AoOs Don't Include Combat Maneuvers?


Combat

101 to 150 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Well put Jess I would add just one thing:

"until that action is completed, or disrupted."

If the action is disrupted, then you don't have a chance to complete it. Some rule lawyers might try and say since "x" happened and you can't complete the action that provoked you can't take any AoO's for the rest of the round.

Beyond that if the action is disrupted then the AoO that disrupted it has already happened and therefore won't cause "the loop"

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:

Well put Jess I would add just one thing:

"until that action is completed, or disrupted."

If the action is disrupted, then you don't have a chance to complete it. Some rule lawyers might try and say since "x" happened and you can't complete the action that provoked you can't take any AoO's for the rest of the round.

Beyond that if the action is disrupted then the AoO that disrupted it has already happened and therefore won't cause "the loop"

i woudl be careful with the wording, some may think it means that if theya re disrupted by an AoO they might get one,

believe i know a few


I believe that's why I worded it like I did. It's an either or, if you can complete the action you won't get an AoO as you did your action, if you are disrupted you don't get one becuase you can't be disrupted until after the AoO has taken place.

Either way something must happen to finish the action that provoked before the guy who provoked may take an AoO again.

No back to the future stuff here.


Jess Door wrote:
"If you declare an action that provokes an AOO, you cannot take an AOO yourself until that action is completed."

I'd use that, but add "... unless you choose to abandon the intial action." to the end. I'd love to see game play in which a sorcerer starts casting, a fighter attempts to grapple him to stop it, and the sorcerer (knowing he might lose the spell in a grapple anyway) voluntarily forgets the spell and AoOs the fighter with a dagger. THAT would be cool!

Sovereign Court

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jess Door wrote:
"If you declare an action that provokes an AOO, you cannot take an AOO yourself until that action is completed."
I'd use that, but add "... unless you choose to abandon the intial action." to the end. I'd love to see game play in which a sorcerer starts casting, a fighter attempts to grapple him to stop it, and the sorcerer (knowing he might lose the spell in a grapple anyway) voluntarily forgets the spell and AoOs the fighter with a dagger. THAT would be cool!

Hrm. Viscerally, that greatly appeals. My only issue with that is it starts the loop again.

"I cast a spell!"

"Oh yeah? Well, I would provoke an AOO by grappling you, but since I don't...grapple!"

"Ok! I quit casting...I trip him instead!"

"Ah! But I sunder your spell component pouch before you can trip me!"

"Oh yeah? Well, I disarm you before you can sunder my pouch!"

"But wait!...uh...whose turn was it again?"

@_@

So we'd go back to ruling you can't use an AOO to interrupt an AOO. ::shrug:: That works, I guess.

Liberty's Edge

Jess Door wrote:

things that hurt head

So we'd go back to ruling you can't use an AOO to interrupt an AOO. ::shrug:: That works, I guess.

agreed

you are doping an action and are distracted enought to cause an AoO... then you are made an AoO you can aswer in kind... someone else might get an AoO against your attacker Disrupting his actuion so you continue acting...

lol ok a bit less confusing, but not much :S

Liberty's Edge

Jess Door wrote:


@_@

So we'd go back to ruling you can't use an AOO to interrupt an AOO. ::shrug:: That works, I guess.

LOL. Cute.

Simply stating "You can perform the following combat maneuvers as an Attack of Opportunity: X, Y, and Z. You cannot perform an Attack of Opportunity that would in turn provoke and attack of opportunity."

Needless to say, if I get an AoO, and I want to trip you but don't have Imp. Trip, I could only do so if you were flat-footed, or I had reach (and you did not).

I think that's pretty simple and concisely explained.

Robert


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is this game, Magic the Gathering. It's practically built upon various activities interfering with each other. There are (or there were, the rules may have been changed again), for example, spells, interrupts and instants. You may play spell on your turn, instant whenever you want and interrupt in response to someone else's spell, instant or interrupt.

The instant played during someone else's action would be resolved after that person's action.

Interrupt, on the other hand, played during another's action would be resolved before someone else's action, possibly invalidating that action.

If the interrupt was played in response to another interrupt, it would be resolved before the other interrupt, in LIFO order (Last In, First Out).

