"Cause them's the rules. Same for when my monsters go to do it to you."
Beyond that just because it sounds simple doesn't mean it is.
|
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.
Well - as a side note: some of us (including myself) are trying to lobby for those feats NOT to have the prereq feat(s); of Combat Expert; especially since Combat Expert and the Improve maneuver feats are all signifcantly nerfed from their 3.5 counterparts.
Robert
to be able to stick your foot out as a guy runs past you?
Well I would politely ask them to try tripping up a man in full plate for real (Since Unfortunate I don't think I could find an Ogre) and ask them to get back to me.
It might hurt like hell, but it wouldn't be difficult to figure out how to do, especially if their peripheral vision was limited by those helmets. And the tripper likely has a shin guard as well. (The only armor that doesn't have metal greaves or leather leg protection is the chain shirt.)
If ten-year olds playing soccer can figure out how to trip someone as they run past, I challenge you to give me a narrative reason why an adult warrior can't figure it out. And the ogre example? That would be harder to pull off but not harder to figure out and attempt to accomplish. And if you're going to continue with that argument, then explain why the same fighter can't trip the portly halfling as he waddles past.
Trying and failing is not the same thing as not being able to try it at all. You have to be able to explain to the player why they can't try it at all.
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 the DC 15+CMB for the grapple was supposed to represent the fact that the first attempt is more difficult (i.e. in 3.5 it required a touch attack + grapple check, not just a grapple check) and that's why you get a +5 bonus on checks later on.
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.
By the way, I don't know of any grappling rules that would allow you to do this. It can't be done in 3.5 (since it takes an "attack action" to pin someone, you can't use a standard action like breath weapon or spellcasting in the same turn) and it certainly can't be done in PFRPG (because it takes a standard action to pin).
Remember -- a pin only lasts one round, so it's generally a poor option. You're trading your actions for the actions of another creature who must be fairly weak for you to be able to pin him in the first place. In my experience (in 3.5), I've only found pinning to be useful in fights against one or two "PC-like" bad guys.
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.By the way, I don't know of any grappling rules that would allow you to do this. It can't be done in 3.5 (since it takes an "attack action" to pin someone, you can't use a standard action like breath weapon or spellcasting in the same turn) and it certainly can't be done in PFRPG (because it takes a standard action to pin).
Remember -- a pin only lasts one round, so it's generally a poor option. You're trading your actions for the actions of another creature who must be fairly weak for you to be able to pin him in the first place. In my experience (in 3.5), I've only found pinning to be useful in fights against one or two "PC-like" bad guys.
The only real exception I've seen to this is a PrC that killed whatever it could keep pinned for 3 rounds. I can't remember if there was a save throw... the class is in the complete warrior.
re: Grapple option "before the defender can do anything about it"
Isn't getting opposed rolls "doing something" to resist it? I read that as squirming, dodging, pounding on arms, twisting, etc.
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.
Because they just jump over your foot?
Because they just stiff-arm you?
:) sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Anyway, anyone have any playtest feedback yet?
By the way, I don't know of any grappling rules that would allow you to do this. It can't be done in 3.5 (since it takes an "attack action" to pin someone, you can't use a standard action like breath weapon or spellcasting in the same turn) and it certainly can't be done in PFRPG (because it takes a standard action to pin).Remember -- a pin only lasts one round, so it's generally a poor option. You're trading your actions for the actions of another creature who must be fairly weak for you to be able to pin him in the first place. In my experience (in 3.5), I've only found pinning to be useful in fights against one or two "PC-like" bad guys.
It was admittedly a bad example, since I was thinking more of feats and the like that let you transfer a pinned opponent to a creature's mouth for bite damage, etc., and this whole issue is still pretty murky since we don't know how improved grapple and abilities like that are suppose to work.
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.
Someone trying to slide around behind you in a combat round isn't running past you, per se. If someone were running, for example, like in a soccer game, in game terms they would be running, as per the combat option, and unless they had had Run as a feat, they would be flat footed, unable to make AoO, and provoking AoO from anyone they ran past, meaning under the rules introduced by Jason in this thread, even if you were untrained you could trip the runner.
