Does everyone agree enough that we can get a definitive rule written centrally that we can use in playtest?
OK, how's this?:
Maneuver Attack Rolls = Melee Attack Rolls (& all Modifiers)
Maneuver AC = Touch AC (& all Modifiers) + 2?* +BAB +STR
(* To represent difficulty, but <15CMB since we're allowing new Defense bonuses (DEX/Dodge)
Size Modifiers are no longer calculated into Stat Blocks, but are applied situationally,
based on the net size difference between opponents (+/-1 per Size Tier difference),
applying it to whomever they favor depending on the type of attack (melee/maneuver) being attempted.
Example:
I think it'd be best if the Situational Size Modifier is applied ONLY to the Attacker's roll, either as Bonus or Penalty, since flipflopping between bonus to Attacker/Defender is confusing.
Specific Bonuses CAN apply to ONLY Maneuvers (or only SPECIFIC Maneuvers) or even ONLY Melee, but general Attack Bonuses apply to all of them. (Shield Bonus->Bull Rush is specific example)
DEX and STR Penalties apply to Maneuver AC just as Bonuses do.
Magic/ Masterwork Weapon bonuses DO apply, as do any Defensive bonuses that apply to Touch AC.
...I think that's pretty much it. It's really VERY VERY simple.
Getting some more feedback on this (game-play, player/DM learning curve/enjoyment) would be great!
Does everyone agree enough that we can get a definitive rule written centrally that we can use in playtest?OK, how's this?:
Maneuver Attack Rolls = Melee Attack Rolls (& all Modifiers)
Maneuver AC = Touch AC (& all Modifiers) + 2?* +BAB +STR
(* To represent difficulty, but <15CMB since we're allowing new Defense bonuses (DEX/Dodge)
The only thing I don't like here is the arbitrary "+2" to represent difficulty. The difficulty should be based on your abilities/feats/mods (or lack thereof). I think there is a danger here of adding a modifier (difficulty bonus?) that has no basis other than "we want to make maneuvers harder". Quandary, I would say to be careful of the logic that maneuvers should be harder just because they are harder to execute. I can't imagine anything harder than trying to shove 2 feet of steel into someone's guts, but there isn't a difficulty modifier in the basic combat. It just mano v. goblino (sorry, couldn't resist), and all of the numbers that we currently crunch.
But, as I stated before, I will try it first and see what happens. More to follow.
Yes, this would basically eliminate the Size bonuses. This, I'm not sure, is much of a problem.
We are already taking what used to be two rolls, one an opposed check, and combining them into one single DC check. So where the Large creature used to have a -attack on the touch attack, but then +attack on the maneuver check... it's now a wash.Also, large and small creatures already have a modified Strength score. Large creatures already have a bonus to Strength, and Smaller creatures already have a penalty to Strength....
The issue I see with this is that the size bonus/penalty is also symmetrical (applies on both attack and defense); it's a total wash against the Strength factor, whereas in 3.5 the bonus on the opposed roll far outweighed the penalty on the attack for a large creature.
How about we just compensate with an inverse modifier, though? Double the one in the current PRPG rules and it'll cancel out the existing AC modifier to yield the intended "leverage" effect. So:
CM SizeMod = Tiny -4, Small -2, Medium 0, Large +2, Huge +4 (etc.)
CM Defense = Touch AC + BAB + Str + CM SizeMod.
CM Attack = Normal attack + CM SizeMod.
One easily-derived number on your character sheet, one simple static modifier to your attack roll. Everything changes the same way as normal AC and attacks.
Follow-up after sleeping on it:
Doing it this way also negates the need for any special rules about attacks of opportunity. You provoke when you'd normally provoke. Anything done with a weapon doesn't provoke; Bull Rush with a shield doesn't (shield love!) but loses you your AC unless you have Imp. Shield Bash; everything else does unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike (giving monks incentive to use even CMs they don't have feats for).
As to the feats themselves: going back to +4 might be enough, but I really like the idea of making the maneuver more attractive, not just more successful. My first thought on Improved Trip was to allow a trip attempt as a swift action, which is patently inferior to wolf-trip and mostly inferior to old Improved Trip; but knocking one out EVERY round is as boring as never doing it. How about something like "When you damage an enemy with a weapon which can be used to trip, you may make a trip attempt as an immediate action." Wolf-trip with a once-per-round use limit. Dunno, maybe still not there... ideas?
Improved Sunder could be along the lines of, "When you deal damage to a held or worn item, you deal equal damage to its owner."
Still digesting the implications, however...
Did I not see a chart somewhere that implied a base Maneuver DC of 12 (rather than 15) under the beta RAW would be closer to the original 3.5 success rates? If so, and we are allowing new defense modifiers, perhaps we could drop the +2?*, since it is difficult to justify its presence.
I think I may try it without the +2. That way, Maneuver DC and CMB fit very nicely into the existing AC paradigm.
How about something like "When you damage an enemy with a weapon which can be used to trip, you may make a trip attempt as an immediate action."
This is a good one.
