Okay... so I made a bit of a blunder with my previous spreadsheets. I'd initially thought of building the high-level characters at 16 and having a middle tier, then decided to save the work because I liked the Purple Worm as a match-up, and dropped them to 12. Fixed all the numbers... except BAB!
Here are the corrected match-ups for the -2x modifier at CR12. I've also removed the reduce effect from the 12th-level gnome, it was a hold-over from size affecting only attack.
Monk vs. Purple Worm: 15%/45% (5%/95%)
Cleric vs. Purple Worm: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Sorcerer vs. Purple Worm: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Leonal: 60%/5% (35%/25%)
Cleric vs. Leonal: 5%/80% (5%/75%)
Sorcerer vs. Leonal: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Kolaryut: 95%/5% (80%/5%)
Cleric vs. Kolaryut: 50%/35% (30%/30%)
Sorcerer vs. Kolaryut: 10%/55% (5%/70%)
So now, I'm thinking that the -2x modifier is plenty. Small characters are severely punished by a higher modifier, as it reduces the influence of their higher touch AC. (Even with -2x, every drop in size category makes you 5% easier to hit.)
Yeah, I think combat maneuvers need to be a viable option, but not vs. every opponent. It should probably be one of the last options any PC would explore when fighting a purple worm... I should say a Medium PC should have to specialize heavily in maneuvers to even think about such a stunt. Anyone else agree?I agree, and that SEEMS to be Jason's intent.
I think the numbers for the Purple Worm & Monk bear that out, the chance was about 30% (for both), which is nothing you can depend on, and that was pretty much as specialized as you can get for Maneuvers. The Purple Worm has Imp. Grab so doesn't give up anything, while the Monk has to give up Melee Strikes (including special Monk Unarmed Debuffs) to attempt a Maneuver (at 30% chance).
I was actually feeling a +2* to Maneuver AC across the board was necessary, but at this point, just +1 or even nothing seems like it's fine. Low-level combatants will have a relatively easier time (vs. each other), but that doesn't really seem like the worst thing in the world.
Agree too. Maneuvers are intended to create favorable situation or turn the tides by taking risks. Like it was said on the other post, it's gambling on something : While taking a Maneuver, you are exposed to AoO, you don't deal dammage and it can expose you to some nasty situations... Maneuvers for a non specialized character should only be an option when they see other tactics fail ( or will fail )
The awesome example IMO is just that fight of a low level party with a quasit ( might be OldGM's party ). A quasit can fly, become invisible at will, has dammage reduction and fast healing. And this one had some stuff that could make him attack from a distance if I remember. How is the party supposed to handle this fight ? Grapple him ! no more fly, no more invisibility, no more ranged attacks. But what I liked the most was drowning him to bypass the DR and fast healing.
So lvl 3 human fighter with STR 16 has 40% chance of success.
In 3.5 it's around 23% ( not counting the +2 on opposed STr check from charge )Well... Now my opinion has to be different XD. But sorry I'll post that later as I need some urgent sleep ^__^'
Back on the horse now. Yup it's easier now at least for those creatures that have a crappy touch AC. But the difference between the two versions is just logical
When are trying to unify different maneuvers under the same kind of roll, whereas in 3.5, maneuvers were handled differently each having its specific method :
- Grappled needed a touch Attack then an opposed STR check, explaining we find approximatively the same figures.
- Bullrush only needed an opposed STR check and that's why the results are so different
- Disarm was an opposed attack roll
...
Using the current unified system, we make the choice that some maneuvers just won't be the same as before. If we want to balance some maneuvers, some others will just get unbalanced.
Unless someone comes up with some idea, We have to accept this fact for now
Okay... so I made a bit of a blunder with my previous spreadsheets. I'd initially thought of building the high-level characters at 16 and having a middle tier, then decided to save the work because I liked the Purple Worm as a match-up, and dropped them to 12. Fixed all the numbers... except BAB!
Here are the corrected match-ups for the -2x modifier at CR12. I've also removed the reduce effect from the 12th-level gnome, it was a hold-over from size affecting only attack.
Monk vs. Purple Worm: 15%/45% (5%/95%)
Cleric vs. Purple Worm: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Sorcerer vs. Purple Worm: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Leonal: 60%/5% (35%/25%)
Cleric vs. Leonal: 5%/80% (5%/75%)
Sorcerer vs. Leonal: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Kolaryut: 95%/5% (80%/5%)
Cleric vs. Kolaryut: 50%/35% (30%/30%)
Sorcerer vs. Kolaryut: 10%/55% (5%/70%)So now, I'm thinking that the -2x modifier is plenty. Small characters are severely punished by a higher modifier, as it reduces the influence of their higher touch AC. (Even with -2x, every drop in size category makes you 5% easier to hit.)