Because they just jump over your foot?
Because they just stiff-arm you?
:) sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Anyway, anyone have any playtest feedback yet?
Someone trying to slide around behind you in a combat round isn't running past you, per se. If someone were running, for example, like in a soccer game, in game terms they would be running, as per the combat option, and unless they had had Run as a feat, they would be flat footed, unable to make AoO, and provoking AoO from anyone they ran past, meaning under the rules introduced by Jason in this thread, even if you were untrained you could trip the runner.
Excellent descriptions of failed trip and grab attempts. I find them unconvincing explanations as to why I can't try this at all against any opponent whatsoever.
Why do I need advanced training to even try to trip the fat halfling commoner waddling (a.k.a. sliding) his way through my 16th level fighter's threat range again? And why should NO AMOUNT of training allow Conan to trip faux-Bilbo on his face?
I have no problem with making impromptu special maneuvers somewhat HARDER than planned ones (although that's a pain to keep track of.) But making reactive tactics impossible to even attempt against all opponents strikes me, as, well, implausible.
The dragon in 3.5e would just take a -20 on his grapple checks with the pinned person (his +60-ish modifiers to grapples meant he'd still keep the target pinned), and then be considerd "not" grappled to the rest of the opponents, letting him do things like fight them or cast spells (non-somatic) or breath fire.
Also, I believe there were rules for improved grab and the bite, allowing them to "pin" in their mouth and then breathing fire for an automatic hit. Or am I thinking of a different system?
The dragon in 3.5e would just take a -20 on his grapple checks with the pinned person (his +60-ish modifiers to grapples meant he'd still keep the target pinned), and then be considerd "not" grappled to the rest of the opponents, letting him do things like fight them or cast spells (non-somatic) or breath fire.
Also, I believe there were rules for improved grab and the bite, allowing them to "pin" in their mouth and then breathing fire for an automatic hit. Or am I thinking of a different system?
There were feats for things like that, and that was kind of what I had in mind when I posted what I did, though I should have referenced them directly before throwing them out off hand.
The dragon in 3.5e would just take a -20 on his grapple checks with the pinned person (his +60-ish modifiers to grapples meant he'd still keep the target pinned), and then be considerd "not" grappled to the rest of the opponents, letting him do things like fight them or cast spells (non-somatic) or breath fire.
Also, I believe there were rules for improved grab and the bite, allowing them to "pin" in their mouth and then breathing fire for an automatic hit. Or am I thinking of a different system?
The "Snatch" monster feat does more or less what you say, although pinning doesn't factor into it at all; you still can't pin and cast spells/breathe fire in the same round (Improved Grab or no Improved Grab). And in Pathfinder, no one knows how Improved Grab works with the "-20" option; if you still have to spend a standard action to maintain the grapple, it's pointless.
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.
...
You just made my day! I'll see what I can get together.
|
|
Also, I believe there were rules for improved grab and the bite, allowing them to "pin" in their mouth and then breathing fire for an automatic hit. Or am I thinking of a different system?
No, you got it right; AND when doing so the person in the mouth of the dragon automatically fails the reflex saving throw when he breathes.
What the rules never specifically stated is 'where' does the creature in the mouth wind up when the breathing is done: Still in the mouth? On the ground at the dragon's feet adjacet to it? expelled out to the extent of the range of the breath?
This ability and the explained conundrum is fresh in my memory - because just such a situation occurred 3 games ago in my Shackled City game.
Robert
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.
I've seen 4 answers to your question already, I'll repeat mine though, I'm a nice guy:
1. "Them's the rules, same as when the monsters want to do it to you."
2. Not everything is as easy as it seems.
No, you got it right; AND when doing so the person in the mouth of the dragon automatically fails the reflex saving throw when he breathes.
Also, I believe there were rules for improved grab and the bite, allowing them to "pin" in their mouth and then breathing fire for an automatic hit. Or am I thinking of a different system?
EXCEPT...it's not a pin, it's just a plain, old, regular grapple.