If anybody wants to playtest Maneuver AC, I've started a new thread for playtest feedback: HERE
re: the "+2*" (i.e. base 12 vs. base 15 of Beta CMB)
Secondly, it certainly makes SENSE to be more difficult than Touch AC, because in 3.5, several Maneuvers required a Touch AC AND STR Check, meaning: less chances of success than only Touch AC.
Third, in 3.5, usually one OR the other of Touch/STR Check was more difficult than the other: Massive Titans have low Touch AC, nimble Pixies have low STR.
Fourth, if one WERE to have the base DC(AC) be 10, then there would be ZERO difference between making a Touch Attack and making a Maneuver Attack against a typical humanoid opponent (+0 BAB, +0 STR/DEX). For high-end scenarios, allowing all Attack Mods actually does outpace Defensive Mods, assuming you can actually use them (Flanking, Attack from Invisible, etc).
although that effect would basically make Large (Strong) Creatures MORE able to inflict Melee Damage on Small ones (i.e. able to kill them quicker),
while making Small ones marginally less bad at Maneuvers, and slightly less able to land Melee/Touch attacks.
So: no difference to 99% of low-strength small characters, bonus to Maneuvers for 1% of high-strength small characters, penalty to Maneuvers for high-str large characters, but bonus to melee for them.
I don't really think that outcome adds much to "game balance", although dropping Modifiers certainly DOES streamline play. /shrug
Secondly (as I mentioned in regards the base 12 vs. 15 vs. 10 DC), realistically in 99% of cases, either one or the other of Touch AC or Strength Checks were difficult, rarely ever BOTH. So basically what I'm saying is that a slight penalty/bonus to an EASY check you'd likely pass no matter what, does NOT "balance out" against a penalty/bonus to a DIFFICULT check where the penalty/bonus actually makes a signifigant difference.
...Weapons (including Imp. Unarmed) that allow Maneuvers not provoking AoO's with un-Improved Maneuvers, and Improved Maneuver Feats working like "Wolf Trip" ability, i.e. "free Maneuver on Melee Hit".
This is pretty much my personal preference as well.
It makes "UnImproved" Maneuvers more viable, and open the door for the Imp. Maneuver Feats to offer a more unique benefit than just avoiding a DC-raising AoO (they'd still have the +2 bonus).It also makes Improved Unarmed much more "worth it" to take,
since you can attempt ALL Maneuvers with Unarmed, while most Weapons offer ZERO Maneuvers,
with certain ones only offering one Maneuver (maybe two at most).
It also makes the "Maneuver Weapons" more signifigant, because you KNOW anybody using that Thingamajigee is able to Trip you, though you don't know their exact SKILL (i.e. Feats) at doing so. In the status quo, if you run into some guard mooks with a Manuever-capable Polearm, you're probably pretty safe assuming they don't have the "Improved Maneuver" Feat necessary to pull it off effectively (without the AoO) - So what's the point of them using that weapon? If the DM wants them to make use of that tactic, then the rest of their combat abilities need to be gimped in order to pay for the Improved Maneuver Feat and it's Pre-Reqs.
I also think it should be mentioned that the Beta DOES include functionality like this, but thru a "Greater Maneuver" Feat (like Greater Trip), requiring one MORE Feat (and doing nothing for the Featless) to basically have the functionality of 3.5 Improved Trip.
Incidentally, I VASTLY prefer the "Wolf-like" functionality of "free Maneuver on Melee hit" to the "free Attack on Maneuver Hit" used by Beta's Greater Trip and 3.5's Improved Trip. Somehow the flavor of the "Wolf-like" option seems more appropriate and intuitive.
First off, I'm not necessarily opposed to removing Size Modifiers from the game completely,
although that effect would basically make Large (Strong) Creatures MORE able to inflict Melee Damage on Small ones (i.e. able to kill them quicker),
while making Small ones marginally less bad at Maneuvers, and slightly less able to land Melee/Touch attacks.
My suggestion was to just remove the size modifier from the Maneuvers aspect of the game, because ultimately, they cancel each other out in the equation.
However, as I suggested in the other thread, allowing Size modifiers to apply after you've started a grapple makes sense since you are now holding onto each other and don't have to worry about "landing the hit". Large creatures should still have the leverage advantage in a grapple, just like creatures with more than two legs should have an advantage against tripping.
My suggestion was to just remove the size modifier from the Maneuvers aspect of the game, because ultimately, they cancel each other out in the equation.
Likewise in the other thread, I counterpointed with how the new modifiers (and feat bonuses) were probably set... the 3.5 math does favor a large creature after considering both rolls.
Not trying to flog the point, just that we've got two threads. :P The other was intended solely for playtesting reports and has settled down to that now, though.
The issue I see with this is that the size bonus/penalty is also symmetrical (applies on both attack and defense); it's a total wash against the Strength factor, whereas in 3.5 the bonus on the opposed roll far outweighed the penalty on the attack for a large creature.
How about we just compensate with an inverse modifier, though? Double the one in the current PRPG rules and it'll cancel out the existing AC modifier to yield the intended "leverage" effect. So:
CM SizeMod = Tiny -4, Small -2, Medium 0, Large +2, Huge +4 (etc.)
