush and overrun should be different uses of the same maneuver.
I had a character with Imp Bull Rush oncs, and wanted to shoulder-barge a guard back (to unblock a doorway for my allies), then carry on moving past him, at 90 degrees. Being told that this was totally different from a bull rush, and would incur the AoO was not appreciated.
Nor was being told that if I wanted the +4 bonus, I had to declare it a bullrush, which meant either;
stopping dead (and blocking the doorway),
following the guard as far back as I could push him (and blocking the doorway),
bringing the guard with me (and blocking the corridor).
I could trip him, take an AoO, lose the bonus, leaving him prone, but stop dead, blocking the doorway,
Or I could overrun, take an AoO, lose my bonus, and run past him and out to freedom. But leave the guard in the same space (yes, you guessed it), blocking the doorway for my allies.
I was quite happy to take an AoO for the later moves, just not the initial attack, since it quite clearly (to me) counted as the very thing I was trained in.
Merge Bull Rush and Overrun, force a Balance check on the target (modified by the difference between attacker's result and defender's DC), and allow 360-movement before, during and after, and you have a tactic that is much more likely to see use.
|
|
Warrior types and Monks have a problem, that unarmed combat is split, needlessly, into smaller and smaller subsystems which cover a microscopical proportion of the possible situations.
By contrast most of the casters either have automatic full access to the totality of spell options (cleric, druid), or can train in new ones for the price of a Spellcraft check and a night's light reading (wizards).
You should not have to spend a half-dozen feats to be good at brawling. It should be something one can pick up at low level. Big Billy the Bouncer should be able to eject rowdy cutomers from his bar in a variety of ways, with a belly-bump straight backwards, or jumping between people and pushing them apart sideways, a clothesline to the neck, a heel in the back of the knee.
Spellcasters don't have to take a feat for every spell school they know.
Why do melee types have to spend a feat for every martial school?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I would almost argue that bull rush and overrun should use the same "improved" feat. If you get a bonus to bull rush attempts, why shouldn't you also get a bonus to overrun attempts? Knocking someone around and just bowling them over seem quite similar to me.I would agree, and argue further, that bull rush and overrun should be different uses of the same maneuver.
I had a character with Imp Bull Rush oncs, and wanted to shoulder-barge a guard back (to unblock a doorway for my allies), then carry on moving past him, at 90 degrees. Being told that this was totally different from a bull rush, and would incur the AoO was not appreciated.
Nor was being told that if I wanted the +4 bonus, I had to declare it a bullrush, which meant either;stopping dead (and blocking the doorway),
following the guard as far back as I could push him (and blocking the doorway),
bringing the guard with me (and blocking the corridor).Or I could overrun, take an AoO, lose my bonus, and run past him and out to freedom. But leave the guard in the same space (yes, you guessed it), blocking the doorway for my allies.
Actually you can't block the doorway for your allies as they can move through your space unless we're talking a 5 ft. wide hallway running perpendicular to the doorway. Yay for the Shock Trooper Tactical Feat!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
You should not have to spend a half-dozen feats to be good at brawling. It should be something one can pick up at low level. Big Billy the Bouncer should be able to eject rowdy cutomers from his bar in a variety of ways, with a belly-bump straight backwards, or jumping between people and pushing them apart sideways, a clothesline to the neck, a heel in the back of the knee.
That's what I'm thinking. So, I propose we group the maneuvers by their prerequisites and design feats that give advantages to all combat maneuvers in that group. This would make sense, as one is learning in a school of sorts (or at least a school of thought) and there would be some cross-training or benefit to working on any maneuver. It also makes the combat maneuver feats worth taking as they will pay off in a number of different situations. Finally, if the feats are additional, higher level feats, there is no harm to backwards compatibility and they can be made more level appropriate.
The three groups I see are Defensive Combat (includes Disarm, Trip, and Feint), Unarmed Combat (Grapple along with various unarmed strikes like Gorgon's Fist), and Offensive Maneuvers (Bull Rush, Overrun, Sunder).