Combat Maneuvers as Interrupts

0. Attack of Opportunity may be replaced by Combat Maneuver which replaces melee attack.

1. Any time an action incurs Attack of Opportunity, it may be also interrupted by Combat Maneuver.

2. Combat Maneuver replacing Attack of Opportunity may also incur Attack of Opportunity.

(here it gets tricky)

3. Any action, including Combat Maneuver, is composed of 3 phases. These are:
-1 declaration phase (during which you declare your action and pay resource costs, for example, use a standard action)
-2 immediate action phase (during which immediate actions like Attacks of Opportunity and interrupting Combat Maneuvers may be resolved)
-3 resolution phase (here character performing the original action may decide to abandon the action, the action may fail due to results of immediate action phase or, finally, the action may proceed to standard resolution)

4. Each immediate action is composed also of 3 phases. So the actions to resolve may look like this:

A-1, A-2, A-3 - original action (and its three phases)
CM-1, CM-2, CM-3 - first interrupt maneuver (and its three phases)
CM2-1, CM2-2, CM2-3 - 2nd interrupt maneuver (and its three phases)

The order of resolution:
A-1
A-2 START
... CM-1
... CM-2 START
... ... CM2-1
... ... CM2-2 START
... ... CM2-2 END
... ... CM2-3
... CM-2 END
... CM-3
A-2 END
A-3

As you can see, the following happens:
- original action is interrupted by Combat Maneuver
- the Combat Maneuver is interrupted by another Combat Maneuver

If the second Combat Maneuver invalidates first Combat Maneuver (i.e. CM2-3 phase completes with success, and the success type invalidates interrupted action - some successful maneuvers may not invalidate interrupted actions), phase CM-3 ends with abandoning of first Combat Maneuver, and so original action may continue as normal.

5. FAQ:
Q: Is it possible to spellcaster abandon a spell in a middle of someone else's interrupting maneuver?
A: No, but the spellcaster is free to use an immediate action (for example, Feather Fall) to interrupt either spellcaster's own action or the interrupting maneuver. The spellcaster must still be able to pay action cost (you cannot perform immediate actions if you are somehow prevented from using immediate actions or if you lack option to execute an immediate action).
Q: Can spellcaster retain interrupted spell? It was interrupted, after all.
A: No, the cost of the action (spell slot or memorized spell) is paid upon declaration.
Q: The spellcaster managed to reach resolution phase of spellcasting and keep the spell - is it possible to abandon the spell now?
A: Of course.
Q: What's the point of readied actions if you can use combat maneuvers to interrupt?
A: The combat maneuvers may interrupt only in a few select circumstances. Readied action, while regarded as one of the worst options a character may take during combat round, is more versatile. Also, readied action allows you to convert standard actions into interrupts.
Q: Why not simply delay your initiative instead of readying an action?
A: Readied action becomes an interrupt. Action used at delayed initiative does not, and as such would be resolved later.

Hopefully, this short article helped to clarify some issues - it is not a proposal of a new rule. It's just a clarification of existing rule set (3.5).

Regards,
Ruemere

Sovereign Court

I think I'm a fan of this one:

If you provoke an AoO you may not perform an AoO until the action that provoked the AoO is resolved, even if the result would prevent you from completing the action.


Honestly, I think we're making this much more complicated than it needs to be, which only makes it look like its a complicated issue, and its not.

Rounds are quick things. Six seconds.

"If an action is taken as an attack of opportunity, that action cannot itself provoke an attack of opportunity."

Liberty's Edge

KnightErrantJR wrote:


Rounds are quick things. Six seconds.

"If an action is taken as an attack of opportunity, that action cannot itself provoke an attack of opportunity."

With all due respect, knight, I think that's backwards.

By the strictest wording, your ruling would allow someone who would ordinarily be unable to make an "unarmed strike" due to not having Imp Unarmed Srike, or be able to "trip" without having the Imp Trip feat - without fear of the repercussions typically associated with doing these maneuvers without the appropriate feat.

In short, it would allow people to circumvent the built in restriction of said maneuvers that they provoke AoOs unles you have the feat. Provoking the AoO is important because if the AoO hits - the damage increases the difficulty of succeeding on that maneuver.

That all being said, stipulating "Cannot make an AoO action that provokes an AoO" seems to keep that restriction in place; but still doesn't limit it to ONLY those people with the Imp Feats, as there are other ways to avoid provoking (i.e. cover, flat-footed opponent, out-reaching opponent etc).

Robert

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

KnightErrantJR wrote:

"If an action is taken as an attack of opportunity, that action cannot itself provoke an attack of opportunity."

QFT. If you want to be able to grapple as an AoO, take Improved Grapple. Likewise with trip or disarm. No more countering AoO's as infinitum. With the new CMB rules setting a DC instead of being opposed rolls, I don't see why rolling a grapple check is any more time-consuming than rolling an attack against armor class. Whether this is in the official rules or not, I think I'm going to set this as my first houserule.


Likewise with trip or disarm. No more countering AoO's as infinitum.

Hm. I'm not sure how to reconcile the "Infinite AoO loop" sentiment I see here, with the other view that the rules ALREADY say you can only trigger an AoO ONCE from ONE Action Type (i.e. Move, Attack, Casting, Other). So HYPOTHETICALLY, you could have some Move/Cast/Attack/Item Use AoO chain, but realistically that will rarely happen (and requires Combat Reflexes and high DEX in the first place). I'm not sure how big of an issue this is, really, especially since most characters DON'T have Combat Reflexes, and thus only have one AoO. It DOES look like the WORDING could be clarified here, for sure.


