Got a minor rules debate in my group on this topic. For those CMs that are a single melee attack (ie., not a full standard action), can they be used as an AoO?
For example, my character gets an AoO against a fleeing Orc. Can I Trip the orc? If so, doesn't the orc get a Trip attempt against me (unless I have Improved Trip)?
I'm tempted to say that if you do a CM as an AoO it does not provoke an AoO from your target. Does that seem fair? I really hate cascading effects, so this certainly seems simpler. So, again in my example, I should be able to Trip the orc as an AoO, but the orc would be unable to Trip me in return.
Got a minor rules debate in my group on this topic. For those CMs that are a single melee attack (ie., not a full standard action), can they be used as an AoO?
For example, my character gets an AoO against a fleeing Orc. Can I Trip the orc? If so, doesn't the orc get a Trip attempt against me (unless I have Improved Trip)?
I'm tempted to say that if you do a CM as an AoO it does not provoke an AoO from your target. Does that seem fair? I really hate cascading effects, so this certainly seems simpler. So, again in my example, I should be able to Trip the orc as an AoO, but the orc would be unable to Trip me in return.
If it says that you can use it in place of an attack, like trip, disarm, or grapple, you can use them as attacks of opportunity. Using combat maneuvers like this still provokes attacks of opportunity (yes an AoO can provoke an AoO, which could provoke another AoO depending on what the orc in question did and if you had Combat Reflexes).
Combat maneuvers that are a full standard action like overrun cannot be used as attacks of opportunity.
Sorry, yes Sunder is the third one, not grapple. Grapple is a standard action to start.
The cascading AoO doesn't really become a problem unless one or both combatants has Combat Reflexes, and it's different actions each time that provoke the attacks. I'll admit it does get a little weird if, for example, combatant A attempts a disarm on combatant B. B takes an attack of opportunity in which he also attempts to disarm A. A gets an attack of opportunity in which he attempts to disarm B. Even if B has Combat Reflexes, he can't get more than one AoO against a single opponent for the same provocation (disarming), but it still means that in effect, combatant A gets two disarm attempts, and if he succeeds with his first one, the initial action which triggered the attacks (the first disarm attempt) never actually happens!
Now if A and B both have trip weapons and Combat Reflexes, it can get a bit strange as A attempts to trip B, who takes an AoO to trip A, who takes an AoO to disarm B who takes an AoO to disarm A who takes an AoO to sunder B's weapon who takes an AoO to sunder A's weapon who just decides to try stabbing B in the face. Now THAT may bog things down a bit!
I agree that having cascading AoO just bogs down the game, plus it doesn't intuitively feel right. If someone is running past you and you try and trip the guy, it doesn't seem likely that his reaction would be to attack you, instead he'd try and jump over your trip.
Perhaps some sort of evading combat maneuver maneuver could be created to be used in exactly those circumstances. Instead of taking an attack of opportunity, you make an extra-special effort to avoid the maneuver in the first place and get a bonus to your CMD for that one instance. Of course, that would make it even harder to pull off a combat maneuver than it already is, and would make those Improved... feats that don't allow attacks of opportunity even juicier to behold.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I've been dealing with this more and more, lately, both in my home games and in PFS games. Obviously, in PFS, you can't say, "No, the fleeing orc doesn't get an AoO because he's running." It's in the rules that a trip attempt provokes. The fact that the orc is fleeing does not invalidate that rule.
However, at my non-PFS games I'm thinking of saying something along the lines of this:
In place of making a melee attack, the creature recieving the attack of opportunity may make a CM check versus the provoking creature. A success adds to its CMD versus the provoking attack an amount equal to whatever the check exceeded CMD by. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
I.E., in the above example, the orc decides to run. The player gets an attack of opportunity and goes for the trip. Realizing it (and ordinarily getting an attack of opportunity in return), the orc jumps out of the way (making a CM check vs the player), getting a 25 vs 20. Add 5 to the orc's CMD to avoid the trip.
Would that make sense?
I've been dealing with this more and more, lately, both in my home games and in PFS games. Obviously, in PFS, you can't say, "No, the fleeing orc doesn't get an AoO because he's running." It's in the rules that a trip attempt provokes. The fact that the orc is fleeing does not invalidate that rule.
However, at my non-PFS games I'm thinking of saying something along the lines of this:
In place of making a melee attack, the creature recieving the attack of opportunity may make a CM check versus the provoking creature. A success adds to its CMD versus the provoking attack an amount equal to whatever the check exceeded CMD by. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
I.E., in the above example, the orc decides to run. The player gets an attack of opportunity and goes for the trip. Realizing it (and ordinarily getting an attack of opportunity in return), the orc jumps out of the way (making a CM check vs the player), getting a 25 vs 20. Add 5 to the orc's CMD to avoid the trip.
Would that make sense?
I think that would quickly balloon out of control for the high CR monsters making it nigh impossible for a PC to pull off a maneuver (instead of just hard). I can see a flat +2 bonus, maybe even a +1 for every 5 points by which you beat, etc.