The problem with the Combat Maneuvers is twofold:
1) While pulling a Combat Maneuver is too hard for what it's worth... on MARTIAL classes, as levels go up it becomes plain impossible for everyone else, the other classes becoming barred from that resource as long as "encounters adjusted for character level" are concerned, combat becoming linear unless you're a martial class.
2) When dealing consistently with "encounters adjusted for character level", level becomes an illusion as the difficulty for performing Combat Maneuvers becomes more or less the same regardless of whether the party's level is 1 or 10.
On my local gaming tables we try the "DC = 10 + CMB" alternative. We've tried this on a low-level table with decent results (an average 40% success) with the obvious AoO, but a fair tradeoff nonetheless. Also I tried this on a mid-level Iron Heroes 1-shot (in which I shoehorned many PF rules), however, and for martial types (in IH ALL classes are martial, I know), Maneuvers became easier to pull off than regular attacks... of course I had no trouble with it as Iron Heroes is all about flashy, cinematic, over-the-top combat, but for other games (say, Pathfinder) I guess there'll be many people objecting to this.
Here's a fun and simple example.
Ye Olde Spiked Chain Tripper in 3.5. He starts with 16 str, pumps it every 4 levels, and has an item. He's level 10 now. So that's 16 + 1 + 1 + 4 = 22. +4 items are being generous, since he only has 49k and that's nearly a third that.
Ok. He fights a Fire Giant, and tries to trip it.
His modifier is +10. +6 from Strength, +4 from Improved Trip. The Giant has +14 (+4 size, +10 strength). The Fighter has a 30% chance to trip the giant, 4% chance to roll the same as the giant (I forget who ties go to), and 66% chance to fail to trip the giant.
Import same guy into PF.
Now his modifier to trip is +18 (10 BAB, 6 Strength, 2 Improved Trip). Sounds great, until you look at the giant.
Giant gets +22 (11 BAB, 10 Strength, 1 Size). The DC is 15 + CMB. Therefore, DC to trip giant = 37.
Chance Fighter trips giant = 10%.
Success rate just dropped by a full two thirds.
Now let's factor some very simple buffing.
3.5 Fighter catches an Enlarge Person. He gets +1 from Strength, and +4 from Size. His success chance improves significantly, to 52.5%. There is also I believe a 4.75% chance to tie, and 43.75% chance to fail. Slightly better than average, and when you figure he gets a free attack at a +4 bonus, then gets another free attack at a +4 bonus when it tries to get up, and can't full attack... Yeah sure, why not? After all, it will take two attacks to get it down so it's a net gain, and your two feats are rewarded. There's also a point to the spell.
PF Fighter gets the same spell. He only gets +2 out of it though since Size only gives +1. Great. Now he has a 20% chance of success, and with no extra attack after his only option is to stab it in the face. Spell doesn't help much. He's better off getting something else, and stabbing it (the enemy, not the buff) in the face. Because that is all he can do now.
Am I doing that right? I hope that is an error on my part, and they didn't make it suck that bad. Because well... that just makes things worse now doesn't it? *stare*
|
|
Crusader: Aside from leaving out the likely +2 Str from human racial adjustments, it appears accurate.
Now, I'm not agreeing that the fire giant should be the baseline for tripping. But I do agree that comparing the PRPG and 3.5 versions is valid in deducing that the PRPG fighter will not be as successful overall as his counterpart.
Again, mainly it comes back to the base of 15. Lowering it to 10 gives the fighter a better chance (still not as good though).
If we add in Weapon Focus, magic enhancement bonus, and Weapon Training, the fighter likely gets at least another +5 on his check (+1 training, +2 greater weapon focus, +2 weapon). This goes a long way to balance things out, and makes the fighter better than the other warrior classes at the weapon-based CM routine.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Again, mainly it comes back to the base of 15. Lowering it to 10 gives the fighter a better chance (still not as good though).