Well actually is there a bug ? I don't mean in your figures, but in the situation ? Can an enlarged Monk ( size L ) really Grapple the worm ? ( size G ). I won't even mention the cleric and Sorcerer then...
In 3.5 Grapple would fail if used against an opponont more than one size larger than you are. This has now disappeared in PF. Is it intended ? The reason I can imagine if it's not a bug, is that multiple smaller creatures can team up to attempt a grapple. I like the idea but it's not handled properly. I could come up with a solution, but since it's not really the point of this thread, I'll just skip it here.
Well actually is there a bug ? I don't mean in your figures, but in the situation ? Can an enlarged Monk ( size L ) really Grapple the worm ? ( size G ). I won't even mention the cleric and Sorcerer then...
Well, let's drop the size category by one and see if it makes sense then. Imagine a man with literally superhuman strength and a lifetime of training, wrestling an elephant to the ground with the help of some very good luck. Reasonable for a fantasy hero of great power and experience? Doesn't seem too bad to me.
(Oh holy crap, I just googled it. Check this out. Not actually part of my argument, but awesome! Small elephant, tho.)
Well, let's drop the size category by one and see if it makes sense then. Imagine a man with literally superhuman strength and a lifetime of training, wrestling an elephant to the ground with the help of some very good luck. Reasonable for a fantasy hero of great power and experience? Doesn't seem too bad to me.
(Oh holy crap, I just googled it. Check this out. Not actually part of my argument, but awesome! Small elephant, tho.)
Hahaha good one ^___^
Well, your monk doesn't have superhuman strength. but I guess a God's avatar could do this kind of thing.
But if grapple doesn't have any size restriction, bull rush does as for overrun. So what makes it easier to grapple someone than to bull rush/overrrun him ? just doesn't seem very logical to me...
And dragons should watch out for cats as they have 5% chance of grappling them XD. I was considering to revert this point to 3.5 and state that you can't grapple an opponent that is more than one size larger than you. However, if multiple characters team up ( with aid rolls maybe ? ) to make a grapple, the one that makes the actual grapple check can consider himself one size category bigger, but only in regard of checking if the grapple check can be attempted ( so this won't add size bonus on the maneuver check ).
Well, your monk doesn't have superhuman strength. but I guess a God's avatar could do this kind of thing.
At normal size he's got a 21. The absolute peak of human capability in this game is defined as 18. Superhuman, literally.
And dragons should watch out for cats as they have 5% chance of grappling them XD.
IMO this is a problem with the auto-success rule, not combat maneuvers. Honestly, I've always hated that modifiers don't apply to 10% of my rolls. It's baked into the system so deep, though, I don't think we're going to solve it here... and I really don't like the idea of a rule disallowing a virtual Hercules from wrestling with an elephant just to prevent cats from pinning dragons.
I try to justify it in my mind as, the cat didn't actually do it, the dragon just got startled and tripped and managed to twist its own legs behind its head somehow... yeah, that's it, the stupid auto-success rule is good for the imagination! :)
Well, your monk doesn't have superhuman strength. but I guess a God's avatar could do this kind of thing.At normal size he's got a 21. The absolute peak of human capability in this game is defined as 18. Superhuman, literally.
Technically, the absolute peak of human advancement is 25. 18 from a 3d6 roll (if you want to be oldschool) plus 2 from the human bonus (or any other species bonus) plus five from advancement if you're 20th level. That is to say, a 20th level commoner with no magic items could in fact have a 25.
Technically, the absolute peak of human advancement is 25. 18 from a 3d6 roll (if you want to be oldschool) plus 2 from the human bonus (or any other species bonus) plus five from advancement if you're 20th level. That is to say, a 20th level commoner with no magic items could in fact have a 25.
I forgot Paizo tossed a +2 at humans. Hell, I guess my thinking is still based on 2nd Ed. in this regard, heh...
But we all know commoners don't roll dice. They start with a 13, tops. ;)
Still, I don't find man-vs.-elephant wrestling to be particularly absurd at the same power level as magic jar!
and I really don't like the idea of a rule disallowing a virtual Hercules from wrestling with an elephant just to prevent cats from pinning dragons.
Still, I don't find man-vs.-elephant wrestling to be particularly absurd at the same power level as magic jar!
Then maybe base the possibility to attempt a grapple not on size but on Strength ? Or both ?
I forgot Paizo tossed a +2 at humans. Hell, I guess my thinking is still based on 2nd Ed. in this regard, heh...But we all know commoners don't roll dice. They start with a 13, tops. ;)
Still, I don't find man-vs.-elephant wrestling to be particularly absurd at the same power level as magic jar!