The one advantage I see with this, though, is that it is going to burn through enemy's attacks of opportunity per round . Resist a single trip attack and that puts you off balance enough that everybody else can swarm around you and you don't get a single attack off.
|
I've been dealing with this more and more, lately, both in my home games and in PFS games. Obviously, in PFS, you can't say, "No, the fleeing orc doesn't get an AoO because he's running." It's in the rules that a trip attempt provokes. The fact that the orc is fleeing does not invalidate that rule.
However, at my non-PFS games I'm thinking of saying something along the lines of this:
In place of making a melee attack, the creature recieving the attack of opportunity may make a CM check versus the provoking creature. A success adds to its CMD versus the provoking attack an amount equal to whatever the check exceeded CMD by. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
I.E., in the above example, the orc decides to run. The player gets an attack of opportunity and goes for the trip. Realizing it (and ordinarily getting an attack of opportunity in return), the orc jumps out of the way (making a CM check vs the player), getting a 25 vs 20. Add 5 to the orc's CMD to avoid the trip.
Would that make sense?
That's actually a pretty elegant houserule. My only concern is would that make combat manuever impossible to use except against mooks? your cmd is already substantially better than most CMBs anyway. It seems that evasion would already hamper difficult to achieve events.
I think you'd have to run some numbers, and some playtests, of both methods and see which works best. Perhaps the evasion should simply give a +2 on CMD like aid another?
EDIT: ninja-ed!
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Good points...
I see what you're saying. In my home games, the players are fighting against creatures with +25 to +35 CMB and CMDs in the 30s. The only one capable of fighting them on this turf is the monk, and she's almost an auto-succeed against anything below 35 on CMD. Likewise, her own CMD is absurd, so I don't know that those numbers would really get out of hand versus simply evening things out a little. Of course, she has Improved- and Greater-Everything, so return AoOs don't happen anyway...
One of the players I run into every now and then in PFS likes to say that CMD is a "hole" in the Pathfinder rules. He says that CMB scales much more quickly and gets bonuses from all kinds of things that CMD doesn't get. While I can't point to examples (too early and not enough coffee - besides, I haven't yet taken copious notes on this; just been observing, lately), he seems to be right. The other night he was rolling 2's and 3's on his trip attempts and hitting the CMD every time. Makes for some very boring encounters, sometimes, especially if the DM we wind up with doesn't know how to compensate.
I love the Combat Manuever system, and think it adds all kinds of options to play. I just don't want it to be lopsided toward success, as it seems to be headed.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Yep. I'm aware. And every single time I see a PFS DM forget this, I point it out (because, yes, they overlook it a lot - and have even argued against it).
But there are all kinds of feats that add to CMB, along with enchancement bonuses on weapons, feats that combine Dex and Str bonuses for CMB, trait bonuses that add to CMB, etc. Smite Evil adds to it, FOB takes advantage of monk level for purposes of calculating it, a ranger's Favored Enemy adds to it, fighter Weapon Training adds to it. The list goes on, and this is just off the top of my head, so I see where that PFS player is coming from.
Meanwhile, I can't think of very much to add to your list of "added to CMD."
As I said above, however, I have not sat down to list every single thing out. I'm running based on observations and quick thoughts, and this thread seemed the perfect place to start to coalesce those thoughts into something coherent and workable. Any opinions and ideas are welcome.
In games I run, I just rule that, when you make an attack of opportunity, you cannot take an action that would provoke an attack of opportunity. Thus, unless you have Improved Disarm/Sunder/Trip, you cannot disarm/sunder/trip as an AoO.
Remember that of the orc is actually running, he won't be able to take the AoO. If the orc is just moving normally in combat with his guard still up, then there's every reason to give him the AoO a trip attempt provokes.
In games I run, I just rule that, when you make an attack of opportunity, you cannot take an action that would provoke an attack of opportunity. Thus, unless you have Improved Disarm/Sunder/Trip, you cannot disarm/sunder/trip as an AoO.
To keep combats moving, that's the same rule I use.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
In games I run, I just rule that, when you make an attack of opportunity, you cannot take an action that would provoke an attack of opportunity. Thus, unless you have Improved Disarm/Sunder/Trip, you cannot disarm/sunder/trip as an AoO.
An excellent way to stop the cascading effects of these attacks, thanks.
Remember that if the orc is actually running, he won't be able to take the AoO. If the orc is just moving normally in combat with his guard still up, then there's every reason to give him the AoO a trip attempt provokes.
Heh. Good point. I don't know about the original poster, but I was using the word "run" in a non-rules sense. I guess "bug out" would have gotten across the same meaning without using a game-rule-use word. I very rarely have any intelligent being "run" until the loss of AC and/or inability to fight won't matter (i.e. the distance from PCs, cover, or concealment provides incentive to flat-out run).
Anyway, looks like this is going to peter out. Thanks for the thoughts and ideas. If I want to delve into this more, I'll start a thread just for it.