But lowering it to twelve and allowing more in the way of feats (+3 or +4 for Improved Maneuvers, Insightful Maneuvers, etc.) allows for someone who is good at this stuff but doesn't make it much easier for monsters unless they have feats to invest.
;-)
But lowering it to twelve and allowing more in the way of feats (+3 or +4 for Improved Maneuvers, Insightful Maneuvers, etc.) allows for someone who is good at this stuff but doesn't make it much easier for monsters unless they have feats to invest.
;-)
I like the idea of DC 12 AND +4 on Maneuver feats, so I second you.
Use DC 15 and the system becomes unusable. Use DC 10 (or 12 and +4 on feats) and warriors will succeed 50% of the time... which on paper sounds overpowered UNTIL we remember only 5 out of 11 classes are warriors (and from those 5, only TWO can afford to devote themselves to Strength fully), while the rest will still be having a harder time pulling them off... likewise, just think about it, giving warriors this greater chance to succeed might seriously speed combat up in the latter half of the game, so it doesn't have to be necessarily a bad thing.
Crusader: Aside from leaving out the likely +2 Str from human racial adjustments, it appears accurate.
Now, I'm not agreeing that the fire giant should be the baseline for tripping. But I do agree that comparing the PRPG and 3.5 versions is valid in deducing that the PRPG fighter will not be as successful overall as his counterpart.
Again, mainly it comes back to the base of 15. Lowering it to 10 gives the fighter a better chance (still not as good though).
If we add in Weapon Focus, magic enhancement bonus, and Weapon Training, the fighter likely gets at least another +5 on his check (+1 training, +2 greater weapon focus, +2 weapon). This goes a long way to balance things out, and makes the fighter better than the other warrior classes at the weapon-based CM routine.
15% or 25% vs 30% or 55%. It still stands. I didn't assume any particular race there, even though humans are clearly the best from an optimization perspective.
Fire giants are a fairly basic and generic big dumb melee brute, therefore they are a good example of what happens when he fights someone not unlike himself (a simple mirror match wouldn't work, as NPCs get inferior equipment, and you really do need to account for Large and larger when getting into CR 10 and higher stuff). Someone around here stated that when fighting another big dumb melee brute your only option is to stab it in the face. The math backs this strongly. Even though Size meant 4 times more in 3.5, Fighter boy could still overcome it better (and if the Giant were Medium, he wouldn't be much better off).
10 + CMB would give a base of 55%, but that assumes BAB and Strength are equal. Enemy melee brutes are bigger, stronger, and better at fighting than you (higher BAB). Therefore you actually get 35%, 45% vs enlarge compared to 30% (slight loss) or 55% with Enlarge (net gain, still encourages resource distribution as efficient... in other words, there's a point to the Wizard buffing the Fighter, and a point to the Fighter trying these maneuvers). Still no free attack though, so Improved Trip still fails.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Crusader: Aside from leaving out the likely +2 Str from human racial adjustments, it appears accurate.
Now, I'm not agreeing that the fire giant should be the baseline for tripping. But I do agree that comparing the PRPG and 3.5 versions is valid in deducing that the PRPG fighter will not be as successful overall as his counterpart.
Again, mainly it comes back to the base of 15. Lowering it to 10 gives the fighter a better chance (still not as good though).
If we add in Weapon Focus, magic enhancement bonus, and Weapon Training, the fighter likely gets at least another +5 on his check (+1 training, +2 greater weapon focus, +2 weapon). This goes a long way to balance things out, and makes the fighter better than the other warrior classes at the weapon-based CM routine.
15% or 25% vs 30% or 55%. It still stands. I didn't assume any particular race there, even though humans are clearly the best from an optimization perspective.