I feel I should note that one of my favorite characters is an adventurous commoner. The best part about 3e is that it lets you make and play suboptimal characters!
I feel I should note that one of my favorite characters is an adventurous commoner. The best part about 3e is that it lets you make and play suboptimal characters!
Oh, we're definitely in agreement on that. :) Being terribly good at running the numbers makes one grow quickly bored with it. I'm just saying that I don't think it's outside scope of the setting for an optimal character to have a slim chance of twisting the worm's tail just right.
Total tangent regarding suboptimal characters:
(Joe Wood?)
But if grapple doesn't have any size restriction, bull rush does as for overrun. So what makes it easier to grapple someone than to bull rush/overrrun him ? just doesn't seem very logical to me...And dragons should watch out for cats as they have 5% chance of grappling them XD. I was considering to revert this point to 3.5 and state that you can't grapple an opponent that is more than one size larger than you. However, if multiple characters team up ( with aid rolls maybe ? ) to make a grapple, the one that makes the actual grapple check can consider himself one size category bigger, but only in regard of checking if the grapple check can be attempted ( so this won't add size bonus on the maneuver check ).
2 separate items here, I'll start with the "aid another" factor. Metagaming's Melee system had a interesting mechanic wherein you received a penalty to roll for hand-to-hand (think same-hex fighting) for each opponent that was already engaged with you. For example, you a rolled a 12 sider straight up for the first opponent, and if he succeeded, the next roll (for the next opponent) was at -2, and so on... Without clear rule for this in PFRPG, I've been doing much the same, an extra +2 in favor of the attacker for his CMB - and now - on attack vs the MAC.
Which brings me to my second item, and our second phase of this system. Application to trip, sunder, etc etc. I've been thinking about size relative to the other attacks, and in general have come up with these thoughts:
Grapple = no size restriction. You are just grabbing it. The "elephant wrestling" example doesnt take into the factor of the purple worm trying to "grapple" and eat you. In effect, you can grab it all day, good luck holding on. In fact, the purple worm is an example of when NOT to use grapples, as you are playing into its strengths by entering a grapple. More on that in a later post.
Overrun = yes size restriction. In the end you are attempting a "move-through", and size matters.
Bull rush = yes again, see overrun, 'cept now you are physically trying to move it out of the way.
Trip = NO size mod. And this can prove to be contentious. If you are strong enough (or skilled enough, maybe both) you can trip anything that has the "ability" to be tripped. That last point is very important: the purple worm just cannot be tripped, the dragon is VERY difficult to trip, but a giant or titan still only has 2 legs.
Sunder/Disarm = No, unless you count that you cant reach the item you want to sunder/disarm, but I think that is more of a situational call for a GM.
Feint = no.
Now more on the trip potentials:
All of these are just some thoughts, and are really just related to the size mods. The funny thing here is, I have no problem with a little extra devoted to these rules, as long as it flows like the combat system does. Combat Maneuvers have provided some great moments in my game sessions.
Some new system playtesting from last night. Minus the spreadsheet... Searching the Foxglove Manor (RotRL, Skinsaw Murders), brought some interesting uses of the MAC system. I had at least a half dozen different scenarios come up, and I'll give 3 of the best.
1. The monk fails his save and has to get his "daughter" (the gnome bard) out of the manor. Monk vs small bard grapple, a series of grapple and break attempts while dragging the bard, and several party members trying to trip or grab the monk. Also, a question of "what if I try to grab the bard who wants to be grabbed?"
2. The wizard fails his save and heads for the stained glass window, intending to hurl himself out into the sea, 300' below. This became an example of just how quickly outmatched characters can be taken out by a CM, when the dwarf fighter grappled him as the monk tripped him, with no real difficulty.
3. The revenant (24 str, improved grab, constrict) chokes the life out of the dwarf fighter. Even with his BAB and high Str, he couldnt break free in time to avoid going unconscious.
So and so. What did we see then? Another session where the CMs came up and flowed very well. One thing I noticed was that the PCs immediately turned to CMs as a way to solve a problem, when directly attacking a fellow party member wouldnt work. In example 2, the monk surmised (correctly) that using non-lethal damage would not stop the wizard in time. Upon review, my group feels that the system so far is an easy way to figure out the CMs.
One thing I noticed was that the PCs immediately turned to CMs as a way to solve a problem, when directly attacking a fellow party member wouldnt work. In example 2, the monk surmised (correctly) that using non-lethal damage would not stop the wizard in time.
This is great to hear. Because seriously, if your friend loses his temper and tries to fight someone, do you beat him into submission or do you just grab his shoulders? :P
More playtesting...or "How the optimized Monk didnt get his way."