CM Defense = Touch AC + BAB + Str + CM SizeMod.
CM Attack = Normal attack + CM SizeMod.One easily-derived number on your character sheet, one simple static modifier to your attack roll. Everything changes the same way as normal AC and attacks.
Basically, whe share the same point of view for the size modifier issue. If I read you correctly we have the same formula in the end ( except for the added bonuses ), since I don't double the size modifier per se but add it again
As a reminder the formula I intend to test is
CM Attack = CMB ( which is BAB + STR mod + special size mod for CMB ) + other modifiers ( imp feat, weapon focus, magic weapon, higher ground, flank... )
CM AC = Touch AC + CMB + special size modifier for CMB + other modifiers
This way, you won't need to add a CM sizeMod, but just use the exisrting special SizeMod for CMB.
Sharen,
Feel free to playtest whatever variant you like (please clarify that if you post feedback),
...But I wanted to point out that using the setup you just described, means you need to track a separate (Maneuver) Attack Modifier for EVERY Weapon/Attack Modality you have that is capable of Maneuvers (not to mention the curiosity of recursively applying Size Modifiers to ManAC), which seems rather more tedious/complicated than the alternative.
I believe using the exact same Attack numbers (and deriving directly from Touch AC) with "Situationalized" Size Bonuses is simpler, cleaner, and easier to explain to new players - and those were the main design aims of Maneuver AC in the first place. Just saying.
I believe using the exact same Attack numbers (and deriving directly from Touch AC) with "Situationalized" Size Bonuses is simpler, cleaner, and easier to explain to new players - and those were the main design aims of Maneuver AC in the first place. Just saying.
Right... this is the idea. Sharen's outcome is essentially the same, but it requires more rules and an extra box on the character sheet per weapon. The way Quandary and I are coming at it, you just use the number that's already written down for your weapon's attack bonus. The size modifier is one static number, easily remembered.
No Harm Quandary. Actually I missed your point and tejón just clarified it.
But because of what I read so far from you, I thought you were calulating a specific Maneuver Attack roll and not using the existing ones.
Maneuver Attack Rolls = Melee Attack Rolls (& all Modifiers)
That made me ask myself : What are those modifiers ? When I read you it seems that it would include feats ( including focus ), magic bonuses, situationnal bonuses... I then got to think that you were either calulating a general maneuver Attack roll and then adding bonuses in specific cases or either you were keeping track of every weapon/attack.
Another thing that got me wrong was the fact that in 3.5 there was a melee attack box and a range attack box. Those disapeared in PF but I stayed focused on them, thus thinking you were refering to those when you were speaking of Melee Attack.
Now that's all been cleared, I can see that yup it's much simplier. But concerning the size issue, I'm still in favor of some already calculated sizeMod. And I still think that the +2 in Maneuver AC should be removed, but I'll get a final conclusion after playtesting.
Now that's all been cleared, I can see that yup it's much simplier. But concerning the size issue, I'm still in favor of some already calculated sizeMod. And I still think that the +2 in Maneuver AC should be removed, but I'll get a final conclusion after playtesting.
If you check out the other thread, I've done a bit of math and determined that if the intent is to recreate the same differential as PRPG Beta, it actually needs to be -4 x normal size mod, exactly as it was in 3.5. I also, later, ran some spreadsheets and posted a few samples to show how the balance works out in several sample cases, with comparisons to the beta system. I ran those without the +2.
Disregard above post about -4x, a better system has been found. Again, other thread. :)
Disregard above post about -4x, a better system has been found. Again, other thread. :)
In fact, how about we close this one down? It's redundant.
Please join the conversation here instead of posting in this thread!
I don't mean to be a wet blanket here, but can't we add all these bonuses and modifiers without creating a new stat (CMB AC) to keep track of?
A simple paragraph under CMB that says "Making a CMB roll is equivalent to making an attack, and any modifiers you would have for an attack apply to the CMB roll, such as flanking, weapon focus, etc. Further, any specific modifiers that the defender would receive to his AC should be applied to the CMB DC, such as modifiers for cover, flatfooted, etc."
Whether or not 15, 10, 13, 12, or whatever, is finally decided to be the right base DC, I'm not sure we need to keep track of a second CMB value to replace that base DC.
DM_Blake, you might notice:
We're no longer keeping track of CMB: It's just your Attack Roll now.
So that's saving an extra item to track.
And it seems useful to have a pre-calculated ManeuverAC rather than:
"Do I trip the Guard? Well, his TouchAC is X, BAB is X, STR is X, oh! Dwarven Stability..."
If you have to calculate something, I'd rather do it ONCE only.
Toy Robots:
...I was kindof hoping that this thread would be kept more for 'debate', and the other thread really just be about playtesting, not whether people preferred this option or that option, which would distract from the other threa... Though a black&white distinction is hard to maintain (and people have come up with alternate ways to PRESENT the Maneuver Size Bonus, though not mechanically different)
.../shrug
In fact, how about we close this one down? It's redundant.
