The PCs in my group are getting multiple attacks now. Not sure what incentive there is to do these combat maneuvers for a couple of reasons.
1) Instead of multiple attacks, with a disarm, trip, etc., you get 1 attempt
2) CMDs seem so high ... it's rare that a maneuver actually works.
I've posted about this before, and I've got an idea to encourage more flavor in combats by using these maneuvers. The way the game works is that you either hit or miss. It's black & white, but what if we introduced shades of gray occasionally into combat?
If you barely miss an opponent in combat, the game handles this the same way as if you rolled the lowest possible. But, wouldn't it be nice if some minor effect was randomly determined and applied?
For example, imagine a fighter PC attacking an orc. The fighter misses the orc's AC by 2, but, since it was so close, a random roll is made and turns out that his sword hit the orc's armor hard enough to rattle the creature and deal non-lethal damage (another under-used mechanic in my game). Or perhaps, the random roll reveals the orc left himself open, and now the PC fighter can take a free Disarm action if he'd like (no AoO).
Now, most of the time, a miss is simply a miss. But, I'm really intrigued by the idea of adding gradients of success to attack rolls that are otherwise so very close!
The PCs in my group are getting multiple attacks now. Not sure what incentive there is to do these combat maneuvers for a couple of reasons.
1) Instead of multiple attacks, with a disarm, trip, etc., you get 1 attempt
Funny that those examples you used can be used more than once per round.
|
Don't change the game just because your players don't want to do something. It's up to your players to be tactical and use them not your job to control how they play the game to that degree. House rules should exist when there is a problem with the game, not just because the players get lazy.
A better solution would be to have the monsters use those tactics against them and remind them that they exist more then likely.
Also it's easy to tell when you hit your opponents armor rather then just miss them completely as you know how much of it's AC is composed of armor. I try to flavor the combat based on those miss rolls, "Your blow bounces off it's hide/deflects off a shield/clanks off it's armor, etc"
+1 to Xum. Trip and Disarm ARE 'any attack' substitutable, as opposed to Grapple (standard action). The wording could probably be a little clearer, but read the maneuver descriptions AND the 'actions in combat' table (which has a crucial footnote for maneuvers' "variable action")
Using Trip as an AoO (say, with a Reach Trip weapon) can be an amazingly effective lock-down tactic. Grappling a humanoid opponent wielding a 2-Handed weapon instantly deprives them of attacking with probably their best attack, AND they take a penalty to reverse/escape the grapple unless they choose to DROP their weapon.
Sunder uses the standard "attack action" "in place of melee attack", so you get vital strike damage (if you have it) and weapon attack bonus but can't use it with iteratives... APPARENTLY you also gain weapon bonuses when Bull-Rushing as part of a Charge (it has the 'in place of melee attack' wording) but not when you don't Charge. Let's wait for the 3rd printing Errata on that one.
CMD is significantly easier than maneuvers were in 3.5 at the lower levels. (tending to 50% rather than 25%)
When you're at levels where iteratives come in, they certainly do get harder, but that just means that players should look out for situations where they have extra chances to succeed: against same-or-smaller size opponents, against non-full BAB opponents, against non-quadruped opponents (for trip).
Any situations which would grant an attack bonus (attacking from above, flanking, charging, or the loss of DEX->AC when opponent is flat-footed) all can be exploited for CMB, as well as weapon bonuses for maneuvers like disarm, sunder, and (with trip weapons, and probably unarmed strike) trip. If the Wizard's Familiar doesn't have anything to do, why don't they Aid Another? With buff spells and Bard Performance, there's generally more attack bonuses flying around then there are Touch AC bonuses, so take advantage of that for maneuvers. And if you think about it, CMB/CMD is giving more of a reason to get straight +X weapon enhancements (which help maneuvers like Cleave, Disarm, Trip, and if you have Barbarian Knockback, Bullrush) vs. the flaming, frost, whatever enhancements that seem to do more damage.