This time we tested disarm. The fight in the Foxglove Townhouse in Magnimar vs the Faceless Hulks. With their DR 5/pierce & slash, the monk was frustrated with his damage output (read: zero), so he decided to separate the hulks from their masterwork longswords. The hulk MAC was 20 (touch 13, str 18, bab 3). The monk needed a 14 or better roll to disarm, and didnt get it once in 4 tries. In this case, a good dex with a good str, foiled the CM.
So, 2 things came out here. 1) The monk may be optimized defensively, with all of the bonuses that go into his AC, but that doesnt necessarily correlate into the attack (for now). 2) Does the Agile Maneuvers feat still apply as written? If so, then a PC is double-dipping his Dex for his MAC. Based on the text, Dex is used instead of Str for calculating the CMB - which applies both offensively and defensively in the PFRPG. I ruled that it was ok for defense only, but as I think about it now, it should be for both. I could use some feedback.
On that matchup with the monk, I did a quick calc and needing a 14 or higher (35% success) would mean with 4 tries he should fail <18% of the time (.65^4 or ~3/20)... So it sounds like he was just unlucky ...And the Hulks were well-built defensively, which is good so everything doesn't need to be ultra-lethal just to not be a push-over.
...As I saw it, Dextrous Maneuvers no longer should exist, since it's defensive usage is now "free",
and Weapon Finesse applies DEX to both Melee and Maneuver attacks. (so no double dipping on defense)
It sounds like the Monk player is pretty into it, are the rest of the players happy with the system, their PC's chances of success, and NPCs chances against them?
...As I saw it, Dextrous Maneuvers no longer should exist, since it's defensive usage is now "free",
and Weapon Finesse applies DEX to both Melee and Maneuver attacks. (so no double dipping on defense)
Agreed. Plus, this should please those dissenters who want to see fewer redundant feats.
|
OK, one, it says that you can only CM opponents +/- 1 size catigory from you, so no biggy. you will never grapple an elder Dragon.(unless there is an improved 'enlarge creature' spell i know nothing about :D )
2. Can i get the final formula proposed at this point. I hate that you are saying touch AC+'X'. because in the earlier version you just nulled the size mods then added in something else. Write it as it will appear in the PF-PBH please. Size mods included. The reason i ask this is because there has ben alot of back and forth and i have lost track of what 'worked'.
So Mac and whatever the attack formula is also would be great.
Thank you.
2. Can i get the final formula proposed at this point. I hate that you are saying touch AC+'X'.
"Touch AC + X" is quite deliberately the wording. The whole point is not to think of it as a new mechanic, but as a modified touch AC. Any time Touch AC changes for any reason, MAC changes in parallel.
Manuever AC = Touch AC + StrMod + BAB + Special Size Mod
Maneuver Attack = Normal Attack + Special Size Mod
Special Size Mod = -2x normal size mod, i.e. Small -2, Medium 0, Large +2, etc. Yes, mechanically this inverts the normal size mod. No, it should not be spelled out that way in the rules text. My proposed text for the actual printed rules is here behind the spoiler. (Final paragraph re: AOO/disruption is still uncertain, but it's irrelevant to MAC itself.)
It sounds like the Monk player is pretty into it, are the rest of the players happy with the system, their PC's chances of success, and NPCs chances against them?
So far, yes they are. They are actively looking for CM opportunities where before they largely ignored them (or didnt even know about them). The case with the Faceless Hulks is an example where a PC who would normally have been "useless", found a way to do something through CMs.
They are also actively looking for advantages for themselves in this area. The monk player is the one who pointed out how Agile Maneuvers may too unbalanced in the MAC system.
This weekend they will be going up against the cult members in the sawmill...lots of bull rush opportunities, stay tuned!
Here it is again in bold!
Manuever AC = Touch AC + StrMod + BAB + Special Size Mod
Maneuver Attack = Normal Attack + Special Size ModSpecial Size Mod = -2x normal size mod, i.e. Small -2, Medium 0, Large +2, etc. Yes, mechanically this inverts the normal size mod.
I worry that if people stop reading at the beginning of the thread, they will miss how easy and great this rule actually is. I'd also like to point out that it hasn't really changed in almost two weeks, and most of us still think it's great. That is all.
Yeah, im pretty syked about sing it. Just got to keep it pure. On person already tried to add in a bunch of Cm's that to me made no sence. Really Interesting ideas about jumping onto big creatures and holding one on encumber them, but ultimately, just stuff to gum up the gears.
That sounds like it would be pretty great if encumbrance weren't so... cumbersome. :p
Sounds great Old Guy,
Just tell your Monk player that Agile Maneuvers is out the window.
Defensive Combat Training still exists to increase Maneuver AC (+4! per Beta)