Robert Brambley wrote:

Simply stating "You can perform the following combat maneuvers as an Attack of Opportunity: X, Y, and Z. You cannot perform an Attack of Opportunity that would in turn provoke and attack of opportunity."

Needless to say, if I get an AoO, and I want to trip you but don't have Imp. Trip, I could only do so if you were flat-footed, or I had reach (and you did not).

I think that's pretty simple and concisely explained.

Robert

Robert-

I like your wording the best so far. I can see your point about granting a "non-proficient, back door" combat maneuver without suffering the requisite AoO penalty.

I'm not opposed to this "back door way" of pulling off such maneuvers. After all, the opponent is opening himself up to attack by not minding his defense.

But for the sake of simplicity, ease of resolution, keeping the action moving, and not excluding maneuver AoOs entirely, I think this is probably the best so far.


Robert Brambley wrote:

By the strictest wording, your ruling would allow someone who would ordinarily be unable to make an "unarmed strike" due to not having Imp Unarmed Srike, or be able to "trip" without having the Imp Trip feat - without fear of the repercussions typically associated with doing these maneuvers without the appropriate feat.

I'm not quite following. If you don't have improved unarmed strike, you aren't considered armed, so if you do something to provoke an attack, an unarmed person can't attack anyway. If you don't get an AoO, then its a moot point. You would have to be eligible in the first place before any AoO could occur.

However, yes, a person with improved unarmed strike could trip with impunity in this case . . . if someone is doing something complex and distracting, like spellcasting, I'm assuming that you could try to hook someone's leg, for example, without provoking an attack.

Liberty's Edge

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Robert Brambley wrote:

By the strictest wording, your ruling would allow someone who would ordinarily be unable to make an "unarmed strike" due to not having Imp Unarmed Srike, or be able to "trip" without having the Imp Trip feat - without fear of the repercussions typically associated with doing these maneuvers without the appropriate feat.

I'm not quite following. If you don't have improved unarmed strike, you aren't considered armed, so if you do something to provoke an attack, an unarmed person can't attack anyway. If you don't get an AoO, then its a moot point. You would have to be eligible in the first place before any AoO could occur.

However, yes, a person with improved unarmed strike could trip with impunity in this case . . . if someone is doing something complex and distracting, like spellcasting, I'm assuming that you could try to hook someone's leg, for example, without provoking an attack.

Well although I made the overlooked mistake with the unarmed strike; my point is still valid and you may have overlooked the Trip example I added to the mix - which still holds water even if the unarmed is debunked.

The point is that if you follow your wordings; someone without an Improved Feat that SHOULD provoke an AoO when attempting the maneuver would "get away" with doing the maneuver and NOT provoking when doing so as an AoO himself; which I don't think is the right way to go.

Instead; forbidding an AoO action that would provoke one in turn seems more logical and balanced.

It has the added notion that a) you can still make an AoO as a Combat Maneuver b) even one you don't have the improved feat for - so long as doing it doesn't provoke an AoO itself - so that it doesn't restrict such actions to ONLY those who took the feat. c) it prevents the silly if a bit rare repeated AoO provocations that is possible in the system.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

anthony Valente wrote:


Robert-

I like your wording the best so far. I can see your point about granting a "non-proficient, back door" combat maneuver without suffering the requisite AoO penalty.

Thank you Anthony.

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:

Well although I made the overlooked mistake with the unarmed strike; my point is still valid and you may have overlooked the Trip example I added to the mix - which still holds water even if the unarmed is debunked.

The point is that if you follow your wordings; someone without an Improved Feat that SHOULD provoke an AoO when attempting the maneuver would "get away" with doing the maneuver and NOT provoking when doing so as an AoO himself; which I don't think is the right way to go.

Instead; forbidding an AoO action that would provoke one in turn seems more logical and balanced.

It has the added notion that a) you can still make an AoO as a Combat Maneuver b) even one you don't have the improved feat for - so long as doing it doesn't provoke an AoO itself - so that it doesn't restrict such actions to ONLY those who took the feat. c) it prevents the silly if a bit rare repeated AoO provocations that is possible in the system.

Robert

I don't quite agree, but I appreciate you clarifying this, as I honestly thought I was missing something obvious. While I don't agree, I wouldn't be nearly as disappointed with your version as I would with no CM allowed at all as an AoO.

Liberty's Edge

lastknightleft wrote:

I think I'm a fan of this one:

If you provoke an AoO you may not perform an AoO until the action that provoked the AoO is resolved, even if the result would prevent you from completing the action.

i agree on this


KnightErrantJR wrote:
While I don't agree, I wouldn't be nearly as disappointed with your version as I would with no CM allowed at all as an AoO.