This thread is still relevant for discussing problems and solutions not related to the CMAC mechanic. If that actually happens. And now, to violate the premise! :D
I don't mean to be a wet blanket here, but can't we add all these bonuses and modifiers without creating a new stat (CMB AC) to keep track of?
The CMB stat goes away. You still have one extra stat on your character sheet (and actually, relative to 3.5, you have no extra stats because Grapple Mod goes away in both cases). You use weapon attack (already written down) plus one static modifier, vs. CMAC which has no modifiers ever except those which are already being tracked for Touch AC.
So overall it has exactly the same complexity as the existing CMB system, where you have one static number (CMB) and one static bonus (+15 to defense). The advantage is that you don't have a separate mechanic, which saves confusion at the table and space in the book.
Original post HERE.
I will be debating about the AoO in the system we are currently testing.
To use a combat maneuver, you make an attack roll with an additional special size modifier against your target's Maneuver AC (CMAC). A creature's CMAC is equal to:
touch AC + base attack bonus + Str modifier + special size modifier
The special size modifier for combat maneuvers is: (...), Small -2, Medium +0, Large +2, (...). As an exception to the normal stacking rules, this modifier stacks with (does not replace) any existing size modifier on AC and attack rolls.
Combat maneuvers provoke attacks of opportunity. Certain feats and abilities, as well as certain weapons, allow specific combat maneuvers to be used without provoking an attack of opportunity. If you take damage from an attack of opportunity (or are otherwise physically interrupted) while performing a combat maneuver, it fails and the action is lost.
If the Concentration skill hadn't been merged with Spellcraft (seriously, what? does nobody else force rogues and monks to make concentration checks all the g!@@%~n time?) I'd suggest a check to keep the action if struck by an AOO. Beta's method of adding damage to the hit roll, though... just say you lose the attack. It comes out the same. :P
EDIT: Still not 100% sure of how to handle the "when does it provoke" question. I really like IUS allowing certain maneuvers to be performed without provoking, but maybe that should be handled as the exception... either built into the IUS text or maybe just part of a monk's Maneuver Training...
IMHO, losing your maneuver because you get hit by a AoO isn't good. Taking a maneuver is already a risk, as the target gets a free AoO and success rate of a maneuver can vary greatly, not to mention that at higher levels Attack rolls will mostly hit ( BAB increases, but AC has a cap ).
Getting a penalty to maneuver attack roll seems more reasonnable. Would it be equal to dammage taken ? I'm not too sure about it but seems fair. This method also offer the 5% chance of success on the net 20 on dice roll.
For the concentration skill, yeah, it's too bad. This would have come handy here ( and reverting to concentration also solves the casting defensively issue. sadly it makes onr more skill to invest in ).
Maybe we can think of something else to emulate a "concentration" check ? Something based on CON+BAB maybe ? ( just an idea I throw in without other thoughts )
IMHO, losing your maneuver because you get hit by a AoO isn't good. Taking a maneuver is already a risk, as the target gets a free AoO and success rate of a maneuver can vary greatly, not to mention that at higher levels Attack rolls will mostly hit ( BAB increases, but AC has a cap ).
Well, the whole thing is... if you're taking an AoO in the first place, it's because you don't have the feat. Which means you're probably not very good at maneuvers anyway. Which means that if your enemy gets to add the damage they deal to your difficulty roll... yeah, you'll be relying on the auto-hit.
The 3.5 rule is that you just lose the maneuver. I'm personally not a fan of situations where only a 20 saves your ass, so I'd rather just skip the die roll. But it's true that this really sucks, and PRPG Beta is already trying to give you a chance to keep the maneuver, so if we can come up with an actually workable solution I'll be happy. Since Concentration is out, I can really only think of two reasonable options offhand.
- Taking any damage while trying to perform a maneuver causes you to take a circumstance penalty to your attack roll. This should only be -2 or maybe -4. It would stack, though, and it would apply even if you have the feat to avoid an AoO: if three enemies readied actions to interrupt your grapple and they all hit, you'd be at -6.
- Scrap the failure rule entirely. A lot of people seem to favor this, based on the idea that you're already trading a round of damage for a tactical gamble, especially if you're taking an AoO. It's a reasonable argument.
I agree that the second option would work just fine. Come to think of it, that's how I played Maneuvers in 3.5.
It would give more chances to those who don't have an improved maneuver feat. Fact is : I like to see players gamble on this. They know that it's dangerous, that they don't have the required feats, but they also know that if it works out, they can turn tables ( I was told of a fight where low level players did grapple a quasit and drowned it in a pool. That was a fresh and good tactic )
Scrap the failure rule entirely. A lot of people seem to favor this, based on the idea that you're already trading a round of damage for a tactical gamble, especially if you're taking an AoO. It's a reasonable argument.
Oddly enough, I favor this one. And I agree with the statement that if you are even at risk of AoO damage here, you arent a "specialist" in CMs, so you are making tactical decisions that may turn the tide of an encounter. My group in RotRL did exactly that with the quasit (same encounter I wonder?) They couldnt hit her, with the high AC and her flying all over. The rogue hid on the dais level and waited. When she got too close, he jumped off of the dais and brought her down. Very heroic, and damn smart too. And all that before we even had this system going. Would have been a shame for him to do all of that, and lose his attack from 2 points of dagger damage.
