I was tempted to put this in homebrew instead since I have a suggestion to go with it. However I think greater discussion is actually about how CM's actually play into the game.
Now let me just say I like CM's , I like the idea of special moves that can potential swing a battle one way or the other.
However my issue is that you either use them all or none of the time. What I mean by that is that you either have to put all your eggs into one combat maneuver or its probably not going to work for you often enough to waste your standard action on it.
Also if you do build a CM into your character then your going to use it almost every round and it loses the cool/fun factor in my mind.
e.g. knocking the Balor's sword out of its hand is an epic moment , however far less epic if you've knocked every weapon out of every creature's hand for the last 20 levels.
e.g. Tripping the giant is epic but only if you haven't been tripping everything with legs since you started.
The catch is that if you don't use it often then your wasting a bunch of character resources best spent elsewhere. but if you don't spend those feats the occasions you "go for it" almost have no chance of success.
And sitting here making a character for Kingmaker I'm left wondering why is CM variety made so hard to incorporate when they can add so much flavor to combat over just rolling damage until somethings dead.
***
This part is more houserule
Was thinking of feats that could potentially come half way to alleviating this problem. that would be fun for player to try different things during combat.
Combat Maneuvers Novice
You are learning the tricks to winning are fight are not always doing the most damage.
Gain +4 to your AC against attacks of opportunity caused by performing a Combat Maneuver.
Combat Maneuver Journeyman (pre-req Combat Maneuvers Novice)
You've learned to take unique opportunities during a fight when they present themselves to gain an advantage over your opponent.
Once per minute you can use a swift action to gain the benefit of one Improved Combat Maneuver feat for 1 round.
You cannot gain the benefit of the same Improved/Greater feat more than once in 24 hours.
Combat Maneuver Master (pre-req Combat Maneuver Journeyman)
You've mastered the arts of the Combat Maneuvers
Once per minute you can use a swift action to gain the benefit of one Improved and Greater Combat Maneuver feat (must be the same maneuver) for 1 round. This replaces the Combat Maneuver Journeyman benefit
You cannot gain the benefit of the same Improved/Greater feat more than once in 24 hours.
*****
I do like this, since Combat Maneuvers are one of my favorite things to do as a Fighter. I also find it annoying that to be good with them I have to get both Combat Expertise and Power Attack. My Trip build Fighter a while back never used Combat Expertise but he had it.
I think a simple feat like the one Tomathy posted is a good idea, even without the +2 bonus to the CMB.
|
I don't want to rain on your parade but I couldn't disagree more.
In 3.5 the only maneuver anyone ever with ANY frequency did was grapple. Bull-rush, trip, sunder, and disarm were all ignored 99% of the time.
Pathfinder changed that by bringing them into line and easy to understand for players without them knowing a different rule set for each one.
I also don't think the above mentioned feats will help your games all that much and a few of them are just WAY too powerful. I suggest if you want to see them happen more, just remove the first prereq from the tree they fit into such as combat reflexes and improved unarmed strike.
not that i want to be "that one poster" who disagrees whole Hartley but i love combat maneuvers 100%, i use them all the time even if i provoke an AoO every time, i used all of them back in 3.5 but i love them even more with the new CMB/CMD system.
i would like it if they gave you options for some of them so i don't have to take combat expertise just to pick up improved disarm, if i had options rather than one choice then i would love CM"s even more.
I don't want to rain on your parade but I couldn't disagree more.
In 3.5 the only maneuver anyone ever with ANY frequency did was grapple. Bull-rush, trip, sunder, and disarm were all ignored 99% of the time.
Pathfinder changed that by bringing them into line and easy to understand for players without them knowing a different rule set for each one.
I also don't think the above mentioned feats will help your games all that much and a few of them are just WAY too powerful. I suggest if you want to see them happen more, just remove the first prereq from the tree they fit into such as combat reflexes and improved unarmed strike.
Well, as far as I know, trip was quite used, for the famous/infamous lockdown builds of fighter. Bull rush was popular with dungeon crasher fighter.
Is indeed true that pathfinder improved them. I disagree with the fact that are too powerful. Size limitation is annoying, and to obtain the AOO (for all party, so definitively more powerful final effect than the 3.5 counterpart) ou need two feats.
Thank to shield build, you need no longer necessarily a standard action to bull rush. And the "to hit bonus go to the CMB" thing can make
Warriors will always take power attack. The need of power attack is a non-issue. I can see that is different from combat expertise, even if in my games is used with good effects.
I suggest house rules-wise, to meld the improved and greater feats. Tou take the improved, and then you automatically take the greater once you hit a certain BAB.
Said this, YAY! for combat maneuvers. And with APG, we have more! Remember that if you play smart in ways to avoid AOOs, you can perform them without the relevant feat. Try it out!