As mentioned by others, I like how it's dead easy to tell if you missed their Touch AC or failed vs. the opponents STR/BAB, which is a good hint for how to describe the event as a GM. If you want to implement a difference between "the worst you can possibly roll" and 'normal' failures, why don't you use a Critical Miss deck? ...Though I wouldn't suggest that without player input ;-)
|
I'm not sure combat maneuvers are meant to be used all the time. Generally you can only trip someone in combat if you have a significant advantage over them and IMO the rules do respect that aspect.
You use combat maneuvers when you have big advantage over someone or if there is a disproportionate payoff to success. They really aren't a great every combat ability.
@Quandary Cleave and Vital Strike work together? I didn't think they did. That makes cleave a lot more interesting at higher levels
@Quandary Cleave and Vital Strike work together? I didn't think they did. That makes cleave a lot more interesting at higher levels.
I was mixing up the words Cleave and Sunder. (now edited)
Cleave + Vital Strike = No. Sunder + Vital Strike = Yes. ;-)
Funny that those examples you used can be used more than once per round.
So, let me get this straight. If my BAB is over 5, then I can do some of these maneuvers (e.g., trip) more than once a round? Anyone know why the Pathfinder framework for Maptool doesn't seem to support this? It could be I'm missing something.
So, let me get this straight. If my BAB is over 5, then I can do some of these maneuvers (e.g., trip) more than once a round? Anyone know why the Pathfinder framework for Maptool doesn't seem to support this? It could be I'm missing something.
Funny that those examples you used can be used more than once per round.
To sum up the rules:
Bull rush, Grapple, Overrun: Standard Action
Disarm, Trip, Sunder: Replace an attack (NOT an attack action), so it can be done multiple times per round (you still suffer the -5/-10 etc.. penalties from iterative attacks and such).
In any case, you won't usually do a maneuver if you haven't taken at least one feat related with that maneuver.
If you are doing a combat maneuver as your second or third attack is your CMB check at -5/ -10 as your normal iterative attack is? Seems to me that it would be since it's listed as an "Attack Roll".
Yes, it would. Any modifiers affecting your BAB for a particular roll would apply to your CMB check as well.
|
|
If you are doing a combat maneuver as your second or third attack is your CMB check at -5/ -10 as your normal iterative attack is? Seems to me that it would be since it's listed as an "Attack Roll".Yes, it would. Any modifiers affecting your BAB for a particular roll would apply to your CMB check as well.
Yeah a -5/ -10 is going to kill most CMB checks so if you are planning on using them as part of an iterative sequence you probably want to do it on the first attack (or your hasted action).
Bull rush, Grapple, Overrun: Standard Action
Disarm, Trip, Sunder: Replace an attack (NOT an attack action), so it can be done multiple times per round...
I can see why you might have overlooked this because *I* over-looked it for quite a while, especially since there seems to be a natural inclination to focus on the "in place of a melee attack" wording as the defining 'separator' of maneuver types. But Sunder *DOES* use an attack action, it just ALSO uses the "in place of a melee attack" wording so your weapon bonuses will apply on that Sunder attempt as well as any Vital Strike damage bonuses (since you are using the Attack Action). But you can't combine Sunder with Full Attack Actions (barring special ability, like Barbarian Knockback for Bullrush), since Sunder specifically requires using the Attack Action.
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an in place of a melee attack.
I don't know about "incentive" for the maneuvers themselves - they're generally "ok" options. Consider:
Trip - just good to get "prone" status on the target overall, then an AoO when they try to stand up within your range and/or are slowed in movement for being on the ground. {base level feat there}
Disarm - take the target's weapon away ... when is this NOT a good thing?
Feint - honestly ... probably THE worst maneuver period, and it really should be a LOT better. Currently, it's rogue-specific in that only rogues can really benefit from this maneuver. Fighters get NO real benefit from making a target "flat footed" unless it's some sort of dex-based monstrosity. It can only work from "full attack" position, but it's NEVER worth trading that full attack to only get a standard one on for them. It's SUCH a 1-class feat it's better labeled as a flippin' Rogue Talent, IMO.
Sunder - like disarm, when's this *not* a good idea? Break a weapon = disarmed by default. Or break armor = lower AC.