Excellent descriptions of failed trip and grab attempts. I find them unconvincing explanations as to why I can't try this at all against any opponent whatsoever.
Why do I need advanced training to even try to trip the fat halfling commoner waddling (a.k.a. sliding) his way through my 16th level fighter's threat range again? And why should NO AMOUNT of training allow Conan to trip faux-Bilbo on his face?
I have no problem with making impromptu special maneuvers somewhat HARDER than planned ones (although that's a pain to keep track of.) But making reactive tactics impossible to even attempt against all opponents strikes me, as, well, implausible.
I don't know if you've been following the thread from the beginning, but we have already discussed the same questions you are currently posing. Jason's recent changes on this front have been well thought out and are based on our input in this matter and are meant to allay any potential problems in-game that may arise. Like how do you resolve the AoO loops for example.
I cannot give you a convincing explanation of why you can't try this against any opponent whatsoever, other than that it is a move to keep the rules clean, easy to understand, fast-paced, and to eliminate rule problems. This current revision probably does all of those things.
If after some play-testing we find that these changes don't go far enough, or still stifle creative gaming, then we can all lend more weight to this matter and back it up with data.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to play-test until after Christmas. (Sorry, Jason).
I've seen 4 answers to your question already, I'll repeat mine though, I'm a nice guy:1. "Them's the rules, same as when the monsters want to do it to you."
2. Not everything is as easy as it seems.
You'll note that when I answered, I provided a snark-free complement that acknowledged the strengths of those answers while still providing an argument for why I found them unconvincing. Showing me the same respect, Mr. Spaulding, is what will make me consider you a nice guy.
And, yes, I find DM-fiat with no narrative explanation to be unproductive, because it tends to create conflict at my gaming table. Perhaps that works at your gaming table. Given how story-oriented Paizo's customers and authors are, however, I'm hoping that a better rationale can be offered to my players than, "Because I said so."
And thank you, ruemere, for providing such insightful responses on this thread. I'm right there with you.
And we hit to # 1 and 2 again.
#1 isn't DM fiat it's the rules.
#2 is actually an expansion on number 1... namely it's not easy to trip someone even if they are fairly ignoring you.
It could be said that it not being easy is represented by the CMB DC being so high but that doesn't really cover it very well. You are asking someone without any training to know how to make someone fall down, or lose what is in their hands in less than a second. Sure they might want to but do they know what to do to make it happen?
Sticking your foot out infront of another person in the way you are suggesting isn't going to make anyone fall down. When a soccer player does it he's not using his foot, he uses his lower leg and foot to stop and reverse the direction of the soccer ball and slamming that back into the legs of the person running towards them. Most players practice the manuever over and over again in practice (i.e. training, which gives them the feat). Especially since without that practice they are just as likely to fall as the other person is (happens all the time on the field). And lets not disparaged young children: Typically they learn faster and forget more than we adults even want to remember knowing.
Martial artist tend to go for joints becuase that's what works. Now you have Joe the fighter here. He knows the ways to bring a person down, and has spend the time figuring out the intricies of the human body and its pivot points. He could trip someone on the fly becuase he knows not to "put a foot out" (which is more likely to get your foot broken) but to take a swipe at the knees from behind as they go running by cause them to break their stride.
Same with disarming. Simply hitting the weapon won't do -- that happens all the time in combat, you need to specifically move the weapon in a manner to get the guy to drop it. It's again not even a possibility if you don't know anything about how it's done normally. Most people don't know that you want to create a pivot point and twist the weapon against the thumb (the weakest part of a grip) to get the person to let go.
There is a reason people practice these manuevers all the time in combat training, weapon denial training, and sports: They flat out aren't easy to do and require training to get muscle memory to the point of actually being possible.
Once you know how to, it's not that hard actually. It becomes nothing more than simple applied physics. But until you have that training and know what you are doing, almost all (ignoring outliers) efforts on your behalf to have this outcome are not going to have any effect.
