|
Here's a draft of my thoughts for the Combat chapter when it comes up. I'd love some input or refining of these ideas ...
I love Combat Maneuvers. The mechanics are simple and elegant. The first time we used it was in the first adventure of Curse of the Crimson Throne – someone tried to bull rush the gnome Hookshanks in the fishery in Edge of Anarchy – we called for a roll, told him he succeeded, and everyone sat around in stunned silence for a second realizing that was all the mechanic required – no touch attack, no opposed roll, just a target roll. Perfect.
However, I know there has been some argument on whether the CMB mechanic should be DC 15 or DC 10 plus opponent’s CMB, but aside from that, using Combat Maneuvers our group has run into numerous problems with circumstance bonuses or conditions more than the DC. Does being flat-footed affect a grapple? Does disarming someone who has cover deserve a modifier? How about tripping someone under the effects of a Tanglefoot bag, and nauseated? Grappling someone who is flanked? These things all came up in our regular game, and the rules are unfairly silent on this subject.
As well, the mechanic of a target equal to 15 + your opponent’s CMB was a bit clunky. We’d call out “I rolled a 26 – is that good?” It didn’t feel intuitive.
When Neceros put up a Pathfinder character sheet, it had a box on there for a CMB target number, which struck me – why not set up an Armor Class value for maneuvers?
If you took Touch AC, and added in the opponent’s Strength modifier, and added size modifier as a positive value rather than a negative value, you could call it a character’s Maneuver AC. If it were an Armor Class mechanic that CMB rolled against, you could apply most of the conditions that affect Armor Class, or effects that alter Strength or Dexterity would automatically affect CMB attempts.
If we did a Maneuver AC (10 + Dex modifier + Str Modifier + Size Modifier + deflection modifier + dodge modifier), here are some sample numbers that would replace the target CMB number currently in place (with the target 20 built in).
(CR 1) Hookshanks Gruller, Gnome Rogue 1 – CMBT 19, Maneuver AC 13
(CR 1) Wolf – CMBT 22, Maneuver AC 13
(CR 3) Ogre – CMBT 24, Maneuver AC 15
(CR 4) Otyugh – CMBT 20, Maneuver AC 11 (13 with Improved Grab?)
(CR 4) Pixie – CMBT 17, Maneuver AC 13
(CR 5) Troll – CMBT 31, Maneuver AC 19
(CR 6) Girallon – CMBT 34, Maneuver AC 20
(CR 7) Hill Giant – CMBT 32, Maneuver AC 17
(CR 7) Umber Hulk – CMBT 33, Maneuver AC 17
(CR 11) Elder Earth Elemental – CMBT 51, Maneuver AC 22
(CR 16) Greater Stone Golem – CMBT 66, Maneuver AC 23
I am of the opinion that the existing CMB target is too high, but not radically so. If we want to keep maneuvers from dominating the game, the DC needs to be somewhat prohibitive. Otherwise, we are playing WWE, not D&D. But, under the existing system what 3rd level character could hope to escape from an Ogre’s grapple? My observation is the AC mechanic I’ve presented is too low – but I still think the mechanism is good, maybe add in a +4 to up the Maneuver AC to an acceptable target.
Thoughts?
|
If we did a Maneuver AC (10 + Dex modifier + Str Modifier + Size Modifier + deflection modifier + dodge modifier), here are some sample numbers that would replace the target CMB number currently in place (with the target 20 built in).
How about trying Maneuver AC (15+ Dex modifier + Str Modifier + Size Modifier + deflection modifier + dodge modifier)?
|
|
If we did a Maneuver AC (10 + Dex modifier + Str Modifier + Size Modifier + deflection modifier + dodge modifier), here are some sample numbers that would replace the target CMB number currently in place (with the target 20 built in).How about trying Maneuver AC (15+ Dex modifier + Str Modifier + Size Modifier + deflection modifier + dodge modifier)?
Yeah, I think that would be good. As I said in my post, the final AC's are just too low.
...I've thought about this as well.
I think a base Maneuver AC of 13 [+BAB +mods] may be appropriate (instead of 15)
The rationale being that allowing Touch AC bonuses gives Defending Characters more potential bonuses, so the DC should broadly equal out (compared to a 15 base DC/AC that does not allow those modifiers)
Keeping the same base (15) while allowing more bonuses makes it all the more likely a character could only succeed on a 20.