And so on ... they're *good* options mostly (minus Feint - that's CRAP-tas-tic, really}.
In my games, what I've done to make the *feats* more attractive is re-rolled them into one, single feat vs. the 2-feat split PF took.
It's closer to 3.x in # bonus granted this way, AND it gives the added PF *umpf* the maneuvers get w/out tacking on an extra feat tax PER maneuver (wtf was THAT about in the first place? Terrible move, IMO, and I'll never run it any other way than as a full on combination in whatever I run.}
Sunder - like disarm, when's this *not* a good idea? Break a weapon = disarmed by default. Or break armor = lower AC.
Well, I agree with everything you wrote except this one. I can think of plenty of reasons that Sunder is *not* a good idea, but the main one is that it's generally a bad idea to sunder the stuff you're going to want to loot.
Sure, sure, sometimes the ogre is just hitting you with a tree branch. Sometimes the orc just has a rusty axe. Those are fine to sunder. But you don't want to sunder the +3 keen vorpal sword - you might just want to loot that instead.
Sadly, the best benefit to sundering is to remove the most dangerous stuff from your enemy. If you're fighting two NPCs, and one has a rusty sword and the other one has a +3 keen vorpal sword, well, that rusty sword isn't much of a threat, so you should sunder the other one to remove that threat - which is exactly the opposite of what you want to find in two pieces after the fight when you get around to the looting.
Also, lots of stuff just attacks with claws and bites and other non-sunderable attacks. Investing feats/items toward a combat maneuver that you can only use some of the time, and often, won't want to use for fear of destroying loot, well, it's just a sucker bet.
|
Overall, combat maneuvers are not worth your time. You have to really specialize to be able to do them at all. At high levels, and even sometimes at low, enemies are just flat out immune.
However, against humanoid opponents at low levels, a maneuver specialist can be a SoD. The two monks I've seen in play have locked down enemies into complete ineffectiveness. (Admittedly, each monk was given Full BAB as a houserule.) My own monk has kept a spellcaster from casting anything once he got a hold, prevented a winter wolf from using its breath again, and preventing an enemy ranger from getting his FE damage on the rest of the party. The monk in my SCAP game has done the same to Kazmojen and Skaven.
So while they aren't optimal, they have their uses.
With this stuff about AoO's for non-Improved Maneuvers, it should be said that using a Reach Weapon should pretty much let you evade the AoO (IF the target doesn't threaten you) even without the maneuver Feats.
I don't see the point in worrying about Sunder=/=Loot (at least in a general, abstract sense, i.e. outside the context of a specific mission to retrieve an item from a bad guy), firstly because that seems a tangential goal for many characters (and for most of the rest, 2nd after survival), secondly because the GM will be either arranging for you to reach suggested wealth level by another means or adjusting encounter CR to match your closer-to-NPC level wealth (which means -1 CR for NPC with NPC wealth vs. "Boss" (PC level) wealth). And finally, some low level spells can fix objects pretty easily if you are into Sunder. It is obviously very focused on humanoid/NPC type gear-using opponents, which is very campaign specific on how useful it is, from zero to 100% useful.
(Admittedly, each monk was given Full BAB as a houserule.)
Since Monks use Full BAB for Maneuvers past Level 3 or so, I don't think that house rule is too far out, at least as far as maneuvers are concerned ;-)
Feint... well, maybe it's useful for building NPCs/encounters at a certain level is the best I can say about it. I will be pleasantly surprised if there is cool stuff in the APG leveraging it to be something really awesome. It could use some of that.
Oh joy of joys! Someone actually listened to me! :3
:-)
Of course, since the difference for the first two levels is 1 point, I imagine things would have played out much the same using straight PF.
Yeah, honestly I'm very happy with how maneuvers play out at low levels, with the easier 1-roll vs. 2-rolls (of 3.5), combined with smart tactics (flanking + any advantage you can get) it makes maneuvers alot more palatable at that level, which is a good level to introduce them to players. (That PCs usually have better stats than low-level humanoid NPC opponents just makes it that much easier)
As well, the "no-AoO's while Flatfooted" should always be remembered when considering if it's viable to try a Maneuver without the Improved Feat.
