I recently suggested this possible change to my gaming group and the idea was voted down 3 to 2. I am not going to try and sway that decision by anything said here, I am just curious what others might think.
So here goes...
My suggestion was that combat maneuvers can be a fun mechanic that adds interesting angles to combat. The problem is, with feats coming at such a premium and with how situational these maneuvers can be they are rarely ever taken (with the obvious exception of trip and grapple, especially for monks). And if you do not take the feat, actually pulling off one of these maneuvers is a near impossibility with the DC you will have after adding the damage you take from the AO to the dificulty.
My suggestion was to make all of the maneuvers only provoke if the CMB roll is failed. Then if you also take the feat you still get your +2 to CMB and CMD and also do not provoke if you fail.
I was just thinking this would open up a lot of options to combat. I dont think you would see a drastic increase in people using combat maneuvers as action economy would still better be served with damage, but it might raise the fun level.
Any thoughts?
My suggestion was to make all of the maneuvers only provoke if the CMB roll is failed. Then if you also take the feat you still get your +2 to CMB and CMD and also do not provoke if you fail.
Considering that by doing this, you also avoid the penalty to your CM (damage from the AoO), it makes it a bit too easy.
In my opinion, combat maneuvers aren't just fun little effects that add to the combat, they're pretty essential to it. So making it this much easier is almost like giving every class a good BAB. As you get a feat every second level, fighters get lots of bonus feats etc, true combat specialists should still have enough of them available. Fighters are better at clever combat than barbarians or paladins, after all. (Never mind monsters…)
So I'd say that this rule change is a bit too good. If you want the odd combat maneuver even for less martial professions, you could ditch the Power Attack / Combat Expertise prerequisites. This way you still have to pay for a feat, but at least not two, if you don't need the feat chain entry feat.
We are about to finish playing CotCT (level 1-15). The only CM feat that anyone took was my rogue, who took agile maneuvers for the +5 or so from using dex instead of strength.
I think we misread the rules and did not add the AoO damage to the target's CMD. It's also possible that most of the AoO missed or the target was not armed and did not get to make an attack.
My rogue probably tried to trip about 5 enemies with the AoO from when they tried to flee the battle. There were also a few grapple attempts, but probably less than 5. The rogue also tried blinding one opponent that he could not sneak attack.
I probably would have tried a few more times if succeeding at the roll would have prevented the AoO, but even without having to worry about the damage increasing the CMD, I would say that it is rare that a non-focused build attempts a combat maneuver.
Considering that by doing this, you also avoid the penalty to your CM (damage from the AoO), it makes it a bit too easy.
Have you noticed that the damage from the AO generally makes it basically require a natural 20 to succeed at the maneuver?
I ran numerous sessions of 3.5 using combat maneuver mechanics and of PF, both without any AoO at all. Worked just fine.
Have you noticed that the damage from the AO generally makes it basically require a natural 20 to succeed at the maneuver?
No, that hasn't been the experience in my group at all. This would assume that there's a high chance of getting hit on AoOs and that the average damage equals the CMB. This far, the sorcerer in our group doesn't try to disarm ogres…
First of all, quite often combat maneuvers are attempted against inferior foes anyway. Overrun to get past henchman and to the Big Bad in the background. Grapples, trip & disarm to restrain. Then, it happens quite frequently that the opponent doesn't even have the option of counter-attacking, if they're unarmed or already made on AoO (without Combat Reflexes, of course). You might even do that intentionally, if you have someone with a high AC and Mobility. Distract the opponent while setting up flaning, then disarm/sunder/trip.
Yes, for an evenly-matched combat, it's probably too risky. But unless you're really sure of your abilities, you shouldn't risk too much against opponents on the same skill level as yours anyway, so I'm perfectly fine with that. They're usually pretty great for last acts of desperation, though. If it's likely that he finishes you on his next round, you might as well risk the AoO anyway if you can disable your foe.
Bull rushes are quite interesting in this respect. As opposed to Sunder/Trip, I've had no player who ever took Improved Bull Rush, so it's almost always a big risk. On the other hand, it might as well end the fight in one single round, if someone's pushed over a ledge.
Combat maneuvers tend to happen when the area is interesting, there are events in the fight (i.e. the situation changes, so no 3-round slug fests) and if there are more enemies moving about. If all you've got is a big room with one, single, powerful opponent, nobody can or will risk it.
You might call me a mean DM, but with the more lenient sunder and disarm rules, my NPCs will maneuver like never before. Shred their cloaks of protection, my troll minions!
I ran numerous sessions of 3.5 using combat maneuver mechanics and of PF, both without any AoO at all. Worked just fine.
So you ran with no AOs at all. Can you expand on this? What were some of the specific situations you ran into?
Have you noticed that the damage from the AO generally makes it basically require a natural 20 to succeed at the maneuver?No, that hasn't been the experience in my group at all. This would assume that there's a high chance of getting hit on AoOs and that the average damage equals the CMB. This far, the sorcerer in our group doesn't try to disarm ogres…
So basically, if you try maneuvers against any enemy that is weaker than you, who does not pose any threat to the party then the maneuvers work fine? That just seems a little anti climactic.