Scrap the failure rule entirely. A lot of people seem to favor this, based on the idea that you're already trading a round of damage for a tactical gamble, especially if you're taking an AoO. It's a reasonable argument.Oddly enough, I favor this one. And I agree with the statement that if you are even at risk of AoO damage here, you arent a "specialist" in CMs, so you are making tactical decisions that may turn the tide of an encounter. My group in RotRL did exactly that with the quasit (same encounter I wonder?) They couldnt hit her, with the high AC and her flying all over. The rogue hid on the dais level and waited. When she got too close, he jumped off of the dais and brought her down. Very heroic, and damn smart too. And all that before we even had this system going. Would have been a shame for him to do all of that, and lose his attack from 2 points of dagger damage.
Could be your party then ^___^ I heard it from a player who is running the pathfinder campaign, and he read this on this very same forum. Anyway, gg for this one
Tejon, both of those options sound reasonable.
I won't really weigh in further than that, because I think it just comes down to Jason's taste in this.
I kind of like the flat-penalty-when-hit idea, because it creates a tactical option against the super-optimized maneuver monk. It's a general rule for any damage in response to a CM, basically replacing a concentration check, whereas the old AoO-specific solution is just one more penalty for trying to perform a CM without having taken the feat.
EDIT: Hmm. With a -2 penalty, it's equivalent to Aid Another on AC. This brings us to a decision point. Either:
- Aid Another is a good enough solution to countering the monk (because it's actually possible now).
- Combat Maneuvers take more concentration than normal attacks, and hard to pull off when you're getting pummeled (reasonable, and fits the current model).
Tejon, both of those options sound reasonable.
I won't really weigh in further than that, because I think it just comes down to Jason's taste in this.
Has anyone gotten any feedback/response from the Paizo folks on the MAC? Ive read alot of Jason's feedback on other issues, so I was just curious.
Has anyone gotten any feedback/response from the Paizo folks on the MAC? Ive read alot of Jason's feedback on other issues, so I was just curious.Tejon, both of those options sound reasonable.
I won't really weigh in further than that, because I think it just comes down to Jason's taste in this.
I'd rather not see another thread where we make a good house-rule and sit around waiting for Jason to congratulate us. I presume he's read it. He'll either adopt the idea or not. He'll either tell us or he won't. The best we can do is keep using it and poking holes in it and see where it leads us.
In all probability, CMB is probably already too entrenched in the document to be removed, but I could be wrong. I don't mean that as a judgment on the designers, just an acknowledgment of reality when working with a big document like this. Even so, I hope he uses at least part of what we've got here.
Perhaps we should focus now on clearly stating the MAC method, as it would appear in the final rules? That might make it easier to isolate potential problems.
I'd rather not see another thread where we make a good house-rule and sit around waiting for Jason to congratulate us. I presume he's read it. He'll either adopt the idea or not. He'll either tell us or he won't. The best we can do is keep using it and poking holes in it and see where it leads us.
I was just curious whether or not he had said anything to anyone offline. Whether or not he was looking for other playtest scenarios that we could work on. I assumed he read it as well, as he has said on other threads that you dont need to put his name in a thread for him to read it, as he gets to most of them. I also assume he's busy, August isnt that far away, and the book needs to get to the printer at some point.
As a matter of fact, I am 98% sure I will use this system whether it is adopted or not. My group has been modding systems for years, and believe me, I dont need congratulations from a game designer to utilize something that my players find fun to play.
No offense Toyrobots, I just wanted it clear that I'm not simpering for recognition from Paizo.
No offense Toyrobots, I just wanted it clear that I'm not simpering for recognition from Paizo.
I wasn't accusing it either, we're on the same page ;)
Perhaps we should focus now on clearly stating the MAC method, as it would appear in the final rules? That might make it easier to isolate potential problems.
To use a combat maneuver, you make an attack roll with an additional special size modifier against your target's Maneuver AC (MAC). A creature's MAC is equal to:
touch AC + base attack bonus + Str modifier + special size modifier
The special size modifier for combat maneuvers is: (...), Small -2, Medium +0, Large +2, (...). As an exception to the normal stacking rules, this modifier stacks with (does not replace) any existing size modifier on AC and attack rolls.
Combat maneuvers provoke attacks of opportunity. Certain feats and abilities, as well as certain weapons, allow specific combat maneuvers to be used without provoking an attack of opportunity. If you take damage from an attack of opportunity (or are otherwise physically interrupted) while performing a combat maneuver, it fails and the action is lost.
- complete disruption (as per this text and 3.5 rules)
- flat -2 from ANY damage taken (including readied actions, good even against those with no-AOO feats), or
- no disruption at all (loss of a damaging attack + damage taken = enough penalty).
I think Jason is set on the CMB mechanic staying in, but I think the target number doesn't need changing so much as taking into account combat modifiers...
makes sense.