Fire giants are a fairly basic and generic big dumb melee brute, therefore they are a good example of what happens when he fights someone not unlike himself (a simple mirror match wouldn't work, as NPCs get inferior equipment, and you really do need to account for Large and larger when getting into CR 10 and higher stuff). Someone around here stated that when fighting another big dumb melee brute your only option is to stab it in the face. The math backs this strongly. Even though Size meant 4 times more in 3.5, Fighter boy could still overcome it better (and if the Giant were Medium, he wouldn't be much better off).
10 + CMB would give a base of 55%, but that assumes BAB and Strength are equal. Enemy melee brutes are bigger, stronger, and better at fighting than you (higher BAB). Therefore you actually get 35%, 45% vs enlarge compared to 30% (slight loss) or 55% with Enlarge (net gain, still encourages resource distribution as efficient... in other words, there's a point to the Wizard buffing the Fighter, and a point to the Fighter trying these...
Have you said anything here we haven't already said?
Was that an actual question, or an attempt to start more issues when I am being productive?
Was that an actual question, or an attempt to start more issues when I am being productive?A question.
Yes.
I like Tarren's idea of collapsing the different Improved Maneuver Feats into broader Feats, matching the prerequisites of the current ones
Though I don't even know if these 'condensed' Feats need to HAVE a prerequisite
(or at least switch out Combat Expertise to a more useful one, not just for Combat Rogues)
Imp. Unarmed & Imp. Grapple could probably be condensed into one, themselves.
The barely distinguishable similarity of Over-Run & Bullrush is just ripe for condensing, obviously.
Honestly, I would prefer to return to Touch AC & Strength Check. It makes sense,
works well, and the Strength Check can be made a DC of 10 (or 11)+STR, instead of an Opposed Roll, if that's important.
I think the problem with the current CMB is that it is trying to design for low-level, weak characters at the same time as high-level, Strong ones. Obviously a CMB DC of 15 +0 BAB +0 STR (~25%) equals BAB/STR+0 vs. 10 Touch AC (50%) & +0 STR vs. +0 STR (50%). So reducing the DC would make Maneuvers easier for those low-level weak characters against each other. The thing is, I don't think it's such a big deal if effectively non-combat characters can easily push eachother around. If anything, at those low levels, combat is so swingy that one hit kills, so FORGOING a regular attack that's more likely to succeed (and likely to kill), for a Maneuver, doesn't seem like it needs to be penalized. Balancing around backwards compatability for the WEAKEST ruins it for the rest of the game.
Though I think you can't really recover the "lost information" from dropping one roll from a two-roll mechanic (and generally, only one of Touch AC/STR Check will ever be difficult) ...So I'd still prefer Touch & Strength, though dropping the Opposed Roll for a fixed STR DC is fine with me.
As well as the base DC/mechanic of CMB, how it works for those without the "Improved" Feat could use improvement. As is, you provoke an AoO (dangerous in itself) but if it hits, the CMB DC is increased 1:1 by the damage inflicted: QUICKLY BECOMING IMPOSSIBLE. So you practically NEVER IN NO SITUATION want to try this WITHOUT the Feat (and appropriate Weapon), because if their AoO hits, your chance of ANY success plummets like a rock.
The DC:Damage ratio could be increased, but I really think the basics of this should be re-thought:
Why should non-"Improved" Maneuvers trigger an AoO? Plenty of other stuff triggers an AoO, but MELEE ATTACKS (Maneuvers) should not be treated like Casting a Spell - Certainly, WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCE between a normal attack sequence and a Sunder Armor attempt? Why should Sunder Armor trigger an AoO if not "Improved"?
I really think an idea like this could be the basis of the "Improved Maneuver" Feats, as opposed to the Improved Feats being the only way to avoid a (perilous) AoO. And this sort of thing makes double sense when you consider that you can't Trip or Disarm with EVERY Weapon, you need an APPROPRIATE Weapon (or Improved Unarmed) to be ABLE to ATTEMPT those Maneuvers (i.e. analogous to the specific creature type of Wolf being able to Trip for free).