Or using a reach weapon.
But i totally empathise with the OP, it's all or nothing. Either you *are* the tripper, or it's not really worth the AoO.
I agree with everyone saying that PF fixed an annoying aspect of the game with CMB/CMD.
I reckon i'll give these homebrew feats a try, i think it will encourage more tactics (i've always hated you hit, you miss encounters) without every encounter replaying the same tactic.
Nice one.
|
Also if you do build a CM into your character then your going to use it almost every round and it loses the cool/fun factor in my mind.
e.g. knocking the Balor's sword out of its hand is an epic moment , however far less epic if you've knocked every weapon out of every creature's hand for the last 20 levels.
e.g. Tripping the giant is epic but only if you haven't been tripping everything with legs since you started.
Using a hero point to avoid AOO, or for a CMB boost, or using two for both?
Combat Maneuvers a wasted concept?
Hardly. Especially since the release of Secrets of Martial Mastery.
I agree that there are some "always" maneuvers (e.g. grapple, trip), but there are plenty of "sometimes" maneuvers, too (e.g. sunder, disarm, bull rush). I've seen sunder and disarm used to good effect (usually against spellcasters, for instance).
@BPorter: You mean The Secrets of Martial Mastery that I wrote? (thanks for the pimpage!)
I understand the original posters frustration, and it was why I wrote the Corps a Corps maneuver so that you could make it possible to pull off a "epic" action rather than putting all your eggs in one basket.
Also unlike 3.0 or 3.5 with PFRPG you can attempt a combat maneuver and get hit by the AoO and still attempt your maneuver
Also many of our Maneuvers are attack actions just like Sunder.
|
I only have a Combat Manoeuvre provoke an Attack of Opportunity if the player fails the Manoeuvre. (If a PC has taken the Improved [Manoeuvre] feat, then they don't even provoke on a failure).
As such my players are often willing to risk a combat manoeuvre even if they haven't spent feats on it, because they aren't as likely to be immediately punished for it.
|
I only have a Combat Manoeuvre provoke an Attack of Opportunity if the player fails the Manoeuvre. (If a PC has taken the Improved [Manoeuvre] feat, then they don't even provoke on a failure).
As such my players are often willing to risk a combat manoeuvre even if they haven't spent feats on it, because they aren't as likely to be immediately punished for it.
Stealing that idea.
|
|
It's far from a wasted concept. But I think the feat requirements for some combat maneuvers are a little ridiculous. It might be good to combine several maneuvers together, or to add extra functions to each maneuver. That way if you take the feats for one maneuver, you're not just limited to one trick that you can do.
Hmm ... not really a fan of those feats as, really, they're just feats that let you emulate *other* feats (thus, you're still tied to the existing ridiculous feat-taxes of being 'good' at maneuvers).
I like the idea of just dropping the AoO to "if you fail, THEN ..." in nature as it's the least invasive way to *help* the concept along.
I've often felt the same frustration even from the initial 2e change where the *same* sorts of maneuvers simply replaced one of your attack actions for the round. IMO, I'd LOVE to see something like that come back where just any attack action normally allowed *could* be used to pull of stuff like say sunder, trip, or a disarm. *maybe* it makes a bit more sense for a grapple (not really, but whatever) or a bull rush to take a bit of effort, though.
In terms of feat-redesign, why not leave the cmb/cmd in place and leave *all* maneuvers capable of being performed by default w/out special training with that "AoO only IF it fails" thing in place? However, (here's the redesign) either make a line of feats that apply to ALL maneuvers generally (ie: instead of +2 and no AoO for X maneuver, it's +2 to ALL maneuvers and no AoO's for any maneuver), or leave the feats as 1 time buy-ins that simply improve/scale with level to avoid the feat-tax "all in" garbage that *has* to happen if you want it to be worth a damn in the first place.
Either one works for upping the viability, honestly. If you're going for a line of feats that are generalized, but applicable to all maneuvers, then you've reduced the 6-8 feats out there needed to actually be "good" at maneuvers. It's now just say a line of feats *maybe* 3 or so deep (depends on particulars), BUT a maneuver-using character can now use the dang maneuvers outright (rather than hyper-specialize in 1 maneuver on account of lack of feats to "waste" on training, etc). It'll make all options viable at the least to "try" a little bit, IMO. (vs. all or nothing paradigm that currently exists).
If you go the rout of scaling feats - again, you're reducing feat-tax and actually freeing up resources to be spent picking up a few different maneuvers to be 'good' at more or less. It's certainly an upgrade.
regarding my initial point - if you reduce action requirements of using the maneuvers, you *also* make it worth specializing. Standard --> Move --> Swift, OR "attack action" seems a good way to go. Again, tie this effect to existing (or newly created feats - whatever), and you're closer to being able to use 2-3 "swings" on maneuvers in part of a full attack and still get to use you're normal attacks.