(Please note: Spalding -- no "U")
Most of this had already been covered earilier in the thread.
ahem, to possibly assuage both "sides" on this,
it might be more palatable if the Imp. Maneuver Feats lost their Feat Pre-Req's,
as suggested on other threads... And one Feat could "Improve" 2 Maneuvers.
...Y'know, so those "soccer" players don't also need Combat Expertise :-)
I would agree with that idea too quandry.
ahem, to possibly assuage both "sides" on this,
it might be more palatable if the Imp. Maneuver Feats lost their Feat Pre-Req's,
as suggested on other threads... And one Feat could "Improve" 2 Maneuvers....Y'know, so those "soccer" players don't also need Combat Expertise :-)
I must admit I just didn't have the heart to bring back the pre-req after the Alpha had taken them out. Kind of balanced the +2 instead of +4 to me.
|
|
I must admit I just didn't have the heart to bring back the pre-req after the Alpha had taken them out. Kind of balanced the +2 instead of +4 to me.ahem, to possibly assuage both "sides" on this,
it might be more palatable if the Imp. Maneuver Feats lost their Feat Pre-Req's,
as suggested on other threads... And one Feat could "Improve" 2 Maneuvers....Y'know, so those "soccer" players don't also need Combat Expertise :-)
It wasnt just the reduction of +4 to +2 with those feats:
Imp Trip lost the bonus attack, Bullrush lost the AoO from others around them, Imp Overrun lost the "defender does not have the option to avoid", and you can only knock the defender prone if you beat the DC by 5.
All around, the system was thematically reduced - which i don't necessarily disagree with; but I do whole-heartedly agree that the Alpha rules forcing a 13 INT (in order to get Combat Reflexes feat) was a better approach. To me it doesn't make sense to force one to have INT to do a maneuver whose mechanic to resolve is based off of Strength (CMB).
Robert
stuff
These are optimum conditions for Joe the Fighter: his opponent is so focused on something else that he's willing to get risk getting clobbered in the head. (And Joe won't break his foot as he'll be wearing armor and all armors but one type have knee, ankle, shin and leg protection.)
I'm still feel like I'm going to have trouble explaining why it's perfectly acceptable for Joe to try to break faux-Bilbo's leg as he waddles past, but that it's always impossible to trip him, even if he's trained to trip people. Evidently, your players will be fine with it.
I do agree that rushed untrained disarms don't seem to fit the narrative of an AoO at all.
We'll just agree to disagree on this trip issue, especially since we have a foundational disagreement as to what DM Fiat is and about our personal definitions of difficulty vs. impossibility.
Now I see our difference.... It's a problem of communication.
I believe a person that has taken the Improve "X" feat SHOULD be able to do "X" to someone that provokes an AoO, as that AoO.
Again I would point out that if you had read the thread from the beginning, you would have seen I said that on the very first page.
I also believe that if someone doesn't have the Improve "X" feat they SHOULDN'T be able to do "X" to someone that provokes an AoO, they don't have the training or knowledge to see how it could be possible.
Now I see our difference.... It's a problem of communication.
I believe a person that has taken the Improve "X" feat SHOULD be able to do "X" to someone that provokes an AoO, as that AoO.
Again I would point out that if you had read the thread from the beginning, you would have seen I said that on the very first page.
I also believe that if someone doesn't have the Improve "X" feat they SHOULDN'T be able to do "X" to someone that provokes an AoO, they don't have the training or knowledge to see how it could be possible.
I did read the thread from the beginning. Perhaps you could stop with that particularly annoying ad hominem insinuation. I'm making layered "even if" arguments with different audiences: you and the rules designer.
As I wrote, we'll have to agree to disagree, as I don't agree with you about what DM fiat is, don't agree with you on the nature of difficult vs. impossible to attempt, don't agree with you when it comes to needing advanced fighter college training to trip someone when the opportunity presents itself, and am making arguing to convince Jason not to go back to his initial design decision to make it impossible even for the trained.