But I do like a point you made, though it is minor metagaming to a point. If you wait till an enemy uses their AO for the round (assuming they dont have combat reflexs) then you can attempt your maneuver without fear.
It has been my experience that very few enemies are equipped in ways that do not allow them an AO. Most things that are unarmed have improved unarmed and most things that are using ranged attacks switch to some form of melee attack when you get close.
Thank you for your input, this is an interesting topic. I am just not seeing any way that this would damage the balance of power in the game.
Sort of like the "free feats" thread that is also going on.
Have you noticed that the damage from the AO generally makes it basically require a natural 20 to succeed at the maneuver?No, that hasn't been the experience in my group at all. This would assume that there's a high chance of getting hit on AoOs and that the average damage equals the CMB. This far, the sorcerer in our group doesn't try to disarm ogres…
So basically, if you try maneuvers against any enemy that is weaker than you, who does not pose any threat to the party then the maneuvers work fine? That just seems a little anti climactic.
But I do like a point you made, though it is minor metagaming to a point. If you wait till an enemy uses their AO for the round (assuming they dont have combat reflexs) then you can attempt your maneuver without fear.
It has been my experience that very few enemies are equipped in ways that do not allow them an AO. Most things that are unarmed have improved unarmed and most things that are using ranged attacks switch to some form of melee attack when you get close.
Thank you for your input, this is an interesting topic. I am just not seeing any way that this would damage the balance of power in the game.
Sort of like the "free feats" thread that is also going on.
I play combat maneuvers as written, but I don't think there's any problem with tinkering with the system really. If you take away AoOs it wouldn't really break anything. But as the rules stand, I as GM use them alot on the players because they're fun. You don't just have to do them on weak opponents… you could do them on challenging opponents that have that as a weakness, like a wizard or an archer. You can do them when no AoO is available. I've had several melee-based classes move up to a spell caster and just grab them (their AoOs almost never hit and even if they do, it often doesn't add much to the DC attempt).
It has been my experience that very few enemies are equipped in ways that do not allow them an AO. Most things that are unarmed have improved unarmed and most things that are using ranged attacks switch to some form of melee attack when you get close.
It's not that uncommon for an enemy to not be able to take an AoO. If you move up to an archer, he is still holding his bow, so there is no AoO. A sorcerer or wizard will often not have a weapon in hand, even if you have been standing next to them.
@mhd: If your sorcerer is a typical sorcerer build (dumped strength, possibly small size), he probably won't succeed at disarming the ogre even without an AoO.
It's not that uncommon for an enemy to not be able to take an AoO. If you move up to an archer, he is still holding his bow, so there is no AoO. A sorcerer or wizard will often not have a weapon in hand, even if you have been standing next to them.
@mhd: If your sorcerer is a typical sorcerer build (dumped strength, possibly small size), he probably won't succeed at disarming the ogre even without an AoO.
A properly geared archer is not helpless in melee. You still have gauntlets, armor spikes, or unarmed strikes (though the latter requires either a feat or monk levels, generally). This is likewise true with moving inside the reach of a warrior using a pole-arm; you're just going to get into reach of his "always equipped" weapons.
Such weapons are also usable during a grapple. ^_^
Personally, I have no problem with how combat maneuvers work as-is. Currently the best way to preform combat maneuvers is generally attacking down, against opponents who have a slower BAB progression, or attacking up, by spamming certain combat maneuvers (with aid another) against stronger enemies. With the former, you can likely pin or invalidate their existence in combat with only a check or two, while the latter can rob an enemy of combat options and armor class.
The only thing I could see improving the combat maneuver game is removing the defensive training feat. Taking 1 feat to give wizards the equivalent of a fighter's full BAB for their CMD is in bad form, in my opinion.
So basically, if you try maneuvers against any enemy that is weaker than you, who does not pose any threat to the party then the maneuvers work fine? That just seems a little anti climactic.
If you're not trained how to do the maneuvers, and there's nothing major on the line, it might not be worth the risks. It's just like running in the midst of melee when you've got a lot less hit points than anyone else.
That's the basic point of feats: If you have them, you either can do things that no one else can or you're at least a lot better than people without them. So yes, it is a bit of a gamble if you're not very good at a combat maneuver. Which just makes it so much more interesting when life is on the line and there's a last ditch effort…
So no, in my campaign they're not just reserved for inferior combatants (which by the way doesn't imply that they don't threaten the party), it's just that in this situation it's less of a risk.
Making everything too easy is anti-climactic.
It has been my experience that very few enemies are equipped in ways that do not allow them an AO. Most things that are unarmed have improved unarmed and most things that are using ranged attacks switch to some form of melee attack when you get close.
Monsters usually have natural attacks, but Improved Unarmed is rare outside of monks and brawlers. And if you give it to anyone but those, they might get their AoO, but that's not a huge hit.