Anyway - some thoughts.
|
It's far from a wasted concept. But I think the feat requirements for some combat maneuvers are a little ridiculous. It might be good to combine several maneuvers together, or to add extra functions to each maneuver. That way if you take the feats for one maneuver, you're not just limited to one trick that you can do.
Hmm ... not really a fan of those feats as, really, they're just feats that let you emulate *other* feats (thus, you're still tied to the existing ridiculous feat-taxes of being 'good' at maneuvers).
I like the idea of just dropping the AoO to "if you fail, THEN ..." in nature as it's the least invasive way to *help* the concept along.
I've often felt the same frustration even from the initial 2e change where the *same* sorts of maneuvers simply replaced one of your attack actions for the round. IMO, I'd LOVE to see something like that come back where just any attack action normally allowed *could* be used to pull of stuff like say sunder, trip, or a disarm. *maybe* it makes a bit more sense for a grapple (not really, but whatever) or a bull rush to take a bit of effort, though.
In terms of feat-redesign, why not leave the cmb/cmd in place and leave *all* maneuvers capable of being performed by default w/out special training with that "AoO only IF it fails" thing in place? However, (here's the redesign) either make a line of feats that apply to ALL maneuvers generally (ie: instead of +2 and no AoO for X maneuver, it's +2 to ALL maneuvers and no AoO's for any maneuver), or leave the feats as 1 time buy-ins that simply improve/scale with level to avoid the feat-tax "all in" garbage that *has* to happen if you want it to be worth a damn in the first place.
Either one works for upping the viability, honestly. If you're going for a line of feats that are generalized, but applicable to all maneuvers, then you've reduced the 6-8 feats out there needed to actually be "good" at maneuvers. It's now just say a line of feats *maybe* 3 or so deep (depends on particulars), BUT a maneuver-using character can now use the dang maneuvers outright (rather than hyper-specialize in 1 maneuver on account of lack of feats to "waste" on training, etc). It'll make all options viable at the least to "try" a little bit, IMO. (vs. all or nothing paradigm that currently exists).
If you go the rout of scaling feats -...
My group has the same thoughts as these.
It'll free more feats if Combat Maneuvers were consolidated or grouped more than they are currently. It is frustrating to force a character into just those specific paths.
Lack of AoOs would help, but I believe reducing the feat tax associated those being good at those feats would be better.
|
|
The easiest way to homebrew a reasonable fix for the feat tax is simply to have the improved version automatically "upgrade" to include the greater version. I think +6 BAB is a reasonable number for this as the only class that would even be able to afford the greater feat before that point would be a fighter or a grapple focused monk.
|
|
The easiest way to homebrew a reasonable fix for the feat tax is simply to have the improved version automatically "upgrade" to include the greater version. I think +6 BAB is a reasonable number for this as the only class that would even be able to afford the greater feat before that point would be a fighter or a grapple focused monk.
Good idea. I'm ashamed we never thought of this.
I find this troubling too. I've been working on a version of Combat Manuevers for a hack of Pathfinder for a while. I'm leaving some of the rules out, because it runs off of a larger system, but the basics should still work.
First you need to run off a Hero Point system. CMs don't cause AoO because, in order to use them, you need to spend a Hero Point to make the attempt. The Feats give you the normal bonus but also let you make an attempt once per game with out a Hero Point rather then negating the AoO.
In practice, as GM, I find using combat maneuvers every now and then, more interesting than just attacking every round. If I see an opening for a combat maneuver with a monster, I'll often take it. Usually, this comes when the PCs don't have an AoO available (such as attacking through a door, or if the PC has a ranged weapon in hand, or if they've already used up their AoO), or if their AoO is pretty weak. The latest exploit was a raging orc chieftain bull rushing through a door way to open up the combat… lots of fun when you bull rush 3 PCs back in one go!
I came up with a feat a while back to address the concept of combat maneuvers in the homebrew section:
You are trained in hand-to-hand combat.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can attempt a bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, or trip combat maneuver without provoking an attack of opportunity.
Special: If you have this feat, you do not need Power Attack to qualify for Greater Bull Rush, Greater Overrun, Greater Sunder, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, or Improved Sunder. You also don’t need the Combat Expertise feat to qualify for Greater Disarm, Greater Trip, Improved Disarm, or Improved Trip. A monk may take this feat as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites.
It was meant to address the pigeonholing effect of specializing in one maneuver as well as allowing martial classes the option of doing one without worrying about an AoO.