If I attributed the latter position to you falsely in the midst of a rather lengthy thread, I apologize, but I suggest that you apologize as well. I don't need to do this and I've volunteered my free input for designers to profit off. While you may not think much of my opinions on this thread, I'm only going to offer my time--which is quite valuable to me at least--so long as this process is rewarding.
|
PS. Fighters... Who is going to find attractive playing a guy who can use a club and nothing else? 2 skill points (or less, if you saved on Intelligence), several features adding to damage, several feats adding to damage, several maneuvers with low chance of success. Plus severe vulnerabilities. Plus assignment to first line, where criticals and heavy damage and monster abilities reign supreme.
The current version of the rules makes the Fighter an ineffective PC. Soon th Fighter will be synonimous with NPC.
You have brought up a really valid complaint earlier that I wanted to stress to the Paizo folks.
It appears it is OK for PCs who use Spells to deal massive amounts of damage, to be able to use action denial, and have many many combat options available, but it is NOT ok for PCs not using magic to have these same capabilities.
Quite simply there is a very misplaced prejudice against pure martial combat.
I suppose it is because there is an element of reality that people fear, whereas with magic, it isn't real so nothing to fear.
I do fear that the sheer amount of areas that are going to need Houserules due to sheer stubborness may result is PFRPG being short lived. If the list of houserules is as long as mine is now, then a revised Pathfinder will be necessary, and that might spell the end of 3.x mechanics.
Paizo has one shot at this.
If their product requires as many Houserules as it seems it will, I am afriad people will just shuffle off to other systems, even 4E *shudder* rather than waste more time and money on a revised Pathfinder (which I am betting will be inevitable-within 5 years).
Now, the reason Pathfinder seems to require so many houserules is that it has fixed so many dumb rules in 3.x, that now people are seeing what the system CAN do, and finding so many SMALL illogical flaws.
Many of these small illogical flaws stem from a misplaced fear that some class will become far more powerful than any other. Unfortunately, people seem to have targeted melee classes for the short end.
I think this is off topic for this thread, but it has come up enough that I must address it.
I disagree with the idea that the new limits on AoO are nerfing the fighter in a substantial way.
I also find the fighter to be a strong force, and hands down the best at dealing tons of damage, while presenting a tough target.
I have found that the fighter in the Rune Lords campaign I'm DM'ing to be a powerful, well rounded class.
Dazzling Display works even against boss monsters.
The fighter walks around with a ~27 AC with tower shield and barkskin.
He finished the last combat against a boss with a AC of 24 by dealing 44 damage from two Power Attacks in one round (after dropping the shield).
Since the character just reached 6th level, I really can't see this claim about being weaker. No other class could possibly do all those things. In the campaign that I participate in as a player, the 11th level fighter averages about 50 damage per round, while maintaining a good AC. I'm playing the Wizard, and while I can waste you with a Disintegrate, (if I hit, beat SR, and you fail your save) the fighter often deals out hundreds of damage in a single combat. Maybe things get out of whack above 15th level or something, but everything I have seen as a player and DM points to the fighter being a powerful class.
The funny thing is, despite my recent arguments, I would still prefer that my original idea, which was that if someone provokes an AoO, they can't take advantage of an action that provokes an AoO that is done as a result of their provocation, but I guess my point is that I'll give whatever playtest rules a try that Jason wants so that he actually has playtest data for this.
In response to recent comments:
Let's keep in mind what an AoO really is in game terms... an action you are allowed to take when it is not your turn.
I cannot understand the argument that what we are talking about in this thread, somehow nerfs melee classes as this whole discussion is about players taking action when it is not their turn. CMs are available to all on their turn, even to untrained individuals.
No rule in core (save the contingency spell under certain conditions) allows you to perform action denial with spells when it is not your turn. So you can't say that by taking CMs away from AoOs is nerfing anyone.
This issue is being addressed in other threads discussing the economy of action disparity between classes.
I can understand the developers' concern of locking down through action denial when it is not your turn. And I tend to agree with it. But what needs to be answered at this point is do CMs as AoOs grant out-of-turn action denial? And can they break a game?
After some thought on this matter, and still looking for clean and simple rules, I'm thinking of putting forth the following rule:
You cannot take an AoO when it is your turn.