This is my sentiment as well. I would like it to work for all, but clarity and simplicity should take precedence here, without eliminating the option altogether.

To be honest, I think it would be rare anyway, to see someone wanting to try a maneuver as an AoO, if they weren't optimized for it. Maneuvers normally aren't as easy to pull off as regular attacks are.

Liberty's Edge

anthony Valente wrote:


To be honest, I think it would be rare anyway, to see someone wanting to try a maneuver as an AoO, if they weren't optimized for it. Maneuvers normally aren't as easy to pull off as regular attacks are.

It happens more than you'd think. Especially if the person walking around provoking the AoO has already proven to be tough to hit.....walking around with Mobility, Combat Expertise activated, Fighting Defesively, smug that he can't get hit with the AoO; so just disarm him instead.

In 3.5; someone using those combat tactics was EASIER to disarm - since it was an opposed roll; and FD and CE lower the attack roll as the trade-off for better AC.

that was what I usually did against such opponents; "perhaps I can't damage you - but I can take away your weapon; or sunder it"

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:

It happens more than you'd think. Especially if the person walking around provoking the AoO has already proven to be tough to hit.....walking around with Mobility, Combat Expertise activated, Fighting Defesively, smug that he can't get hit with the AoO; so just disarm him instead.

In 3.5; someone using those combat tactics was EASIER to disarm - since it was an opposed roll; and FD and CE lower the attack roll as the trade-off for better AC.

that was what I usually did against such opponents; "perhaps I can't damage you - but I can take away your weapon; or sunder it"

Robert

Different experiences we must have then :) I can't remember anyone, but myself using maneuvers in such a way... and I GM one game and play in another. Everyone just takes the free attack for damage; GM and player alike. As a player, the one group does think I'm a bit unorthodox.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So.. I think I have some changes in store for this system. I have read a lot of posts on the subject, and those combined with some in house discussion, has made me reconsider.

Lets play using these rules for a bit and see how things work out.

- Bull Rush, Grapple, and Overrun are standard actions that cannot be made as part of an attack action.

- Disarm, Sunder, and Trip are standard actions, but they can also be made in place of an attack, during an attack action.

- Disarm, Sunder, and Trip can be made as an AoO using these rules, but Bull Rush, Grapple, and Overrun cannot.

- You cannot take an AoO that provokes an AoO itself.

Playtest please and report. I think this gives the flexibility folks are after while still tamping down some of my concerns.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So.. I think I have some changes in store for this system. I have read a lot of posts on the subject, and those combined with some in house discussion, has made me reconsider.

Lets play using these rules for a bit and see how things work out.

- Bull Rush, Grapple, and Overrun are standard actions that cannot be made as part of an attack action.

- Disarm, Sunder, and Trip are standard actions, but they can also be made in place of an attack, during an attack action.

- Disarm, Sunder, and Trip can be made as an AoO using these rules, but Bull Rush, Grapple, and Overrun cannot.

- You cannot take an AoO that provokes an AoO itself.

Playtest please and report. I think this gives the flexibility folks are after while still tamping down some of my concerns.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Ok, but can you clarify the disarm, sunder, and trip actions?

To me it seems to be saying 2 things:

1) they are standard actions
2) but, they can be used as part of a full-attack

Do I have this right?

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

1 person marked this as a favorite.
anthony Valente wrote:

Ok, but can you clarify the disarm, sunder, and trip actions?

To me it seems to be saying 2 things:

1) they are standard actions
2) but, they can be used as part of a full-attack

Do I have this right?

Correct. You can perform them as a standard action, or you can use them in place of an attack during a full-attack action.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Sounds pretty good to me, over-all. As Anthony's question demonstrates, it'd be great to have clarification in the final product, Rules Terminology-wise, on "Attack Action" (a single Attack roll).

I still hope to see Grapple be an "Attack Action", i.e. Iterative Attack/ AoO compatable.
Full-Attack wise, it just enables stuff like USING melee weapons (with their specific Grapple penalties) WHILE Grappling (which seems a reasonable thing to want to do, and there's already Penalties for doing that), and would seem to reasonably reflect real-life trained wrestler/jiujitsu fighters, who should be able to shift between grapple positions lightning fast. On the Monster-balance side of things, I suppose the Standard Action Grapple is balanced if a Grapple Monster only uses one tentacle/limb against you, but there isn't really anything forcing them to do so (and they could always Iterative Attack with one Imp. Grab Tentacle anyways).

As for the AoO aspect, I'm not sure why grappling someone to the ground when they try to rush past you is problematic. Bullrush/Over-run are reasonable to exclude since they would require movement, but I don't see any reason to exclude Grapple while allowing Trip. EDIT: The "You cannot take an AoO that provokes an AoO itself" rule would make this option available only to those with Improved Grapple. And since this IS available to Monsters with Improved Grab CURRENTLY (since they get the Grapple on top of a Melee Attack), I think this would be a reasonable change.