Sunder is brokenly overpowered against sorcerers, bards and paladins. First you sunder their hairdo, then their make up. Enemy is now powerless.
Also many of our Maneuvers are attack actions just like Sunder.
I`m not familiar with your book, but I`m not exactly sure what you`re trying to imply here. Sunder being an Attack Action is only `nice` because Sunder is about doing damage, thus being able to use Vital Strike along with Sunder is nice. If doing damage is NOT part of the Maneuver itself (and the AoO provoked by Greater Trip, etc is not part of the Maneuver itself), then there really isn`t any benefit to being an Attack Action vs. being a Standard Action. ...? Since Sunder is already done, I`m not really imagining any other possible Maneuvers that are directly about doing damage... Did you make Called Shots a Maneuver?
Stealing that idea.I only have a Combat Manoeuvre provoke an Attack of Opportunity if the player fails the Manoeuvre. (If a PC has taken the Improved [Manoeuvre] feat, then they don't even provoke on a failure).
As such my players are often willing to risk a combat manoeuvre even if they haven't spent feats on it, because they aren't as likely to be immediately punished for it.
The one issue I see with this is grappling, since the attack of opportunity is about the only way to dissuade a creature with natural attacks from not going for the grapple first. If you made it everything but grapple it'd be fine, though. Grapple is just... How do I put this?
Special.
Also many of our Maneuvers are attack actions just like Sunder.I`m not familiar with your book, but I`m not exactly sure what you`re trying to imply here. Sunder being an Attack Action is only `nice` because Sunder is about doing damage, thus being able to use Vital Strike along with Sunder is nice. If doing damage is NOT part of the Maneuver itself (and the AoO provoked by Greater Trip, etc is not part of the Maneuver itself), then there really isn`t any benefit to being an Attack Action vs. being a Standard Action. ...? Since Sunder is already done, I`m not really imagining any other possible Maneuvers that are directly about doing damage... Did you make Called Shots a Maneuver?
"Damage" should not be the end all/be all for determining standard/attack action, though. Prime examples are feint and disarm - both FULLY usable and essentaially *are* attacks, only not focused around damage. The one is set to lower/hinder opponents defenses, and the other is for taking weapons away from your opponent. As part of a full attack, there is *every* reason to allow either or both to just "take the place of an attack" at whatever bab you want it to have.
Full attacks are *already* hindered enough in that you can't really take advantage of them unless you stand in one spot, don't move, and/or wait for enemies to come to you in order to GET the full attack in the first place.
Things like feint and disarm, though? Those should *at least* equate to an "attack action" as well vs. blowing a whole round/standard action for quite some time to try and "fake out" the opponent - that's 1 move max, and you're done. Either faked 'em out (and can reap the rewards) or didn't (so you wasted that movement/action/whatever). Same with disarm - these are polarized things - it's NOT like you're moving a good distance (charge/bull rush) AND trying to attack - you're making quick strikes aimed at producing an effect other than "damage" on your target ... and yet you're charged a premium in action cost to do this. No wonder it's not often attempted/used - it's not often relevant, or worth the feat investment to be "good" at it.
I just rediscovered that you don't get AoO while flat-footed so if you have a half decent initiative you have a chance to try some different combat maneuvers at the start of combat. (provided your opponent doesn't have combat expertise)
I just rediscovered that you don't get AoO while flat-footed so if you have a half decent initiative you have a chance to try some different combat maneuvers at the start of combat. (provided your opponent doesn't have combat expertise)
Ooh, very true. Nice catch!
But this means that my half-ogre monk/rogue/shadowdancer with the greatreach bracers won't have to hide every time he wants to grab someone and pull them up to the ceiling. This somehow makes my insane planning less special. :(
It's OK though. He'd have a hard time working in Pathfinder anyway, what with CMB and all.
I just rediscovered that you don't get AoO while flat-footed so if you have a half decent initiative you have a chance to try some different combat maneuvers at the start of combat. (provided your opponent doesn't have combat expertise)
This, and in general, I think sometimes people fear AOOs more than they ought. "That provokes an AOO? Then I won't do it."
Sure, maybe you don't want to provoke versus the demon that has a +30 to hit but there are a lot of cases where it's actually a pretty fair risk.
And beyond combat maneuvering versus flat-footed foes, who can't do anything about it, use combat maneuvers against opponents who have already used an aoo in a round. Unless they have combat reflexes (which also nixes the flat-footed aoo issue) they will also be able to do nothing.
A good party tactic for a party with an acrobatic rogue (or similar) type and a combat maneuver tank is to have the acrobat (preferably with the mobility feat) move around to tempt an enemy into an AOO, and then let the combat maneuverer do his thing.