You know what Blake ... Sundering a Dragon's Teeth and Claws is just too AWESOME to disallow by fiat/rules/whatever.
Imagine the stories to be told? And the flat out VENGEANCE that dragon's going to have for the guy that shattered his frakkin' teeth?
It's a full on retreat from the dragon, and a set up for a re-match later on for the party as a whole.
*ponders making natural weapons "sunderable" now just because of the cool factor ... "claws" and/or "teeth" anyway. I'll leave limbs alone ... for now!*
|
|
Feint - honestly ... probably THE worst maneuver period, and it really should be a LOT better. Currently, it's rogue-specific in that only rogues can really benefit from this maneuver. Fighters get NO real benefit from making a target "flat footed" unless it's some sort of dex-based monstrosity. It can only work from "full attack" position, but it's NEVER worth trading that full attack to only get a standard one on for them. It's SUCH a 1-class feat it's better labeled as a flippin' Rogue Talent, IMO.
You need to look more closely at the feats available to Fighters because I know when mine successfully uses the Feint maneuver in combat my opponent is taking Constitution Bleed damage plus double my regular damage for it. Deadly Stroke for the win!
My Figther is going for Sunder and if you're fightinh alot against humanoids, this CM/Feat is amazing.
If you hit (and with the feats you should^^), it destroyes your enemys weapon (most time^^).
So you removed one enemy from the fight (damage wise).
It's like the old discussion about "Pure Dmg" and "hold person". For my part, removing an enemy from the fight >>> damage.
Bull rush, Grapple, Overrun: Standard Action
Disarm, Trip, Sunder: Replace an attack (NOT an attack action), so it can be done multiple times per round...I can see why you might have overlooked this because *I* over-looked it for quite a while, especially since there seems to be a natural inclination to focus on the "in place of a melee attack" wording as the defining 'separator' of maneuver types. But Sunder *DOES* use an attack action, it just ALSO uses the "in place of a melee attack" wording so your weapon bonuses will apply on that Sunder attempt as well as any Vital Strike damage bonuses (since you are using the Attack Action). But you can't combine Sunder with Full Attack Actions (barring special ability, like Barbarian Knockback for Bullrush), since Sunder specifically requires using the Attack Action.
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an in place of a melee attack.
Ok, I see that, altough imo it may be an error in the wording of the Sunder special attack action. Not that I care much, tbh, because damaging magic weapons that may be part of the adventure treasure isn't a good idea.
In any case if someone plays a monk, he may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows, that's a class feature.
Feint - honestly ... probably THE worst maneuver period, and it really should be a LOT better. Currently, it's rogue-specific in that only rogues can really benefit from this maneuver. Fighters get NO real benefit from making a target "flat footed" unless it's some sort of dex-based monstrosity. It can only work from "full attack" position, but it's NEVER worth trading that full attack to only get a standard one on for them. It's SUCH a 1-class feat it's better labeled as a flippin' Rogue Talent, IMO.You need to look more closely at the feats available to Fighters because I know when mine successfully uses the Feint maneuver in combat my opponent is taking Constitution Bleed damage plus double my regular damage for it. Deadly Stroke for the win!
Wait, you're suggesting a feat 4-deep, not using any of the 2 previous ones to set it up, and instead using the actions to *try* and make flat-footed status on the target and use that action to deal out 2x damage +1 con bleed with yet a 5th and unrelated feat? Possibly a 6th?
I can't say that trading in a full attack option for this is a great idea. Seems more like a skirmish tactic at best, IMO. And a VERY costly one at that (5-6 feats to get here is crazy, IMO, for the gain).
Deadly stroke is pretty crap-tacular in actual mechanics, IMO. It's dependent on scaring someone, but scaring only lasts for your immediate round of action, OR +1 round for other people to scare him/her b/c as soon as YOUR initiative comes up for the following round - guess what? No more scared status on the target (ie: you can *only* get the effect for a single attack by the default path).