Allowing a successful melee hit with an appropriate (Trip/Disarm/X) Weapon to grant a FREE Trip/Disarm/etc (AT FULL BAB/CMB) seems like a good bonus that doesn't cut into normal Damage, still allows you attempt MORE Trips by giving up your regular attacks (although those Trips wouldn't count for a chance to "free Trip"?) and is completely consistent with how Animals/Monsters work, so the learning curve is ZERO.
(This is how Exotic Weapons like Bolas should work NORMALLY, btw: instead of Melee OR Maneuver.)
This post is already long enough :-), but I'll point out this other post I made in another thread describing a MAJOR flaw in Grapple.
|
|
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the most common use of trip in the games that I run - to force a surrender from the guy now on the floor. Few people in their right mind would try and regain their feet when flat on their back, possibly weapon-less, and threatened by one or more opponents. Trip is a favourite way of bringing the bad guys back to justice.
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.
Shame to break your certainty there, but I've been playing since you had to crayon in your own dice, and DnD is all about storytelling. Everyone around that table is co-operating to tell a story - DM and players both. There are people out there who play for other reasons than to level up their characters and amass loot.
Unless you are arguing D&D is all about railroading, you're still wrong because you're still using the word out of context.
|
|
Glancing back, it seems like we're busy discussing how to 'fix' combat maneuvers, but we haven't touched on why they are in the game in the first place. Doing so might provoke new thoughts, so here goes:
To me, they seem to be seasoning - an attempt to lift combat out of the bland 'I hit him, 20 points. He hits you 13 points'. In previous editions, the DM would abstract all of this stuff and describe people getting pushed around, tripped, disarmed etc. off the cuff. In 3.n ed, we are trying to codify as much as possible and bring some of the games tactical miniatures heritage back. So, we need something that is:
a) Fun. That's the sole point of the game.
b) Can be codified in terms of squares and pluses.
c) Vaguely balanced. Sadly necessary to avoid arguments with rules-lawyers,
The last of these reminds me that I've never yet managed to come up with a good rule for rendering guards unconscious - it's something that would fit as a combat maneuver and I was wondering if someone had an idea for an implementation that would prevent players gaming it and using it as the default attack method. My current set of players are pretty good at ignoring rules 'exploits' that would allow them an easier 'win' at the expense of a fun game.
Currently, I just rule that if the players get close enough without being detected and land a blow, then they manage to KO the guards regardless of what the dice come up on my side of the screen, unless I gauge that they are in the mood for another 'plan goes out the window' moment.
I'm not sure if these are "from" somewhere, but these are the rules I'm using in a PbP game here with Lilith:
# A character becomes unconscious when their nonlethal damage exceeds double their Constitution score and fails a Fortitude save equal to DC 10 + Con score. (Ex. A character with a Con of 8 is knocked out with 16 points of nonlethal damage.)
So once you're able to predictably inflict 25 or so Non-Lethal Damage, you could get a decent chance at "K.O."ing someone with one blow, though Fighter types/ high CON characters are the most likely to pass their Save. ("Average" guard mooks shouldn't, though). We haven't run across it yet, but I would say that you need to re-roll the K.O. Save every time you take more N.L. damage, until your NL damage is less than your limit.
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?
I've always found it hard to use these maneuvers, especially as a player. You just don't get any bang for your buck, stabbing it is more effective, especially since they'll probably stab you in the process if you DO use a maneuver.
Simple solution for this: our groups have taken to eliminating the AoO when using a maneuver. It's worked pretty well, and everyone now uses maneuvers often.
As for the DC, I think 10 or 12+ your CMB is a lot more reasonable than 15. 15 + CMB has been proven to me to be impossible to beat, especially for low-level characters. It highly, HIGHLY discourages the use of maneuvers when you know you are destined to fail.