"Damage" should not be the end all/be all for determining standard/attack action, though.
I wasn`t using damage to `determine` standard/attack action, I was pointing out that IT DOESN`T MATTER (to the player/GM) if a given maneuver is classed as a Standard Action or an Attack Action unless the Maneuver itself (not resulting AoO`s) does damage, because unless Vital Strike comes into play (if the Maneuver itself is doing damage and counts as an Attack Action), there isn`t any òther importance diference between being classed as an Attack Action or a Standard Action. Only if there is some situation where you can make an Attack Action but not any other Standard Action single attack would there be a difference (i.e. an attack action maneuver would be allowed, but not a standard action maneuver), but I`m not aware of any such cases currently (Spring Attack could possibly be Errata`d to only allow Attack Actions).
Prime examples are feint and disarm - both FULLY usable and essentaially *are* attacks, only not focused around damage. The one is set to lower/hinder opponents defenses, and the other is for taking weapons away from your opponent. As part of a full attack, there is *every* reason to allow either or both to just "take the place of an attack" at whatever bab you want it to have.
Every reason to allow either to take the place of an attack... except that the rules clearly state taht Feint is a Standard Action (or Move with Feat), not ¨in place of an attack¨. Disarm and Trip are of course ¨in place of a melee attack¨ Maneuvers that CAN be used within Full Attacks or as AoO`s.
(...) Things like feint and disarm, though? Those should *at least* equate to an "attack action" as well vs. blowing a whole round/standard action for quite some time to try and "fake out" the opponent - that's 1 move max, and you're done. Either faked 'em out (and can reap the rewards) or didn't (so you wasted that movement/action/whatever). Same with disarm (...)
Well... Not quite the ¨same¨ with Feint and Disarm.
With one, you`re completely within the rules by mentioning it can be substituted for any attack roll, while with the other you may well be justified in saying it ¨should¨ function a certain way, but that is directly contrary to the RAW. My comment to Rite Publishing was in the context of rules published to be officially compatable with PRPG, thus conforming to the RAW. I would be very disturbed if published material was touted as ¨Pathfinder Compatable¨ (presumably with offical markings to indicate such) yet didn`t respect the RAW, either thru a misunderstanding (i.e. the signifigance of ´attack action´) or a personal sentiment that the RAW ¨should¨ work differently than they actually do.Anyhow, I actually am interested in hearing from Rite Publishing about this...
I can`t really imagine any ¨Maneuver¨ besides Sunder that would be about doing damage (thus, that would matter if it`s an attack action or not). I`d be interested to hear what you have done with it, i.e. if you have made damaging Maneuvers, or what.
then there really isn`t any benefit to being an Attack Action vs. being a Standard Action. ...?
8 potential melee attacks in a round vs. 1 standard action was the reason behind many of the attack action manuvers but some of them are standard actions and some of the new feats make them move, swift or immediate actions.
Also as an attack action you can perform it as part of an Attack of Opportunity.
Also with abilities like, Ride by attack, Spring Attack and Fly-by Attack you could move perform your maneuver and move again unlike a standard action.
DAMAGE causing maneuvers off the top of my head.
Hinder Natural Attack
Hinder Special Ability
Impede Movement
Joint Strike
Low Blow
Sacrificial Critical
Sap
Scar Opponent
Torment Opponent (striking to cause pain)
If you really would like to know more I might suggest reading Dark Mistresses 5/5 star review of our product.
Again I really only stopped by to thank Bporter for pimping our product and saying that it made combat maneuvers very relevant. We cover alot of what people don't like about maneuvers without changing the rules, since as a 3PP we have an obligation to follow the Rules As Written so that everyone can quickly grasp them.
Hmm ... well, bit of a misunderstanding, Quandry. I wasn't aware you'd specifically pinged out one particular person.
Anyway - feint, even as a move action is stupid as, it means you can move action --> standard action, and now your combat round is over. Feint as an "attack action" instead is more in line with how it could/should work, really.
That's mostly the point of what I'm getting at.
Damage and maneuvers ... honestly, w/D20's hit points being SO abstract in nature, it would actually be perfectly fine and certainly more fair to grant them "damage" in addition to the maneuver effects. Especially when charging a feat for their use.
It would also be a very simple change to add to the game. "Manuevers inflict damage as the weapon/shield/whatever used to perform the maneuver would on a normal successful strike."
I just rediscovered that you don't get AoO while flat-footed so if you have a half decent initiative you have a chance to try some different combat maneuvers at the start of combat. (provided your opponent doesn't have combat expertise)This, and in general, I think sometimes people fear AOOs more than they ought. "That provokes an AOO? Then I won't do it."