You're suggesting adding the Feint tree on TOP of that, and the feint tree gains NO other benefit or better circumstances over the "shaken" status bestowed on the target through the default/required feats to get to Deadly Stroke in the first place. The *only* advantage I can see there is to benefit other party members (always a good idea, but only happens if you take Imp & Greater Feint, so +2 MORE feats over the 4 to get DS in the first place), OR to by-pass the "scare 'em" parts of the set-up. You need to use 1 round to set this up w/Dazzling display (full round action), and another standard action to attack w/DS {shatter def just applies on default I'd guess on 1 attack tops - worded in a way to make it seem as if the shaken condition lasts only until your next action ... but that would make the pre-req's to the feat useless for DS application, so I'm going to assume the former case is true regardless of wording}.
So, minimum you can get +11 bab is 11th level. You've only got 11 feats by then and 6 of that is more than 1/2 of your feats dedicated to this one tactic that you can only ever net 1 con bleed (it is significant) per round of combat. So, you're only *effective* on this end every 2 rounds (to drop a stat point), assuming 2 hits land in the first place.
You're trading off 2 additional hits/hit chances to make this happen, and 1/2 of your feats ... IMO, it's not a good path or use of feats. Feint *is* good for using this, though - to bypass the intimidate-set-up thing. It lets you feint (move) and DS (standard) every round ... but that's 5 feats minimum, 6 if you want more boons (extra duration to help any allies - like say flanking rogues) for the team. That's a LOT of investment, IMO.
Damn, that does sound like a rockin' idea. Limbs is a little much, since it bypasses the HP mechanic. It also doesn't jive with the abstraction of combat. I think it's a bad idea the same way sundering armor is. It becomes the default tactic.
I'd agree w/that sentiment in general.
Sundering just ... sucks options away and ruins "loot" big-time.
Sundering a dragon's teeth, though, smells of awesome sauce in the brewing for later revenge.
Muh-ha-ha-ha-HA!!
|
|
Stuffs
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you need to look at intimidate again. It works for 1 round + 1 round for every 5 you beat the DC by and that's not hard at all to set that up since it's a skill.
Even if you only use it once on someone they start bleeding out their Constitution! Heck you can use it on the first round of combat on anyone you beat in initiative and are within your move (or probably haste move) away from as they'd be flat-footed until their action.
Plus all the damage is doubled, not just the rolled weapon damage. So strength, magic bonuses, other feats and all that are doubled, unlike vital strike which is still an awesome feat.
As for feats, two of them are weapon focus and greater weapon focus. Not a huge deal. Shatter Defenses is probably the weak link in things, but even it can be set up to work with a good intimidate check or someone in the party who likes to fear things. It isn't really what I'd look at to get Deadly Stroke working personally, hence the use of Feint.
Anyway the point of the post was that you said Fighters get NO real benefit so I listed a benefit. If you don't like it, that's your thing. I was just pointing out there was something fighters could use Feint for.
Yeah Deadly stroke = Hit them once wait until their con goes away = win.
Getting a decent intimidate check is boringly easy and the double damage on top of it is just icing.
Also: You don't have to intimidate them -- all they need to be is either Stunned, or flat footed. So if you win initiative it will work, and if you hit them with a stunning critical it will work -- etc.
Hey "sunder sucks 'cause it takes away your loot gang": You don't have to destroy the item to give it the broken condition ;) It still isn't a great option most of the time, but something to think about.
Deadly stroke is pretty crap-tacular in actual mechanics, IMO. It's dependent on scaring someone, but scaring only lasts for your immediate round of action, OR +1 round for other people to scare him/her b/c as soon as YOUR initiative comes up for the following round - guess what? No more scared status on the target (ie: you can *only* get the effect for a single attack by the default path).
Deadly Stroke lasts until the end of your next turn, so it does benefit the user and not just the user's allies.
I stand corrected on the Intimidate duration, but I still say 5 feats deep to get to an affect that you plan to us on at least 1 other feat anyway is a STEEP price.