Given that characters without "Improved Maneuver" Feats or Abilities provoke AoO's which increase the DC/AC by damage dealt, I don't think this is "too easy". I also like this solution because it collapses the offensive usage of Dex. Maneuvers with Weapon Finesse (though Dex. Maneuvers also applied to non-Finesse Maneuver Weapons), which feels more reasonable - requiring 2 separate Feats for a DEX melee build, ON TOP of the Maneuver Feats themselves AND requirements like Combat Expertise/ Power Attack was MUCH too penalizing.
Anyhow, it'd be interesting if Mr. Buhlman could even briefly comment on this, even though we're not in Combat Chapter yet.
I'm not so hung up on the specific Base DC/AC as much as finding a simple solution to accomplish the aims of CMB, while staying true to the 3.5 roots of Combat Maneuvers (Touch AC & STR check), not "dropping" key stats like DEX & Touch bonuses.
Also, I'm happy to include BAB in this Maneuver AC, like CMB does.
I re-read your post and noticed you WEREN'T including it...?
|
|
Also, I'm happy to include BAB in this Maneuver AC, like CMB does.
I re-read your post and noticed you WEREN'T including it...?
No, I wasn't. I'm not adverse to it, though, but that means if a Maneuver AC was 10 + Str Mod + Size Mod + BAB + Dex Mod + Deflection Mod + Dodge Mod you are going to end up with some high DCs to maneuver against.
Right, BAB scaling increases the DC alot (just like current CMB), which is why I think slightly reducing the base
(to 13?) would be appropriate, since more Defensive Modifiers are being allowed.
(If it was 10+BAB+X, there's no difference between Maneuver & Touch AC at 1st level for average non-Warriors)
Obviously, BAB as AC bonus just means the NET BAB DIFFERENCE goes to attacker/defender w/ BAB advantage.
I guess I'm focused on NOT altering the basic decison Jason's made with CMB,
even though I felt the old 2-roll Touch Attack/ STR Check was FINE... I just want to help make CMB the best it can be.
Like you mentioned, instead of just writing the Combat Maneuver BONUS on the Character Sheet (and mentally calculating 15+CMB for the DC), let's write down the real DC (AC) and not fork off a wierd sub-system of Attack Roll rules not opposed by any sort of "Armor Class", even though that's what Maneuvers were originally based on, and Jason is simplifying "from". It's POSSIBLE to separately address how Maneuvers should deal with all the 'situational' Attack/Defense Bonuses, but it's ultimately counter-productive if the original aim was simplicity, as well as being hard to remember.
For Backwards compatibility, you can derive Maneuver AC (incl. BAB) from Stat Blocks by adding Grapple to Touch AC,
adjusting for the Size Modifier changes (which is also necessary for normal Melee attacks).
Incidentally, I also think changing how Size bonuses are dealt with could be helpful. Currently each character has a STATIC Size bonus that applies to Attack/ Maneuver Rolls and Armor Class, which cancel out if fighting an equal Sized opponent. CMB uses the NEGATIVE of the normal Attack Bonus, but still cancels out because it's opposed DC was the opponent's CMB (including Maneuver Size Bonus) instead of AC. Thus, keeping this balance is slightly problematic if we are to return to a Attack Roll/AC system for CMB while keeping the negative Melee/Maneuver Size Bonus relationship. It's of course possible to just require different Size Modifiers for Maneuver Attack vs. Melee, and Maneuver AC vs. other AC categories, but that's confusing and negates the purpose of integrating Touch AC and Maneuver AC.
Instead, I thought, why not EXCLUDE the Size Modifiers from characters' normal combat stats, and only calculate it SITUATIONALLY, based on the NET Size difference between opponents - In this case, the NET Bonus/Penalty depends on whether a normal Attack or Maneuver is being attempted, and the relative Size of the attacker compared to the defender. Now that each Size category only has a +/-1 modifier, this is much more easily workable 'on the fly', and certainly seems to provide a benefit if Maneuvers are to be re-integrated to an Attack vs. AC, but still retain the reverse Size modifers. (So, Human vs. Halfing favors the Human +1 for Maneuvers (att & defense) and the Halfing +1 for Melee (att & defense))
|
|
Good observations! You've pretty much summed up my preferences -- by changing the target DC of a combat maneuver to an Armor Class, you tap into the existing ruleset for conditions and modifiers.