This cleans up the AoO loop that can occur when one opponent takes an AoO that would provoke an AoO.
And as long as performing a CM as an AoO does not break my game, I believe it to be the best solution, becuase it addresses concerns from all sides of this issue and keeps the rules on matters discussed in this thread open ended and in the GMs control.
good one, but what if the enemy is on the exact same initiative as you?
(say, they had delayed action or whatever) small problem.
I think Jason's solution is a decent compromise between speeding game-play and allowing options to melee actions.
Reducing the # of Feats needed for Improved Maneuvers (removing Pre-Reqs, Consolidating Maneuver Feats) means it's not as big a "sacrifice" to gain that functionality.
|
|
Create three feats:
- Simple Maneuvers Proficiency (+4 to feats within category, available to everyone)
- Martial Maneuvers Proficiency (+4 to feats within category, available to Martial classes)
- Exotic Maneuvers Proficiency (+4 to ALL feats within category, free feat for Monks, open for the taking for other classes)This would quickly open maneuvers to most people and give them some incentive to use them.
Regards,
Ruemere
That's not a bad idea: though i would still reccommend a +2 cap on those. PF is trying to go away from the large modifiers that seemed to grossly imbalance things.
I like the idea of stratifying the maneuvers, and grouping them in classifications; but restricting them to a particular creed of classes I'm not so sold on.....
Question: how do you limit such a feat like Martial to "martial classes only" ? Do you stipulate in the feat "This feat may only be taken by Paladins, Fighters, Rangers and Barbarians" ?
That seems a bit odd to me.
Robert
|
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
My problem with this is it locks it back down to only people who play using those builds can do it. Anyone else won't have a feat and therefor not be able to do it.
Seriously my question is what's wrong with the variation I proposed
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.
Lets set a scenario, you are a fighter who doesn't have improved anything because you went with a two weapon fighting build.
You are in melee with gnoll A
Gnoll B tries to move past you passing through your threatened area.
Under your rules, the fighter can only attack, great so much for melee options.
Under my version, fighter could attempt a trip. since Gnoll B provoked an AoO he cannot respond to your trip attempt. Since CMBs only provoke from the target gnoll A can only watch while gnoll B goes down. Am I missing something where this is inherently broken, or are you doing this to make the feats seem more worth the crappy pre-req feats you have to take to get them, cause I'd rather you get rid of the pre-req feats than go with the current itteration.
Playtest example:
My gnome monk in our RotR PbP game, I wanted him to be built very Jackie Chan-ish, so his first level feats are Caught off guard and really throw anything. In our game a half-orc tried to escape, and I tripped him as part of the AoO, once again, in my system it worked, but in your system it wouldn't because I didn't have improved trip, heck I can't even take imp. trip till 5th level as it stands. So my only option would have been to let the orc past me, since my 1d4 fist damage wouldn't have been enough to stop him. So much for monks being the kings of AoOs.
|
|
I think this is off topic for this thread, but it has come up enough that I must address it.
I disagree with the idea that the new limits on AoO are nerfing the fighter in a substantial way.
I also find the fighter to be a strong force, and hands down the best at dealing tons of damage, while presenting a tough target.
I have found that the fighter in the Rune Lords campaign I'm DM'ing to be a powerful, well rounded class.
Dazzling Display works even against boss monsters.
The fighter walks around with a ~27 AC with tower shield and barkskin.
He finished the last combat against a boss with a AC of 24 by dealing 44 damage from two Power Attacks in one round (after dropping the shield).
Since the character just reached 6th level, I really can't see this claim about being weaker. No other class could possibly do all those things. In the campaign that I participate in as a player, the 11th level fighter averages about 50 damage per round, while maintaining a good AC. I'm playing the Wizard, and while I can waste you with a Disintegrate, (if I hit, beat SR, and you fail your save) the fighter often deals out hundreds of damage in a single combat. Maybe things get out of whack above 15th level or something, but everything I have seen as a player and DM points to the fighter being a powerful class.