The three good options were:
complete disruption (as per this text and 3.5 rules)
flat -2 from ANY damage taken (including readied actions, good even against those with no-AOO feats), or
no disruption at all (loss of a damaging attack + damage taken = enough penalty).
I can live with #1 or #3. My personal opinion on damage-based modifiers is to use the actual damage as the modifier, under the argument that 2 points from a dagger isnt as apt to stop your bull rush as 38 points from a battle axe. I dont like the additional complexity that would cause, so I wouldnt suggest it. Ive already stated I prefer #3.
I can live with #1 or #3. My personal opinion on damage-based modifiers is to use the actual damage as the modifier, under the argument that 2 points from a dagger isnt as apt to stop your bull rush as 38 points from a battle axe. I dont like the additional complexity that would cause, so I wouldnt suggest it. Ive already stated I prefer #3.
Hmm... how about:
Any damaging attack suffered while attempting to perform a combat maneuver causes a -2 penalty on the attack roll. If a single attack causes damage equal to or greater than your final bonus on the attack roll, the combat maneuver is completely disrupted and the action is lost."
My group has been using opposed CM rolls, and it has been working really well. It gives players a chance to feel more involved when a manuever is performed against them.
I'm not really thrilled with where this thread is going. Y'all are taking an easy rule and just making it as complicated as you like. Complicated isn't necessarily fun. And new GMs don't like having to flip through the book to rememorise things whenever somebody wants to do a manuever ("Can they use a shield? That one guy is flat-footed but he is also Large. Does this need a feat? What chapter has that AoO table?")
2cp
I'm not really thrilled with where this thread is going. Y'all are taking an easy rule and just making it as complicated as you like. Complicated isn't necessarily fun. And new GMs don't like having to flip through the book to rememorise things whenever somebody wants to do a manuever ("Can they use a shield? That one guy is flat-footed but he is also Large. Does this need a feat? What chapter has that AoO table?")
2cp
CMB as printed:
MAC option:
While my colleagues are being perhaps overly thorough, I think you can see that MAC is no more complex and quite a deal more flexible than CMB is. In fact, if you consider a modified AC to be simpler than a base-15 target number (which I do) then it is a simpler system.
A few advantages of the MAC option include:
As for your short list of "lookup examples" — ("Can they use a shield? That one guy is flat-footed but he is also Large. Does this need a feat? What chapter has that AoO table?") — I think they make a case for using the Attack vs. AC framework, as those questions answer themselves without cracking open a book.
Can they use a shield?
No, although I personally would allow it for bullrush and overrun (and maybe trip).
Flat-footed, also Large?
Because it is an Armor Class, the armor class rules apply for both of these. Your Touch AC goes down when you are flatfooted, therefore your Maneuver AC does also. The special size modifier for maneuvers is a single modifier that can be permanently recorded on the sheet. This is one reason I think MAC is simpler than CMB, players can fall back on existing knowledge of Attacks vs. AC.
Does this Need a Feat?
Maneuvers don't require feats.
What chapter has that AoO table?
This is a problem with Attacks of Opportunity, and is beyond the scope of the MAC option to fix. That said, I would say that all maneuvers incur an attack of opportunity unless specifically contradicted by an ability such as a feat. (also, the 'Combat' chapter is a good bet, but I tend to ignore that table myself)
In summary, treating maneuvers as normal attacks vs. a special AC settles more questions than it raises.
CMB as printed:
Calculate Attacker's CMB (Str + BAB + SpecSize)
Calculate defender's maneuver DC (15+Str+BAB+SpecSize) MAC option:
Normal Attack roll + SpecSize
Maneuver AC = Touch AC + Str + BAB + SpecSize
I'm not buying it though. Touch AC is a pretty fluctuating value that hinges on so many more variables that also are subject to change. It's just adding more variables for the sake of realism. When really if manuevers like trip were that effective and easy to do then why don't the dudes at the renaissance festival do it all the time?
I'm not buying it though. Touch AC is a pretty fluctuating value that hinges on so many more variables that also are subject to change. It's just adding more variables for the sake of realism. When really if manuevers like trip were that effective and easy to do then why don't the dudes at the renaissance festival do it all the time?
Showmanship, is my guess. Chivalry, too. Also, note that Maneuver AC doesn't make these maneuvers more easy or effective as you imply; it makes it considerably harder to execute them on "Dodgy" opponents, which is how it was under 3.5 as well.
Trips and Grapples happen in any real fight if the opportunity presents itself... but leaving realism aside (this is D&D) you're already tracking Touch AC, and all the numbers that get added for Maneuver AC are static.
If you are defending against a maneuver while flatfooted, you just remove all Dex and Dodge bonuses from your Touch AC just as you would if hit by a Touch Attack while Flatfooted. That doesn't seem like an exception to me, it is consistent with the rules of AC. What happens under CMB when you are defending against a maneuver Flat-Footed? Evidently nothing. That seems counter-intuitive to me, since it breaks the rules of combat that apply everywhere else. What's more, Touch AC (and therefor dex and dodge) used to matter for maneuvers in 3.5, and now it doesn't. That doesn't sit well with me.