It'd be interesting to see Jason chime in on this, or else I'll save my (now revised) thoughts for the combat chapter...
Archade, I hope you don't mind, as this may be slightly off topic, but I saw the title of this thread and it seemed appropriate:
Anyway, I have been thinking of a new combat maneuver called Press.
Basically, what it would allow you to do is make a CMB check using an attack action to move your opponent 5'. It would differ from Bull Rush in that you don't move into your opponent's space, you can follow up with a 5' step of your own, and you can't move an opponent into a space that would do it harm (over a cliff for example). I think it would provide for some nice maneuvering on the battle field and get a little away from static combats.
With regards to your idea of Combat Maneuver AC, I like the idea of working it around touch AC. However, I personally would prefer opposed attack rolls to a static 10 or 15 plus CMB bonus.
|
|
Archade, I hope you don't mind, as this may be slightly off topic, but I saw the title of this thread and it seemed appropriate:
Anyway, I have been thinking of a new combat maneuver called Press.
Basically, what it would allow you to do is make a CMB check using an attack action to move your opponent 5'. It would differ from Bull Rush in that you don't move into your opponent's space, you can follow up with a 5' step of your own, and you can't move an opponent into a space that would do it harm (over a cliff for example). I think it would provide for some nice maneuvering on the battle field and get a little away from static combats.
Not a bad idea. I'd create Press as a feat, though.
The Press idea makes me think of another aspect of Maneuvers:
Currently, it's pretty much necessary to have the "Improved Maneuver" Feat in order to use Maneuvers effectively. Otherwise, you hand your opponent a free attack, which QUICKLY increases the DC by it's 1:1 conversion of damage to Maneuver DC.
So firstly, I think the DC increase: AoO Damage ratio could be reduced, to 1:2 or 1:3. Maneuvers are generally hard to begin with, and even with the reduced ratio, this would still be a big penalty.
Secondly, there's a major Feat investment in order to use them effectively. Besides the Feat itself, either Combat Expertise, Power Attack, or Improved Unarmed is necessary. To be proficient in multiple Maneuvers can thus EASILY take up HALF a 20th level character's Feats (non-Fighters, of course). Some of these pre-requisites COULD be taken out, but another approach would to be to make the Improved Maneuver Feats themselves offer MORE value:
The Press idea made me think that instead of introducing MORE separate Maneuvers which would require their own "Improved Maneuver" Feat, we could add new APPLICATIONS of the same BASE Maneuvers, which are only available to characters with the "Improved Maneuver" Feat. So for example, any character could attempt an Unimproved Bull-Rush, but with the Improved Bull-Rush Feat, in addition to a small bonus and not provoking an AoO when Bull-Rushing, you also gain the "Press" variant, which also benefits from the +2 bonus to Bull-Rushing.
Some possible "Improved" usages:
Bullrush: Press - more like "Knockback"
Sunder Armor: Vicious Sunder - apply damage also?
Sunder Weapon: Jarring Sunder - apply penalty to opponent's BAB for one round
Trip: Vicious Trip - apply damage also?
Disarm: Vicioius Disarm - apply damage also?/
Dextrous Disarm - choose where weapon/object goes
Overrun: Powerful Overrun - if you don't beat the DC by 5,
you get a second CMB roll to try and do so.
...????
Alternatively, I could even see giving a character with an "Improved Maneuver" Feat the best of 2 rolls for that Maneuver...?
|
|
I think a lot of these 'improved maneuvers' could be done with a class feature (monk or rogue), or a generally encompassing feat. The thing I think we need to be careful of if that maneuvers don't become the predominant system of choice, otherwise we will end up with WWE combat, rather than swords and daggers.
But, I think 'improved maneuvers' are a good idea. A good general thought is that anyone who has 'Improved Trip' does damage with a trip attack, anyone with 'Improved Bull Rush' does damage with a bull rush attack, etc.