Dark Archive

I have been toying with the idea of trying Trip, Sunder and Disarm as full-attack actions, but inflicting normal damage in addition to the CMB check. However, I'm not sure how that would play out, or would it make them completely useless... I *would* like to allow them as part of an AoO, though.


Quandary wrote:

Sounds pretty good to me, over-all. As Anthony's question demonstrates, it'd be great to have clarification in the final product, Rules Terminology-wise, on "Attack Action" (a single Attack roll).

I still hope to see Grapple be an "Attack Action", i.e. Iterative Attack/ AoO compatable.
Full-Attack wise, it just enables stuff like USING melee weapons (with their specific Grapple penalties) WHILE Grappling (which seems a reasonable thing to want to do, and there's already Penalties for doing that), and would seem to reasonably reflect real-life trained wrestler/jiujitsu fighters, who should be able to shift between grapple positions lightning fast. On the Monster-balance side of things, I suppose the Standard Action Grapple is balanced if a Grapple Monster only uses one tentacle/limb against you, but there isn't really anything forcing them to do so (and they could always Iterative Attack with one Imp. Grab Tentacle anyways).

What if you initiate a grapple as a standard action, but upon gaining the grappled condition, you may make grapple actions as attack actions?

Quandary wrote:
As for the AoO aspect, I'm not sure why grappling someone to the ground when they try to rush past you is problematic. Bullrush/Over-run are reasonable to exclude since they would require movement, but I don't see any reason to exclude Grapple while allowing Trip. EDIT: The "You cannot take an AoO that provokes an AoO itself" rule would make this option available only to those with Improved Grapple. And since this IS available to Monsters with Improved Grab CURRENTLY (since they get the Grapple on top of a Melee Attack), I think this would be a reasonable change.

Hmm... I tend to agree. Why is it possible to trip a kolbold running by, but not possible to grab him.

Is there any advantage to grappling as an AoO vs. tripping as an AoO? If there is, then I can see Jason's limitation.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

anthony Valente wrote:

Hmm... I tend to agree. Why is it possible to trip a kolbold running by, but not possible to grab him.

Is there any advantage to grappling as an AoO vs. tripping as an AoO? If there is, then I can see Jason's limitation.

Grappling a foe as an AoO would allow you to move into a pin before the enemy even has a chance to react.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Liberty's Edge

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:

Hmm... I tend to agree. Why is it possible to trip a kolbold running by, but not possible to grab him.

Is there any advantage to grappling as an AoO vs. tripping as an AoO? If there is, then I can see Jason's limitation.

Grappling a foe as an AoO would allow you to move into a pin before the enemy even has a chance to react.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I see what Jason is saying....

Using the kobold as the example....

kobolds turn, he walks by you - through your squares provoking an AOO. You make an AOO attempt to grapple. You win. Now it's your turn; you decide to pin. Kobold hasn't even gone yet.

So from that concern, Jason is correct if that is something he's trying to avoid - which I can concede is a valid concern.

Now...playing devil's advocate here:

How is that different from (instead of grappling with the AOO in the above example) you deciding to trip said kobold with AoO; then it's your turn, and poor kobold is laying at your feat prone allowing a full attack action at +4 to hit?

I guess Prone condition isn't as bad as 'pinned'....? is that the distinction?

Finally - if the 'official' rule about AoO and CM's is going to be that you cannnot initiate a grapple as part of an AoO; how is that going to be handled for creatures that primarily attack via grappling: Grick, Grell, Kraken, Otyugh, constrictor snake, shambling mound, roper, etc.....??

I dont necessarily have a problem with "no grapple with AoO" especially after you suggested the reason for your concern. But I think that it definitely hamstrings a major benefit of certain creatures with tentacles and reach.

That all being said - thank you, Jason, for responding and following along. Your insight is helpful and appreciated. And thank you for taking our concerns, wishes, and considerations seriously.

Robert


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Grappling a foe as an AoO would allow you to move into a pin before the enemy even has a chance to react.

I guess that's possible in the scenario where they have Moved more than a Single Move already (precluding Standard Attack) - Though if they were Charging, allowing them to still use the Charge Attack as a Grapple to Escape might still be OK(?)

...Or if you have Reach AND Combat Reflexes, and they provoke one AoO by Movement and another by trying to Grapple back WITHOUT Improved Grapple. (!?) Or is there a more common scenario that could cause this? It justs seems that in most scenarios, they WOULD still have a Standard Action left.