Glancing back, it seems like we're busy discussing how to 'fix' combat maneuvers, but we haven't touched on why they are in the game in the first place. Doing so might provoke new thoughts, so here goes:
To me, they seem to be seasoning - an attempt to lift combat out of the bland 'I hit him, 20 points. He hits you 13 points'. In previous editions, the DM would abstract all of this stuff and describe people getting pushed around, tripped, disarmed etc. off the cuff. In 3.n ed, we are trying to codify as much as possible and bring some of the games tactical miniatures heritage back.
Seasoning? They are valid necessary tactics.
This thread just makes me think you guys are all running very boring combats. Combats in our games tend to be on the back of moving beasts, in hallways with swinging blades, across pillars over huge chasms, floating down a river, minefields, innocents crossing the battlefield, melees with objects that must be recovered etc. Hardly ever do we run into a situation where the only goal is to 'kill all the bad guys'. (When conflict doesn't come about as the result of the actions of the story, when it's just 'thrown in', well that's *failure*.)
Now, how in the hell are we supposed to handle any of those situations? To the caustic 'crusader of logic', *that's* why we need combat maneuvers. All he seems to be talking about is why tripping or bull rushing isn't better at causing damage than a base attack. Whatever. Here is another way we make fighters better and re-balance the game away from spellcasters.
What I don't understand is the internal inconsistency.
Combat
Armor class (DC of the test) is 10 + armor bonuses
you attack it with a d20 roll + BAB + STAT + magic bonuses
Combat Maneuvers
"Armor class" (DC of the test) is *15* + CMB bonuses
you attack it with a d20 roll + BAB + STAT + bonuses
Why is this system different than armor/combat?
Changing it to 10 seems to resolve most of the issues. I also like the combined feat suggestion, esp for Bull Rush + Overrun
I like the system the way it is now. Using a normal attack should be the normal method of combat. Combat maneuvers are the exception for tactically key moments and an exotic form of attack for the player that specializes in the maneuvers. This is one area where a fighter can shine.
Additionally, it should be more difficult to us a combat "trick" against a skilled opponent. While it will be much easier for a fighter to take on a rogue or caster then another fighter. I think that letting everyone use a combat maneuver is good, if you don't put extra training into it (feats) the move will be harder to pull off and risky for the player. At high levels combat maneuvers are one area where the fighter classes can outshine the casters.
If you lower the starting point to 10 and make it so they do not provoke AOO's then you take away the extra punch the warrior classes get in succeeding and lessen the benefit for playing a pure fighter with lots of extra feats to round out a character to be able to outshine other classes in combat when that wizard can cast disintegrate and the rogue gets to add a handful of dice to his attacks in damage.
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.
I think the free attack with Improved Trip is too powerful. One on one it's not quite as bad but gang up trip with one attack get all your other attacks at +4 as well every other player near by with a initiative better than the creature tripped gets an attack. That's almost an instant kill maneuver. Now from player's use point of view that's great but I'm DM, if I use that against my players with hoard of orc warriors I'll kill a player a round.
I don't of trip as a maneuver that a fighter would use. Improved trip is something I see a rogue doing so the parties fighters can nail the opponent. In this way you as fighter would get +4 to all your attacks anyways. I just don't see that fighter in full plate tripping someone.
I'm not sure if these are "from" somewhere, but these are the rules I'm using in a PbP game here with Lilith:
# A character becomes unconscious when their nonlethal damage exceeds double their Constitution score and fails a Fortitude save equal to DC 10 + Con score. (Ex. A character with a Con of 8 is knocked out with 16 points of nonlethal damage.)
So once you're able to predictably inflict 25 or so Non-Lethal Damage, you could get a decent chance at "K.O."ing someone with one blow, though Fighter types/ high CON characters are the most likely to pass their Save. ("Average" guard mooks shouldn't, though). We haven't run across it yet, but I would say that you need to re-roll the K.O. Save every time you take more N.L. damage, until your NL damage is less than your limit.