I prefer not to make rules decisions based on realism (or even statistics) but pragmatism. There is no reason a dodgy dexterity god should be easy to trip or grapple. Players who make that kind of character would be right to feel frustrated at the results of this situation under CMB, firstly because it defies their expectation, and secondly because this was not the case in 3.5.
Maybe Maneuver AC is not for you, but I'll defend it while I think it works. Your criticism is welcome, but I guess we have different standards of "simple." As it is, I see CMB as the "exception" to the Attack vs. AC mechanic in combat, and MAC is actually a simplification in that it extends the existing attack mechanic instead of creating a whole new branch of the combat rules.
I'm not buying it though. Touch AC is a pretty fluctuating value that hinges on so many more variables that also are subject to change. It's just adding more variables for the sake of realism. When really if manuevers like trip were that effective and easy to do then why don't the dudes at the renaissance festival do it all the time?
Maneuver AC is "a fluctuating variable" just as much as Touch AC and NORMAL AC.
So this "fluctuation" is EXACTLY what Players/DMs EXPECT and are USED TO playing with for the MAJORITY of combat (Melee). It takes more thought to explain that those expectations DON'T apply to Maneuvers than to allow them. Logically, if you don't like Attack Bonuses and Dodge Bonuses for this usage, you shouldn't use them for NORMAL Melee either.There are NO more variables being added beyond CMB: It uses the number that you ALREADY are tracking for Touch AC. I came up with this because reading the Beta, it ISN'T at all clear how Bonuses should apply, and it really makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER that Fighting Defensively should NOT work for Maneuvers. The "realism" is the EXACT same "realism" as the rest of the combat system uses: NOT using the NORMAL bonuses feels "unreal" to me in the context of the rest of melee combat. If you've read the (admittedly overly technical) posts here or in the "Playtest" thread, you're aware that people's results are CLOSER to 3.5 functionality using this system, and since Beta was explained as a way to make Manuevers FASTER, not MORE DIFFICULT and NOT COMPARABLE WITH 3.5 EXPECTATIONS, that would seem like a good thing.
I get the feeling that you liked CMB in Beta, or rather your interpretation of it (since how Attack Bonuses apply ISN'T resolved), and you have resistance to going away from that. You have to realize that it's called BETA for a reason and HAS BEEN STATED by Jason to be open to revision, and he's interested in hearing playtest feedback from a VARIETY OF IMPLEMENTATIONS of it (which this is one of). The ENTIRE POINT of this system is that it DOESN'T introduce new exceptional mechanics or sub-systems, while implementing the core functionality of Beta CMB. I invite you to actually playtest it.
I'm not buying it though. Touch AC is a pretty fluctuating value that hinges on so many more variables that also are subject to change. It's just adding more variables for the sake of realism.
To boil Quandary's response down: no variables are added, one is merely re-used. The offset between ManAC and TouchAC is static, they change in perfect parallel (with the occasional exception of changes to Strength bonus, I suppose) so you're not tracking anything you wouldn't already be. The whole point of this exercise is to create a system that's as straightforward as possible with no special cases except those which come directly from feats, items, etc. (where special cases are expected). I'm pretty sure you agree with that goal.
I've been tossing out suggestions on how to handle the question of how/whether maneuvers are disrupted by damage, but that's completely separate from the ManAC design. When/whether maneuvers provoke AOO is likewise a mechanically unrelated question. If you think some of the suggestions regarding those two features are unwieldy, no problem, speak up! :)
|
I LOVE IT!!!
I came up with a system using the CMB method, but this far surpasses it in ease of use. CMB is simply to rigid fo be part of a if/then system like DnD. One thing i will point to(and is in not relation to current thoughts).Feats. There are to many of them. the average character gets like 10 feats over 20 levels, and you have one for each manuever, plus 2 for using dex in attack and CMBs. Therefore a person wanting to specialize has to sacrifice RP'ing for Min/Maxing. Another thread posted shinking the feats into 3 areas.
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 am not sure if the +4 should now be a +2 since the system is better, maybe go to +4 after tenth level. Meaning you get extra mileage out of a feat you will not use very often. 1/5 encounter was the average i beleive.
Also, since theere was the Tabboo over AoO. i wrote in a rule, that if you Fail, you receive an AoO.This seems more realistic to me. Why should i get stabbed if i Disarm you? However if i fail, i am leaving myself open, OOps.
Glad to hear you like it.
If you want to try it out in any of your games, this thread is for gathering real playtest feedback on it. Since the feedback on Maneuver AC has been so uniformly good so far, people in that thread have been debating the minutae of Size Bonuses, but for playtesting purposes you don't really need to worry about that much. You only need to know:
Maneuver Attack IS Attack Roll + Special Size Mod (-2x normal Size Mod)
Manuever AC IS Touch AC + BAB + STR + Special size Mod (-2x normal Size Mod)
Feats. There are to many of them.
I agree... but one of the goals of PRPG is to maintain backwards compatibility. Culling feats means spending more time adjusting old characters, which may not be an issue for players but is all nine hells for a DM trying to use published material, especially without a lot of prep time!
However...