Anyhow, I'm not necessarily super-attached to Grapples NEEDING to work with AoO's (though the 'visuals' of it seem great), but I *DO* really think it should work with Iterative Attacks (it's obviously more Elegant if both are consistent). If it's "too much" to Grapple & Pin an opponent in one round with Iterative Attacks, it could be specified that you can only shift the "Grapple Category" once/ Turn, and still allow mixing it up with other types of Attacks (Melee, or the other usages of Grapple besides Pin, i.e. Move)

Robert Brambley wrote:
I dont necessarily have a problem with "no grapple with AoO" especially after you suggested the reason for your concern. But I think that it definitely hamstrings a major benefit of certain creatures with tentacles and reach.

But as I see it, disallowing Grapples-as-AoO's means Improved Grab Monsters are the only ones who CAN do that: They just make a regular MELEE Attack as their AoO, which if it hits AUTOMATICALLY GETS A FREE GRAPPLE. (Like how a Shield Bash Feat or Barbarian Knockback Power indirectly would enable Bull-Rushes thru Melee AoO's) Perhaps this could be explicitly disallowed in the re-write of Monster Feats, but that's how I see the status quo.


Robert Brambley wrote:

That all being said - thank you, Jason, for responding and following along. Your insight is helpful and appreciated. And thank you for taking our concerns, wishes, and considerations seriously.

Robert

Yes, thank you Jason. I understand why you can't respond like you have in this thread to every one of our concerns and discussions, but this issue is important and it's very nice to hear your thoughts on the subject.

Also, at first glance I'm liking the direction your latest version of the combat manuever are going.


Yeah those new guidelines are something I can live with contently, and offer a reason to pick up the "improved X" feats beyond a better chance to do perform the action.

Sovereign Court

I could see disarm and trip as AoOs, but sunder?

Guy walks in front of other guy, then BAM! his sword explodes in his hand!

I think sunder as AoO is a little far fetched. Sundering should require great focus and effort. You're basically trying to shear off a big piece of metal with another piece of metal. Splitting wood in your backyard with an axe against an immobile chopping block is one thing, but metal against metal, especially against a mobile, moving target should at least take 6 long seconds of focus and effort (i.e. full round action...)

I can see tagging a guy in the back as he flees with a melee weapon to cause damage (AoO); I can see disarming a guy not paying attention (AoO); I can see tripping a guy running past me (AoO); heck, I could even EASILY imagine a guy grappling another guy trying to drink a potion or cast a spell right in front of him (AoO)

But there's no way I'll even consider or allow sundering as an AoO. Maybe as an attack as part of a full attack, if I feel nice... but AoO? no way!

In short, I would swap grapple and sunder in Jason's scheme of allowable actions:

-Grapple (possible as an AoO)
-Sunder(not possible as an AoO)


How is attempting to break someone's weapon different from breaking someone under layers of metal plate? I'm confused. You swing at your target and hope to break it.

Heck at that point how do you attack a golem or animated object?


Robert Brambley wrote:
Finally - if the 'official' rule about AoO and CM's is going to be that you cannnot initiate a grapple as part of an AoO; how is that going to be handled for creatures that primarily attack via grappling: Grick, Grell, Kraken, Otyugh, constrictor snake, shambling mound, roper, etc.....??

I think that can be addressed with how the Improved Grab ability is handled, since PCs won't have access to it.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:

Hmm... I tend to agree. Why is it possible to trip a kolbold running by, but not possible to grab him.

Is there any advantage to grappling as an AoO vs. tripping as an AoO? If there is, then I can see Jason's limitation.

Grappling a foe as an AoO would allow you to move into a pin before the enemy even has a chance to react. [...]

And what is wrong with that? Does every Aikido master in the world, or does every trained cop keen on immobilizing a criminal allow their opponent a chance to react before pinning them?

The party incurring AoO should not take lightly such consequences ("bah, it's only d8+4 hitpoints, what could possibly go wrong?") just because they have a lot of hitpoints.
Frankly, in the world where over the top actions are commonplace, what is wrong with allowing basic chance to stop someone from ignoring a tank or grapple monster?

Jason,
you're asking people to playtest something already present in 3.5. May I remind you about Improved Tripper build? You know, the guy with reach, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip and 10' reach?
So, why ask people to playtest something which was already a staple of a decent fighter tactic in 3.5? It worked, even though at the same time spellslingers had better ranged abilities while druids and rogues got numerous options to take spotlight.
It would be enough to ask people if they were fine with Improved Trip. It was superior to current maneuver options.

*sigh*

This is serious, people. Why should anyone bother playing a character capable of taking negligible amount of hitpoints in melee, while they could play ranged bringer of doom?
Why would anyone want to play a tank who cannot stop anyone from walking around them?

Action denial is the last chance for a tank character to make a difference. They (basic PFRPG) have lost advantage of number of feats (check PFRPG prestige class build with all fighter goodies minus 2 feats and 2 points of BAB with 14 spellcaster levels), their chief feats were neutered (Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip) and now their AoO options are in danger of being reduced.
Meanwhile, ... well, let's just say that spellcasters do not need to worry about XP spell/item cost, get free metamagic feats and bonus spell slots.