Interesting idea, but doesn't this make knocking someone out with your bare hands much easier than killing them with an axe (assuming they have lots of HP)?
Some guy might have 100 HP and you might have to hit him 4 or 5 times with an axe to kill him, but you can knock him out with a KO punch?
Wouldn't this lead to people preferring KO to combat?
Oh, look, another dragon. This one is huuuge! Everyone put away your weapons, we're gonna KO this baby in one round!
OK, that's a bit extreme. I'm all for looking for good KO rules.
For me, I use the Coup de Grace rule, but treat the damage as non-lethal (assuming you're using a fist, or a blackjack, or trying to tap them with a billy club, etc.), and a failed save means unconsciousness rather than death. The main rule though, with CdG, is all the restrictions on how and when and to whom it can be applied.
On a side note, someone mentioned in this thread that you can't kill anyone with non-lethal damage. I think something was mentioned like you can punch someone in the face all day long and not kill them. I have a little house rule that when your non-lethal damage equals your current HP total (Max HP less any real wounds you've suffered), you're unconcsious and from this point on further non-lethal damage is converted to lethal damage, even if the attacker doesn't want it to - continuing to kick or beat someone who is down, unconsious, and not even ducking or flinching in self-defense is brutal, and eventually lethal.
Now to add to this thread, hopefully in a contributory manner.
I think most of us agree that CMB doesn't seem to work well at high levels.
At any level, man vs. his own doppleganger is a miss-fest. Maybe that's OK, but when you consider that usually they can hack each other apart with weapons much more easily, the CMB misses seem disproprtionate to weapon misses, which discourages them from trying.
At high levels, PC vs. suitably challenging monsters is so often very mismatched, to the point that PCs trying CMB maneuvers against these monsters are guaranteed to fail, or so likely to fail that they are sabotaging their chances to win the fight, leaving their only realistic recourse to hack the monster to pieces with weaponry.
Many people are proposing fixing this by fixing feats.
I disagree with this approach because I don't like using feats to fix bad game mechanics. As an extreme straw man, imagine if the game mechanic was that you cannot do more damage in a single hit with any weapon than your own BAB, unless you take one or two feats to remove this cap. The mechanic would be bad and the feats would fix it, but wouldn't we all rather just fix the mechanic?
I feel the same way about CMB. I would much rather have a working mechanic that suits all PCs at all levels and also suits the monsters, too.
Once we achieve that, we can consider feats that improve the mechanic for those PCs or bad guys or optimized monsters who want to be better at CMB maneuvers than the Average Joe. And by "Average Joe" I don't mean the farmer in the field (who by all rights should lose any grappling match with rampaging ogres) - I mean the highly trained deadly fighter, master of armed combat, but who hasn't specialized his training for CMBs.
To this end, we should have each CMB maneuver offer a goal, a reason to use the maneuver that isn't entirely circumstantial like dropping a bad guy into lava. This goal should be, in most in-game circumstances, desirable enough that the players will consider CMB as a real and viable option to hacking away with their swords. And they will actually fear the empty-handed ogre, knowing full well that he's going to do nasty things to them with his bare hands.
Also to this end, the mechanic to accomplish a successful CMB maneuver should be realistically achievable, and commensurate with a typical combatant's chances to successfully strike a similarly challenging foe with his weapons.
But there is a caveat. We cannot make CMB maneuvers so easy to succeed AND so effective that fighters world-wide will be leaving their swords home when they go walking into dungeons, preferring instead to disarm, trip, and grapple every monster in the dungeon.
The watchword is balance.
Balance the mechanic so people who use it can succeed a reasonable percentage of the time.
Balance the mechanic so that success is actually worth the effort and the lost opportunity that could have been achieved by simply striking with weapons.
That is what we should be trying to achieve.