It's not just the AoO without the improved and greater feats you miss out on that +4 CMB bonus
which tends to pull the success rates of CM's toward 50/50 giving you a fightin chance of getting a benefit.
Stealing that idea.I only have a Combat Manoeuvre provoke an Attack of Opportunity if the player fails the Manoeuvre. (If a PC has taken the Improved [Manoeuvre] feat, then they don't even provoke on a failure).
As such my players are often willing to risk a combat manoeuvre even if they haven't spent feats on it, because they aren't as likely to be immediately punished for it.
Same. A simple, yet profound change.
I only have a Combat Manoeuvre provoke an Attack of Opportunity if the player fails the Manoeuvre. (If a PC has taken the Improved [Manoeuvre] feat, then they don't even provoke on a failure).
As such my players are often willing to risk a combat manoeuvre even if they haven't spent feats on it, because they aren't as likely to be immediately punished for it.
That's kinda putting the cart before the horse.
The DC to succeed at the CM is increased by the damage you take if you provoke an AoO and get hit - so how will you know if you need to increase the DC if you don't ever provoke until after the roll?
I only have a Combat Manoeuvre provoke an Attack of Opportunity if the player fails the Manoeuvre. (If a PC has taken the Improved [Manoeuvre] feat, then they don't even provoke on a failure).
As such my players are often willing to risk a combat manoeuvre even if they haven't spent feats on it, because they aren't as likely to be immediately punished for it.
That's kinda putting the cart before the horse.
The DC to succeed at the CM is increased by the damage you take if you provoke an AoO and get hit - so how will you know if you need to increase the DC if you don't ever provoke until after the roll?
I think the point is that if the DC increases by the damage you take the DC is going to so high that your going to fail except on a natural 20
so what the point of trying in the first place. however if you don't peanlise people for trying they'll be more inclined to do somthign other than whack a mole.
I tend to agree with the OP.
The thing is, with almost every fight in this game, it ends when the monster is dead. Sure, some monsters run away, but many times the PCs just chase them and make them dead anyway.
Yeah, yeah, you could win by grappling and pinning the monster until it surrenders. Or you could win by disarming it 317 times (or until it gives up and goes home). But frankly, most PCs would rather kill most monsters anyway. PCs tend to be heroic and, as heroes, they don't like leaving man-eating monsters behind lest some helpless innocents get eaten. And the less heroic PCs are usually more blood-thirsty.
Besides, there's usually better loot if you kill the monsters rather than letting them run away carrying off your hard earned plunder with them...
That said, every round you spend tripping, grappling, disarming, sundering, etc., is another round you are NOT killing the monsters. This is an important concept so I'll say it again:
Every round spent executing a CMB is a round spent NOT killing the monster.
So, is that a wasted round?
Maybe yes, maybe no. It's certainly wasted if you miss. But to be fair, you could miss with your axe, too. So that's a wash (mostly).
But it might also be wasted if you you succeed. That's the real problem. Suppose you spend your entire round disarming the monster. Then it spends its entire round picking up its weapons. Then you spend your next round disarming it and it spends that round picking up its weapons. Etc. You will never get anywhere. You might be better off just swinging your axe and trying to kill the monster.
Ultimately, whacking the monster with your best damaging attacks is the baseline. Consider what you can do to the monster by chopping it to bits as quickly as possible. How long will the fight last? Now, start pulling off Combat Maneuvers instead of whacking and find out how long the fight lasts.
Almost always, it takes longer.
Is that a bad thing?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Another factor is how many resources you waste. If your mage ally keeps pouring his limited spells/day into your grappled enemy until its dead, and he runs out of spells after just two encounters, then you're probably doing it wrong. More likely, if you waste enough rounds with combat maneuvers, the monster might get in a few extra hits, resulting in you losing more HP and your cleric will have to cast more healing spells, or you'll have to drink more healing potions.
So, the only way to make combat maneuvers work is if they do one of two things;
1. Shorten the entire combat (they almost never do)
2. Prevent the monster from hurting you
#2 there is key.
You must first avoid the AoO - if you take damage every time you try a stunt on a monster, that damage is going to add up. You can't afford that.
Next, you must maximize your chances to pull off the maneuver. If you fail and half your CMB checks, the fight will take forever and the monster will pound on you a lot. Your cleric can't afford that.
The only way to accomplish those two things is to optimize for it. You take several feats to get really good and your favorite CMB trick.
And that is what the OP was talking about. The guy who does this doesn't trip a few monsters at cinematically interesting moments. No, not even close. He trips 800 monsters during the course of his adventuring career. He trips everything. He trips more often than he attacks. It's his schtick. It has to be, because he invested so heavily into it.
Boring. Effective, but boring.