I have already received complaints during my playtesting... wizards are no worse (and in some cases ahead), clerics are a bit weaker but they get easier access to mass heal/damage, while melee guys... well, they got some critical feats which are not going to work against elementals, golems and other high level challenges.

Yes, we have already rejected several melee-related changes, however houserules are not the real solution to this problems.

Regards,
Ruemere


I don't see a meaningful difference between:

1} Kobold tries to run past and provokes, fighter grapples the kobold.

2} Kobold tries to run past and provokes, fighter swings and kills kobold.

3} Kobold tries to run past and provokes, fighter swings and sunders kobold's weapon/staff/wand.

It's purely a question of degree. There's risk associated with provoking an attack of opportunity. There's consequence. If someone with a poor CMB feels the urge to provoke with a nasty fighter type in arm's reach, it's that someone's own fault.

If someone's stupid enough to cast (non-defensively) in front of my fighter, they deserve to find themselves grappled. If they lose their action for some reason, again it's part of the risk. If they end up pinned next round, again it's part of the risk.

Let's not forget that a fundamental risk backing AoO in the first place is DEATH. Anything less is... less.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

ruemere wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:

Hmm... I tend to agree. Why is it possible to trip a kolbold running by, but not possible to grab him.

Is there any advantage to grappling as an AoO vs. tripping as an AoO? If there is, then I can see Jason's limitation.

Grappling a foe as an AoO would allow you to move into a pin before the enemy even has a chance to react. [...]

And what is wrong with that? Does every Aikido master in the world, or does every trained cop keen on immobilizing a criminal allow their opponent a chance to react before pinning them?

Well, speaking as a brown belt in Ju-jitsu, which involves a lot of grappling, I don't think it's reasonable for even a skilled grappler to be able to grapple and pin without their target having a chance to escape. In a real life setting, which is not turn based, your target will definately try to squirm or fight out of your grapple before you can get an effective pin on them, unless they're severely imparired somehow. Now, if you're a skilled enough grappler, you know your target will try to break out, and be prepared for that, which is represented by having a high CMB and improved grapple feats to prevent their escape, but they'll still get the attempt.

I'm not saying that am amazingly quick judo or aikido master couldn't move fast enough to do it, but to me, that sounds like a feat - Immediate Pin, which has pretty tough prerequisites.


OK, I've thought of a solution that:

  • Allows Grapples with Iteratives
  • Addresses the Grapple/AoO issue
  • AND Applies equally to Improved Grab Monsters

    1st, Grapples work as Attack Actions (Iterative Attacks)
    If being able to Grapple & Pin in one round with Iterative Attacks is "too much", Pin "pacing" can be dealt with by wording to the effect that "You must have already succeeded on a Grapple Check vs. them AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR TURN" (or even the END of your last turn, if Grapples-as-AoO's are a concern), instead of forcing the loss of Iterative Attacks.
    2nd, Grapple Attacks ARE EXPLICITLY DISALLOWED as AoO's
    I'm not convinced this is necessary, but I'm trying to find the best solution for everyone
    3rd, Instead of granting a Free GRAPPLE on MELEE Attacks (bypassing AoO Grapple restriction), Improved Grab works by granting Free MELEE Damage on GRAPPLE Attacks, which means it no longer can bypass the AoO restriction, since it's necessary to make a Grapple Attack to achieve a Grapple effect.

    If Grapple Attacks ARE allowed as AoO's then the 3rd option doesn't really matter anymore.

    The AoO "issue" would also seem to be addressed by a change in Grapple's wording to require "A successful Grapple Check vs. the opponent by the END of your PREVIOUS Turn", which basically means any AoO Grapples DON'T contribute towards the Pin pacing at all (very reasonable, IMHO). So what's the point of a Grapple AoO then, say, compared to Trip? Well for one, if it's necessary to have the Improved Maneuver Feat to use them as AoOs in the first place, then a character with Improved Grapple ALSO needs Improved Trip (and it's Pre-Reqs), which seems overly burdensome to me. Trip is advantageous to Grapple because the opponent is Prone and you are not, and free to take ANY action on your next turn, while Grapple puts you in the same boat as the opponent.

    Anyhow, That's my take on it.
    Changing the wording of Grapple to make AoO Grapples (after your Turn)
    NOT accelerate Pin pacing seems pretty elegant, and is my favorite solution.


  • First, you have to look at this from both directions. While I guess there may be some allure to someone grabbing and pinning the BBEG on the first round of combat and then either binding and coup de gracing him or letting everyone line up to take their shots, beyond the fact that that's a bit anti-climactic, that's also only looking at this from the player's point of view.