Yes, it is true. The CMB is not working. I like the reletive ease in Pathfinder with the CMB, but players just find it unpalatable to waste rounds trying combat manuevers. They would love to use them though. I was wondering, if I were in a real fight for my life and attempting combet manuevers, would they be more difficult that attacks? Maybe we should take a new look at this. I find it easier to try to trip a person than thry to rip his face off. I find trying to knock a weapon out of his habd easier than trying to stab him, which requires getting past his weapon in hand, which would be a combat manuever in it self. I really hope we can get this fixed for the actual release in August. Can we get a glimpse or idea? Maybe a download set of beta-beta rules to to try?
|
Alot of great discussion on this board. unfortunately not alot of action. and 'actions make the man' as they say. (before i begin, yes my spelling is horrible, deal. i am trying to make a point). Thank you for your patience.
Point of this thread CMB is broke. OK, done. no more dicussion neccissary. however a good place to start is the actual roll for CMB. Fix that for average joe. Then add feats and abilities to make Awesome Grappler's(and i so want my monk to be one).
But for 'Col.' your posts have been about war and such. Why in the nine Hells would you want to grapple an elephant? Doesn't translate.However Billy McBaddy in the bar is a perfect cannidate.
15+BAB+STR+BONUS=to Dambed tough.You will never EVER win against an equal Opponent.
I do like the Idea that CM should be closee to AC.
10+BAB+Stat Bouns+magic BONUS= Maybe to easy, but monsters start scaling fast at 6th level and above.However i don't see someone using STR to block a rush, i see them using Dex. But that would give an edge to Dex based Characters which isn't the point. So; Use whichever is higher, dex or Str. Forget the stupid CM agility feat.
Haven't playtested it, but it gets people in the game at low levels. Which is the point. Feats keep you in the game. Fighters are better tahn wizards, not balanced but manageable.
AoO's kill the fun to. Compromise; opponent gets AoO if you FAIL your CM. Still has danger, takes away a major penalty to the system.
Feats, As stated above;
IMP Unarmed Fighting +4 Grapple, No AoO
There is some other feat that melts into this one Imp grapple?
IMP Defencive Manuevers +4 Trip, Fient, Disarm ; No AoO
IMP Offencive Manuevers +4 Bullrush, Overrun ; No AoO
I realize this is FAR from Finished or accurate. But the way all inventers and engineer do things is start with a base concept and mold it to perfestion. So these are my Alpha Modle. Any Ideas on how to streamline it?
I know i am direct, but i feel this thread has been derailed a couple of times. Thanks Watcher, for keeping it on track.
New CMB Annoyances:
1. It keeps two stats in the game "Offensive CMB" and "Defensive CMB".
2. MASS disagreement of what the base CMB should be.
The Improved feat made a good attempt at balancing out the "two stats" concern, but then Defensive Combat Training, altered it again.
Suggested Fixes:
1. Any stat that helps the chance to succeed on a CMB should also help the chance to resist a CMB. All the Improved feats need to say is that "the character gains +2 on all CMB checks". Defensive Combat Training would then also give a +2 on all CMB checks (Although then it could just be called Maneuver Training).
2. I really don't understand why this needed to be changed. It doesn't simplify things as you still have to add up 15 + BAB + STR + SIZE + BUFFS + FEATS, etc. Just change this back and remove the "free attack" from the Improved Trip feat... or only allow the free attack to be used once per combat round.
|
|
Interesting developement. 7th Level Raged Barbarian/Rouge pinned an Mind Flayer in my home game. AKA Large man crushes small weak monster. The Mind Flayer only got one tintical attack. Still proving my point. Mind Flayers SHOULD kick Butt at there #1 Attack combo. But they are seriously weak now. This mind Flayer was taken down in three rounds. Granted that we are in a Phycic campaign and are thus prepared for them.
I am trying to develope a list of min-max CMB's for different levels of PC's. Say a maxed out fighter and a min wizard weakling(attack and defence). Then i would like a similar list of different CR monsters(converted to PF)so that we can see how the actual system scales. I beleive that any gaping whole would become appearent then.