The alternative is the guy who invested heavily into whacking things with his axe who occasionally gets a wild hare and decides to trot out the CMBs on a whim - almost always with unspectacular results, wasted time, and wasted resources.
So, as the OP said, you either optimize it to the point that it becomes routine and boring, or you don't dare use it because it puts you at risk (or a third option, you just don't care and use it anyway and suffer the consequences).
It's too black-and-white. There is very little gray.
Optimize or waste your time. One or the other.
And no, fixing it with more feats is the absolute worst idea - all that does is allow the optimzer to get even more optimized. The guy who prefers to optimize for hack-n-slash is still going to suck at combat maneuvers.
Anyone who wants to put some gray area into this should consider the core system. Either leave it alone and let the non-optimizer use CMB at his own risk, or fix the basic combat mechanics so that the non-optimizer won't have to be crazy to try, and the optimizer could do non-CMB stuff without feeling like he's wasted his investment every time he does.
@BPorter: You mean The Secrets of Martial Mastery that I wrote? (thanks for the pimpage!)
I understand the original posters frustration, and it was why I wrote the Corps a Corps maneuver so that you could make it possible to pull off a "epic" action rather than putting all your eggs in one basket.
Also unlike 3.0 or 3.5 with PFRPG you can attempt a combat maneuver and get hit by the AoO and still attempt your maneuver
Also many of our Maneuvers are attack actions just like Sunder.
Yes, as a matter of fact I am! (You're very welcome -- I thank you for writing it!)
I was/am a big fan of the Iron Heroes combat manuever system and had planned to port it over to my PF game. Your product, however, has supplanted that as it provides a tremendous amount of combat flexibility while building off the CMB & CMD rules of Pathfinder.
There's been a great deal of excellent 3PP PF-products. This one's in the top 2, and ultimately may be #1 as it's more likely to see common use at the RPG table than say a feat-based or class-based product.
|
|
I agree that the solution is definitely not "more feats". If this is indeed a real problem, and if it is to be solved, it should be solved via "more uses out of existing feats" or "consolidating existing feats".
I think if you're going to consolidate some feats for your game, it might be convenient to consolidate the maneuvers after Power Attack:
Improved Power Attack Maneuvers
You may attempt Bull Rush, Overrun, and Sunder maneuvers without provoking attacks of opportunity, and you gain a +2 bonus to your CMB checks when attempting one of these maneuvers.
Whaddya think? Eh?
|
|
I only have a Combat Manoeuvre provoke an Attack of Opportunity if the player fails the Manoeuvre. (If a PC has taken the Improved [Manoeuvre] feat, then they don't even provoke on a failure).
As such my players are often willing to risk a combat manoeuvre even if they haven't spent feats on it, because they aren't as likely to be immediately punished for it.
That's kinda putting the cart before the horse.
The DC to succeed at the CM is increased by the damage you take if you provoke an AoO and get hit - so how will you know if you need to increase the DC if you don't ever provoke until after the roll?
As it is CMB punishes PCs for trying.
My way only punishes them for failing. I didn't even realise that the CMD was increased by damage dealt. That seems... not... good. So I'm not going to implement that.
I really enjoy the fact that my players are unafraid to push, trip, grab, disarm, sunder or just jump-on-and-ride-like-a-pony. How else do you convince NPCs to surrender?
Remove their weapon and drop them to the ground, sword at their throat, unarmed and outmatched? The PCs not only get their gear, they also get that most valuable of treasures: Information about the rest of the dungeon!
IMO, I'd LOVE to see something like that come back where just any attack action normally allowed *could* be used to pull of stuff like say sunder, trip, or a disarm.
You know Speaker in Dreams, I at first thought you were being ironic - but your later posts suggests that you are not.
The maneuvers you list there sunder, trip and disarm are maneuvers that can replace an attack in an iterative attack by the core rules. Unlike bullrush and grapple they are NOT standard action maneuvers.
Naturally if you disarm on your first attack then no penalty is applied, while when disarming with your third attack you do so with -10 to you roll.
|
|
IMO, I'd LOVE to see something like that come back where just any attack action normally allowed *could* be used to pull of stuff like say sunder, trip, or a disarm.You know Speaker in Dreams, I at first thought you were being ironic - but your later posts suggests that you are not.
The maneuvers you list there sunder, trip and disarm are maneuvers that can replace an attack in an iterative attack by the core rules. Unlike bullrush and grapple they are NOT standard action maneuvers.
Naturally if you disarm on your first attack then no penalty is applied, while when disarming with your third attack you do so with -10 to you roll.
Actually as far as I know you never apply a negative to the CMB role so using a third attack is at the same bonus as the first (I seem to recall that either Jason or James even used that example for something you could do in a situation where your 3rd attack has little to no chance of hitting.)