Re: Intimidate - I went 2 routs up there, one following the assumed feat tactics (ie: using the DD and other feats below it), and then the non-feat tactics (ie: Feinting). Stunned = pretty tough to come by honestly, so I didn't really go that rout. It's not like we have "Improved Stunning" out there as a feat. There *is* stunning critical ... but that's in the critical chain and comes even later on in availability (17th level minimum) so ... seriously. You want to discuss high-level ONLY options as validation for the technique?
:shrugs:
"Deadly stroke lasts until the end of your next turn" ... what?? DS is a standard action attack ... how's that last to the next turn??? I think you have a wire crossed somewhere.
As for the rest, yes, con bleed is nice. If unchecked = win (but it's pretty easy to check, too, though).
High Intimidates = yes, nice. Using a full round action to intimidate everyone nearby, or a standard action to freak 1 poor fool out (default feat progressions here) - not so nice.
5 feats, 11 bab +1 more feat to feint (for flat) then strike for con = a LOT to invest, and a LONG time to wait to be "effective" with this tactic. You *do* get to feint and attack 1/round, though ... so it's pretty good. Just a LOT to invest.
Waiting for someone to cast out "stun" effects w/magic = massively dependent on outside forces.
Heavily investing in a crit tree to stun = 17 levels, AND even MORE dependent on outside forces (ie: scoring a crit and confirming in the first place).
So, while these things *can* win, and are certainly nice, they carry with them SIGNIFICANT development costs, or action activations. More than anything else, this is my point.
Of course, YMMV.
:shrugs:
Hey "sunder sucks 'cause it takes away your loot gang": You don't have to destroy the item to give it the broken condition ;) It still isn't a great option most of the time, but something to think about.
Yes! +1 to this. Isn't it what that "repair" spell is for (can't remember the name off hand, though)? Fixing *broken* magic stuff? (as in sundered enemy X's item of cool-jiggy-ness)
Hey "sunder sucks 'cause it takes away your loot gang": You don't have to destroy the item to give it the broken condition ;) It still isn't a great option most of the time, but something to think about.Yes! +1 to this. Isn't it what that "repair" spell is for (can't remember the name off hand, though)? Fixing *broken* magic stuff? (as in sundered enemy X's item of cool-jiggy-ness)
Actually it's exactly what it's for.
Make Whole
School transmutation; Level cleric 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one object of up to 10 cu. ft./level or one construct creature of any size
This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6).
When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance.
Mending
School transmutation; Level bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, sorcerer/wizard 0
Casting Time 10 minutes
Components V, S
Range 10 ft.
Target one object of up to 1 lb./level
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance: yes (harmless, object)
This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points. All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function. Magic items can be repaired by this spell, but you must have a caster level equal to or higher than that of the object. Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities. This spell does not affect creatures (including constructs). This spell has no effect on objects that have been warped or otherwise transmuted, but it can still repair damage done to such items.
Broken Condition:
Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item.
* If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit.
* If the item is a suit of armor or a shield, the bonus it grants to AC is halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty on skills.
* If the item is a tool needed for a skill, any skill check made with the item takes a –2 penalty.
* If the item is a wand or staff, it uses up twice as many charges when used.
* If the item does not fit into any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use. Items with the broken condition, regardless of type, are worth 75% of their normal value. If the item is magical, it can only be repaired with a mending or make whole spell cast by a character with a caster level equal to or higher than the item's. Items lose the broken condition if the spell restores the object to half its original hit points or higher. Non-magical items can be repaired in a similar fashion, or through the Craft skill used to create it. Generally speaking, this requires a DC 20 Craft check and 1 hour of work per point of damage to be repaired. Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item's total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined).
Actually it's exactly what it's for.
Though that caster level restriction on Make Whole really makes it a moot point. A plain +2 weapon has a caster level of 6, which is at about the same level (6th) when you start being able to afford one, and shortly after the Make Whole spell becomes available. Except that you need to be a 12th level caster to repair a destroyed magic item with caster level 6th. By which point you've got more than 6x the wealth you had at 6th level and you probably don't care too much about +2 weapons anymore.