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 do think something of this sort would be good, but not by outright replacing the existing feats. I've had a few ideas for reworking the feats themselves; for instance, give Imp. Unarmed several no-AOO features (including grapple), but leave Imp. Grapple in and use it to allow grapple as an attack action instead of a standard action. But really, I think the one I'm most fond of is to just make it a class feature of the Monk: at third level you use full BAB for combat maneuvers, and no longer provoke AOO with any maneuver.
Weapons which allow you to make (or give a bonus to) specific combat maneuvers, should also prevent you from taking an AOO for that particular maneuver.
I am not sure if the +4 should now be a +2 since the system is better, maybe go to +4 after tenth level. Meaning you get extra mileage out of a feat you will not use very often.
Giving +4 to the new single roll, would be like giving +4 to both the touch attack AND the opposed check under the old rules. Since you only got +4 to half the rolls, you now get half the bonus: +2. Raising it at 11th level is questionable... you're already scaling with BAB and STR, plus DEX for defense. Worth testing.
Also, since theere was the Tabboo over AoO. i wrote in a rule, that if you Fail, you receive an AoO.
That's an interesting one! I'd like to see playtest results. :)
Showmanship, is my guess. Chivalry, too. Also, note that Maneuver AC doesn't make these maneuvers more easy or effective as you imply; it makes it considerably harder to execute them on "Dodgy" opponents, which is how it was under 3.5 as well.
I'm not buying it though. Touch AC is a pretty fluctuating value that hinges on so many more variables that also are subject to change. It's just adding more variables for the sake of realism. When really if manuevers like trip were that effective and easy to do then why don't the dudes at the renaissance festival do it all the time?
Yes but the MAC AC is going to change in a grapple. And then again if you reverse the grapple. And then back again if the grapple is again reversed.
And I'm not simpathetic to "dodgy" characters coming up short on the CMB. It works mostly on BAB and one stat (you can change that to DEX with a feat, or houserule it that Dex is the default and use a feat to make it STR). Bab is mostly a reflection your fighting ability. Working with law enforcement I've seen many "dodgy" characters that didnt know what they were doing get messed up rather swiftly by a bulky guy wearing webgear that did know what he was doing. (in a grapple)
Maneuver AC is "a fluctuating variable" just as much as Touch AC and NORMAL AC.
So this "fluctuation" is EXACTLY what Players/DMs EXPECT and are USED TO playing with for the MAJORITY of combat (Melee). It takes more thought to explain that those expectations DON'T apply to Maneuvers than to allow them. Logically, if you don't like Attack Bonuses and Dodge Bonuses for this usage, you shouldn't use them for NORMAL Melee either.There are NO more variables being added beyond CMB: It uses the number that you ALREADY are tracking for Touch AC. I came up with this because reading the Beta, it ISN'T at all clear how Bonuses should apply, and it really makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER that Fighting Defensively should NOT work for Maneuvers. The "realism" is the EXACT same "realism" as the rest of the combat system uses: NOT using the NORMAL bonuses feels "unreal" to me in the context of the rest of melee combat. If you've read the (admittedly overly technical) posts here or in the "Playtest" thread, you're aware that people's results are CLOSER to 3.5 functionality using this system, and since Beta was explained as a way to make Manuevers FASTER, not MORE DIFFICULT and NOT COMPARABLE WITH 3.5 EXPECTATIONS, that would seem like a good thing.
I get the feeling that you liked CMB in Beta, or rather your interpretation of it (since how Attack Bonuses apply ISN'T resolved), and you have resistance to going away from that. You have to realize that it's called BETA for a reason and HAS BEEN STATED by Jason to be open to revision, and he's interested in hearing playtest feedback from a VARIETY OF IMPLEMENTATIONS of it (which this is one of). The ENTIRE...
There must be something wrong with your caps lock button. It is intermittantly switching on/off. I can read. Reading capitol letters doesn't make me excited or something.
Yes but the MAC AC is going to change in a grapple. And then again if you reverse the grapple. And then back again if the grapple is again reversed.
And I'm not simpathetic to "dodgy" characters coming up short on the CMB. It works mostly on BAB and one stat (you can change that to DEX with a feat, or houserule it that Dex is the default and use a feat to make it STR). Bab is mostly a reflection your fighting ability. Working with law enforcement I've seen many "dodgy" characters that didn't know what they were doing get messed up rather swiftly by a bulky guy wearing webgear that did know what he was doing. (in a grapple)
It's cool. We don't see eye to eye on this. My strongest defense is that it works more like it used to (3.5 with the touch attack) while being simpler. If you don't agree with that, then I understand your opposition and welcome your dissent. Everything else is just a secondary benefit.
I'm perfectly okay with a reversal of the grapple changing the numbers. It happens to be the same -2 (from -4 dex) as already applies to you AC, Touch AC, attacks, and CMB — so that's not actually a change at all. "You're grappled: -2 " is already the rule.
It's cool. We don't see eye to eye on this. My strongest defense is that it works more like it used to (3.5 with the touch attack) while being simpler.
I like simpler. I didn't like the way it worked in 3.5. ; )