I don't want to rain on your parade but I couldn't disagree more.
In 3.5 the only maneuver anyone ever with ANY frequency did was grapple. Bull-rush, trip, sunder, and disarm were all ignored 99% of the time.
Is it possible to rain on someone's parade with a claim backed up by a completely bogus statistic?
I ran 3.5/PF for a while without attacks of opportunity at all. Combat maneuvers became more widely used as a result. Rather than invent new feats (of which there are already too many), I'd sooner go back to nixing AoOs as they related to combat maneuvers.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
IMO, I'd LOVE to see something like that come back where just any attack action normally allowed *could* be used to pull of stuff like say sunder, trip, or a disarm.You know Speaker in Dreams, I at first thought you were being ironic - but your later posts suggests that you are not.
The maneuvers you list there sunder, trip and disarm are maneuvers that can replace an attack in an iterative attack by the core rules. Unlike bullrush and grapple they are NOT standard action maneuvers.
Naturally if you disarm on your first attack then no penalty is applied, while when disarming with your third attack you do so with -10 to you roll.
No irony or anything - they were just the fist things that came to mind "maneuver-wise" is all.
You already clarified that, earlier, and I responded to that clarification ... why you're going back to the 1st post before any of that was stated is beyond me ... ???
{Feint should still be on that list as well}
It was my first (and up to now only) post in this thread, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Presumably I didn't see that somebody else mentioned the same thing.
DAMAGE causing maneuvers off the top of my head.
Hinder Natural Attack
Hinder Special Ability
Impede Movement
Joint Strike
Low Blow
Sacrificial Critical
Sap
Scar Opponent
Torment Opponent (striking to cause pain)
Cool, sounds like Called Shots implemented as status conditions (and without the bother of specific body part HPs).
I still worry about using CMB for this, namely that CMD can be easier to hit than normal AC in some situations (like at low levels where Med/Hvy Armor/Shield can more than surpass BAB+STR+DEX), so allowing damage to the target`s own HP`s (vs. their possessions ala Sunder) seems problematic. Anyways, sounds like a nice mix of effects, some re-working the `basic` way of doing things (Sap)... If anything I would have combined some (Hinder Nat Attack/ SPec Ability/ the weapon pinning one).then there really isn`t any benefit to being an Attack Action vs. being a Standard Action. ...?8 potential melee attacks in a round vs. 1 standard action was the reason behind many of the attack action manuvers but some of them are standard actions and some of the new feats make them move, swift or immediate actions. Also as an attack action you can perform it as part of an Attack of Opportunity.
Also with abilities like, Ride by attack, Spring Attack and Fly-by Attack you could move perform your maneuver and move again unlike a standard action.
OK, here`s the mis-understanding. Attack Actions are not `any attack`.
They are a specific type of Standard Action, check the Actions in Combat Table.Manuvers usable with ANY attack roll will have the words ¨in place of a (melee) attack¨.
(Though that also signifies using weapon-specific bonuses... Sunder uses an Attack Action but has that wording to benefit from weapon bonuses)
You can search Jason Buhlman and James Jacobs` post history for `attack action`, or look up d20pfsrd.com`s FAQ (where the subject is discussed under Vital Strike).
But basically, SINCE IT *IS* A STANDARD ACTION, you will only be making an Attack Action Maneuver when you could make a Standard Action Maneuver anyways, which was my point above.
As I did mention, Paizo COULD Errata Spring Attack to allow only an Attack Action (it currently doesn`t mention action type at all), which WOULD create a case where one could do Attack Action Maneuvers but not Standard Action Maneuvers, but that currently isn`t the case. Ride by Attack is all about doing a CHARGE attack in the middle of movement, and that isn`t an Attack Action, and Fly-by Attack has always allowed ANY Standard Action (spellcasting, Supernatural ability included), so I don`t see that as a case where Attack Action / Standard Action Maneuvers would have any difference.
In the end, I don`t think this is even ultimately your ¨fault¨, because Paizo was the one who published a rule-set that hinged on such a fragile and non-obvious distinction, and further has been aware of the confusion since the first Core Rulebook was published, but still hasn`t issued an official Errata on the subject, much less rolled that into their latest print-run. Paizo`s position has been ¨there may be errors, but we`ll get to them eventually, meanwhile people can still play the game¨. But in this case we have 3PP material being published with the offical PRPG-compatable logo, which is built upon a faulty reading of core rules concepts... Obviously, unless Paizo wants to dedicate staff time to `audit` 3PP material for rules compliance, SOME stuff is going to clash with the RAW/RAI, but this is something that was KNOWN to be confusing for alot people since the first printing, yet still hasn`t been Errata`d... :-(