I've seen 6th level casters do that at range safely away from retribution while still taking a full move action. I've seen first level mages end the entire combat with 4 enemies in one round. It isn't that he can't deal decent damage and have a high AC it's that after eight months of every combat being, dazzling display, power attack repeat. that he's gonna start feeling tired when the wizard is mass grappling, chain tripping, out damaging while flying so he doesn't even need AC and all your doing is dazzling display, power attack, repeat. It isn't even about power, it's about options, and the increasing lack of them. What about martial classes that don't have the fighter's proliferation of feats, the poor low level paladin who's only good feature before 5th level is lay on hands. Or the monk, who at his best can only be as good as the fighter at manuevers, but it takes longer cause he doesn't get as many feats.
"I've seen 6th level casters do that at range safely away from retribution while still taking a full move action. "
Either your talking about non-core stuff, or the Scorching Ray critical at 8-48 damage.
This 6th level Fighters' power-attack critical hits deal 72-92 damage each, or 104-124 with bulls strength. And he gets 2 attacks with a full round action. With impossible luck you could theoretically do this every round, all day. A raging half-orc with a scythe could push it even further. People who say the fighter can't keep up with the magic-users damage are just wrong. Sorry.
But as you said, power attacking for 20 levels wears thin.
But fighters have enough feats that they can do the psychotic power attacks, and improved sunder, and rock out with a composite longbow. All while wearing full plate. By mid levels, you can spring attack, trip, grapple, work up a crazy AC, and really kick ass with a melee AND a ranged weapon. By presenting these varried threats, you have a large effect on the battle field, and can exert many forms of 'battlefield control'.
I don't disagree with the idea that melee types could use more options at higher levels, and that paladins, rangers, and monks have some issues, but fighter types, and fighters specifically can be VERY effective in ways other then just power attacking, or using any other method over and over again, in fact they MUST diversify to maximize their potential.
I think trying to balance the troubles of fighter types by giving them more options during anthers turn is NOT the way to help the game. I also think focusing on action denial results in those on the receiving end feeling like they got beat before they had a fair chance. That is a conclusion I have come to as a DM and player, that others may have different experiences with.
Here's a question:
Since bind is an option given in the PF Chronicles Campaign setting, presumably someone at Paizo likes it enough that it will end up as a combat maneuver in the game.
If that's the case, can you bind as an AoO? Theoretically, according to Jason's revised rules in this thread, you could.
If you want to curtail maneuvers, why not allow characters with improved trip/disarm/etc (or even greater trip/disarm/etc) to use them as attacks of opportunity? It would make those feats slighty more valuable to take ...I like that. Allow them to be attacks of opportunity only for those who took the feat.
Aye! Another player/GM who loves Combat maneuvers agrees :-)
Lets play using these rules for a bit and see how things work out.
[...]
- 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
If you cannot take an AoO that provokes an AoO, then you do need the Improved Trip, Improved Disarm and Improved Sunder feats to make these combat maneuvers as AoO. Maybe it would be worth mentioning in the feats' description (i.e. they allow the character to use the maneuver as an AoO).
|
Hmm.. currently, Combat Maneuvers should not be used as part of an AoO (despite any combat maneuver language issues). I made this change for two reasons...
The first was to streamline the turn sequence. AoO's are disruptive enough as they currently stand, but adding in a Combat Maneuver can easily bog things down.
The second was that I wanted to curtail the use of Combat Maneuvers as an "Action Denial" strategy. Now, I can understand why players like this strategy (its quite effective if done right), but when turned on the players, the game can quickly become no fun for anyone. Through the use of trip, disarm, and grapple, you can usually completely nullify an opponents planned action, or at least hamper it to the point of being insignificant. I am not 100% sure this is good for the game as a whole....
Of course, these are only my current thoughts on the issue.. I am, as always, open to debate and suggestion. Can anyone give me some actual playtest feedback on how this has affected play?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm one for certain maneuvers being used for AoOs, especially trips. disarm doesn't make much sense, but someone running past and being tripped it one of the most obvious maneuvers available...