And yes, you might just get one unopposed CM when you moved close, but isn't that enough? Do you want people to trip/disarm all the time?
If your sorcerer is a typical sorcerer build (dumped strength, possibly small size), he probably won't succeed at disarming the ogre even without an AoO.
Well, I'd say that most parties won't ever get in a situation where the sorcerer has run out of spells and thus wants to dirty his robes… Having said that, we've got a nordic sorcerer in our midst, who might even succeed at the odd combat maneuver. Gnomes and elves on the other hand…
I guess more likely candidates are the more feat-deprived combat characters, barbarians, rangers, clerics, paladins… One has to consider that feats is what powers the fighter, even in PF. So if one wants to change CM rules, the advantage of a feat still has to be there, or else the poor ol' fightey-dude gets the shaft once again. Considering that a lot of other classes have comparable attack bonuses, they'd be likely to succeed in combat maneuvers quite often (especially if there's no damage penalty anymore). So a CM feat devolves into a "CM focus" feat with a measly +2 bonus.
Personally, I have no problem with how combat maneuvers work as-is. Currently the best way to preform combat maneuvers is generally attacking down, against opponents who have a slower BAB progression, or attacking up, by spamming certain combat maneuvers (with aid another) against stronger enemies. With the former, you can likely pin or invalidate their existence in combat with only a check or two, while the latter can rob an enemy of combat options and armor class.The only thing I could see improving the combat maneuver game is removing the defensive training feat. Taking 1 feat to give wizards the equivalent of a fighter's full BAB for their CMD is in bad form, in my opinion.
This is pretty much my experience, defensive training included.
*looks at the camera*
And, rimember kids: if he's flat footed, the maneuver is far more likely to land, regardless the feats you have.
So you ran with no AOs at all. Can you expand on this? What were some of the specific situations you ran into?
Well, let me try to hit some of the highlights:
1. I retooled a few feats. Other feats just became obsolete, such as Combat Reflexes.
2. About half of my players just couldn't get rid of the "avoid AoO at all costs" mindset ingrained by 3.0/3.5. The other half embraced the freedom to move without having to worry about AoO.
3. Combat maneuvers got used more by the half of the players that embraced the newfound freedom. This made about half of the combats more dynamic.
4. The lack of AoO made casters and ranged combatants a bit more dangerous. No more having to cast defensively or 5-foot step back before casting. On the flip side, I did have one fight end up with two psions grappling an enemy sorcerer and pinning him until he could be cudgeled to death. Readied actions also became more desirable.
5. The real time devoted to combats during teh game decreased. I can't say to what extent this was due to elminiating AoO because I implemented other changes as well, but in 3.0/3.5, AoO were often a time waster.
Most combat maneuvers I've seen are against flat-footed opponents (don't get AoO without combat reflexes feat), against opponents who have already used up their AoOs for the round, or with reach weapons against opponents who don't have reach.
In each of these instances you can do the maneuver without fear of the AoO.
My Dragon Disciple with flyby attack and quickened true strike would like to have a word with you about CM's and how much fun they are, even without the feats.
There are plenty of times and ways to mitigate the damage penalty to combat maneuvers. Players (myself included) are a bit prickly when it comes to exposing themselves to damage or moving out of the comfort zone of the "build" they have made for themselves. I wish I had a good way to suggest to encourage thier use without changing the RAW (if only the Hero points system in the APG had a healing option for thier use).
My suggestion was to make all of the maneuvers only provoke if the CMB roll is failed. Then if you also take the feat you still get your +2 to CMB and CMD and also do not provoke if you fail.
I was just thinking this would open up a lot of options to combat. I dont think you would see a drastic increase in people using combat maneuvers as action economy would still better be served with damage, but it might raise the fun level.
Any thoughts?
I use this method since Pathfinder was published.
It makes a lot more sense, since if you are trying a maneuver, you are a clear menace and you are on the offensive, so you are not really leaving an opening for the enemy to strike back at you... unless you fail and find yourself out of position.I'm also thinking about reducing the number of feats to master maneuvers. I will surely fuse together the "improved" versions to some degree (for example "Forceful Maneuvers" to comprehend the benefits from Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder and Improved Drag).
This for two reasons: first, the reduced benefit of taking such feats since you provoke an AoO only if you fail the maneuver, and second, to allow characters to be good at more than just a single maneuver or two (with just 10 feats in 20 levels, having to spend 3 just to master a single maneuver is a "no way" for many players).
I could also substitute the starting feat prerequisite (Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Improved Unarmed Strike) of such feats with some non-feat prerequisite (or no requisite at all), for the same reason. This would allow a character to master a group of related maneuvers with a reasonable number of feats (and a fighter to master all of them, if so he wishes, since he's the master of combat techniques).
The "Greater" feats would stay as they are, just with updated prerequisites, since they represent the true maneuver specialization.
Congratulations on reviving a 3 year, 4 month, 4 week, and 2 day old thread