    Assume the big bad evil guy is a huge, strong, bab healthy enemy, and you do something to provoke an AoO. He could trip you, sunder your weapon, or disarm you, but if you have another weapon, or you don't mind fighting from prone, or don't mind provoking another attack, then you still have options.

    If, however, the dragon/giant/massive fiend hits you, grapples you, then pins you . . . well, they just locked you down and set you up to do nothing by try to roll 20s for the next few rounds while they breath weapon/tail slap/bite/enspell the rest of the party until they get back to you.


    KnightErrantJR wrote:
    If, however, the dragon/giant/massive fiend hits you, grapples you, then pins you . . . well, they just locked you down and set you up to do nothing by try to roll 20s for the next few rounds while they breath weapon/tail slap/bite/enspell the rest of the party until they get back to you.

    Did this ever happen to you in 3.5?


    Can't say that it did, but then again, I spend most of my time on the other side of the screen.

    Liberty's Edge

    KnightErrantJR wrote:

    Can't say that it did, but then again, I spend most of my time on the other side of the screen.

    Have you done this to your players in the past, you evil DM you.

    Robert

    (who is quite guilty of doing this very thing to the poor PCs many times - enough to admit that the maneuver system in 3.5 was unbalanced, bording on broken.)

    Liberty's Edge

    Quandary wrote:

    OK, I've thought of a solution that:

  • Allows Grapples with Iteratives
  • Addresses the Grapple/AoO issue
  • AND Applies equally to Improved Grab Monsters

    1st, Grapples work as Attack Actions (Iterative Attacks)
    If being able to Grapple & Pin in one round with Iterative Attacks is "too much", Pin "pacing" can be dealt with by wording to the effect that "You must have already succeeded on a Grapple Check vs. them AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR TURN" (or even the END of your last turn, if Grapples-as-AoO's are a concern), instead of forcing the loss of Iterative Attacks.

  • This is a bit klunky to word; but it's a good concept and would work for the purpose of making grapple an appropriate option for AoOs.

    Allowing trip and disarm etc, but not grapple would just mean that Imp Trip, disarm etc will be taken exclusively to the point that grapple is left widely unused.

    I see Jason's concern with the point of being able to grab then pin before the creature can act; but it would still be nice to have grappling as AoOs an option if it was possible with means of placating Jason's concern (which I happen to agree with).

    I think Quandary's idea just may be worth trying.

    Robert


    Robert Brambley wrote:


    Have you done this to your players in the past, you evil DM you.

    Robert

    (who is quite guilty of doing this very thing to the poor PCs many times - enough to admit that the maneuver system in 3.5 was unbalanced, bording on broken.)

    I know that I've run encounters with dragons, for example, that are kind of all or nothing . . . if I grappled one or two to shut them down, I'd pretty much have a TPK on my hands.

    Liberty's Edge

    KnightErrantJR wrote:

    I know that I've run encounters with dragons, for example, that are kind of all or nothing . . . if I grappled one or two to shut them down, I'd pretty much have a TPK on my hands.

    meh....there's nothing wrong with an occasional TPK for your players, right?

    It builds....'characters'...... ;-/

    get it? characters!

    Sorry - couldn't help myself. :-)

    Robert


    I'd like to reiterate: I thought this was the reason for reducing the bonuses Big creatures had to their CMB, as well as making the defensive "roll" an automatic 15 (50% higher than the original average roll).

    I thought this meant that the Dragon wasn't supposed to be automatically succeeding the grapples unless he was ridiculously over CR. If this is the case, then do we need to also reduce the effectiveness of Grapple in other situations?

    ..

    I like the idea of still keeping iteratives associated with the Grapple maneuver.

    Perhaps though, make some of the actions within a Grapple require different actions. So a "move opponent" would require a move action with grapple check, leaving a standard action still. While simply damaging someone (stop hitting yourself! stop hitting yourself!) could simply require an attack action.
    Then you can make it so a Pin requires a one round action. One round, not full round... this means it's effects will come into effect by the beginning of your next round, allowing someone the extra chance to do escape or knock you out or something. Roll the check at the beginning of your next turn and see if he's pinned.

    Then you can make Greater Grapple grant a quicker pinning option, instead of the "two standard actions for grappling" option, since you can already damage with iteratives.
    Or, it could allow you to not be considered "grappled" to others outside the grapple, allowing you to grapple with an extra free hand once you've pinned someone.

    So a Giant can grab the halfling, pin him in one hand, and then attack and grapple with his other hand on the rest of the party while the halfing fights to break free.


    And, for the folks on this thread, I want to know how you're going to answer a player's question as to why you have to take advanced training (2 feats) to be able to stick your foot out as a guy runs past you? To grab someone as they run past you? I really have a hard time coming up with any answer for that.

    101 to 150 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Combat / AoOs Don't Include Combat Maneuvers? All Messageboards