Make Whole is handy to have. But don't expect it to be able to fix the BBEG's Really Awesome Sword (tm) that the Barbarian in your party just sundered...
"Deadly stroke lasts until the end of your next turn" ... what?? DS is a standard action attack ... how's that last to the next turn??? I think you have a wire crossed somewhere.
You are correct. I was attempting to point out that with Shatter Defenses, you gain the conditions needed to use Deadly Stroke, as the conditions imposed by Shatter Defenses last until the end of your next turn. And Shatter Defenses is not a standard action, so, as long as you hit, any other attacks that round or the next round are considered to be against flat-footed foes.
So, if you cannot use Deadly Stroke at the start of the fight, then at worse, you can do so in the third round of the combat (perhaps needing the first round to get into place - so the possibility of not missing out on a full combat round set of attacks).
stuffs
See the broken condition.
You don't have to fully destroy it -- just get it down to half HP. Then it gets the broken condition and gets the -2 to hit and damage can only critical on a natural 20 and only has a x2 critical multiple.
Make whole will fix that after the battle (since the weapon wasn't destroyed) and you still rather nerf their weapon.
IF instead you sundered their armor down to half HP and give it the broken condition it only gives half its normal AC bonus and doubles it's ACP.
Please note so long as you don't destroy it you only need a caster level equal to that used to create the item in the first place to restore it.
EDIT:
On deadly stroke -- yeah it's an investment -- but dazzling display is good on its own (shaken means a -2 to hit, skills and save throws for your foes meaning they are easier for the wizard to get spells on too) and shatter defenses means that if you intimidate them (not hard to do) then you also treat them as flat footed -- which is very useful against high Dex opponents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen a fighter/monk with the trip tree all the way to greater trip. Every time I see him face a weaker foe I get a kick at the rain of attacks he lets loose. 2 actions, now he has itterative attacks on top of flurry. trip flury-aoo-finish flurry- second iterative attack with stunning fist/. He gets it off just often enough that it remains rewarding (his other favorite, for when he's at range, is a trip with stunning fist/scorpion strike as part of a charge. He calls it the flying scorpion suplex and has been known to try it by 'leaping' at his opponent)
That said, He's a semi-optimised tripper, and would not redilly concieve of some of the other combat manoevres unless he believed the risks were worth it (he will disarm ranged combatants for instance, and has even attempted to sunder a crossbow, but is loathe to do it unless the heavilly armoured cleric has already depleted an opponent's AoO already)
Batts
@Mistwalker: Shatter Defenses only works if you hit someone who's *already pissin' their pants* in combat. If someone in the party did it - great. Take advantage (not dependent upon you, though). If you're utilizing the feat tree, though, 1st round = full round action to Dazzling Display (ie: loss of actions). I won't disagree on the 3rd round of action to use it, though (provided he hits someone that's scared of him already, AND gets a second hit or whatever) the sequence is off I think in what you presented. Presumably It'd run like so:
1) DD use, full round action to scare anyone within 30'.
2) Move to target and strike (standard action - not sure if Deadly Stroke is applicable *yet* unless SD actually makes people flat footed *before* they are hit. If not, then this round you close, hit a scared target and set 'em up to be flat footed next round. Rinse, repeat, you've not got the SD effect up indefinitely provided you keep hitting).
3) Finally able to use Deadly Stroke since there's a guy flat footed now.
Compare this to the Feint rout combined with this:
1) Move action and standard action (move to close the gap, standard to attack)
2) *now in melee range* Move action to feint, standard action to Deadly Stroke (if he fakes out the target).
It costs 1-2 more feats, but it's pretty much ready to go from round 2 (round 1 if already in melee-range). It's still 6-7 feats deep to get this and level 11 minimum.
I see this as a lot of *useful* stuff, but highly circumstantial and feat-intensive as well.
Combat maneuvers are awesome, you can get around alot of the penalties because AOOs dont generate AOOs.
Someone running past you to get to your spellcaster, and say you have a heavy flail, trip him, doesnt matter if you have imp trip because it doesnt generate an AOO.
Really? Where are you getting that from?