Unlike a basic attack or a spell, combat maneuvers are confronted by an opposing force, but the current combat maneuver rules lack some of that flavor. Combat Maneuver Defense feels like another form of AC with a different outcome, and it annoyed me that the Combat Maneuver Bonus ignored Dexterity.
I have been testing a house rule that adds that flavor and provides my PC's with a sense of agency. It essentially combines the PFRG approach with the 3.5 design. All combat maneuvers are opposed rolls using CMB except that CMB now adds Dexterity, and they still provoke attacks of opportunity.
CMB = Base Attack Bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
The only thing you have to watch out for, depending on the combat maneuver (bull rush, drag, trip, disarm), is whether the attacker won by 5 or more or lost by 10 or more.
I have found in play that combat maneuvers are resolved quickly this way especially since the rolls are simultaneous and CMB's don't change as often as other forms of attack and the results are on the table. As a GM, I have found that the extra d20 roll is worth not having to check a character sheet for CMD, and players only having to remember one number. Because of this, player's are more inclined to try combat maneuvers which breaks the monotony of basic attacks and adds variety and spice to combat. On the receiving end, they enjoy getting to roll defensively rather than an automatic result especially if their foe has the appropriate improved feat.
On the flavor end, grapples now have a sense of struggle, and that sly rogue can disarm as well as the hulking barbarian. I have also added feint and parry (from the duelist prestige class) as combat maneuvers, so they use CMB instead of their standard ruling. Is anybody else tinkering with combat maneuvers?
|
Unlike a basic attack or a spell, combat maneuvers are confronted by an opposing force, but the current combat maneuver rules lack some of that flavor. Combat Maneuver Defense feels like another form of AC with a different outcome, and it annoyed me that the Combat Maneuver Bonus ignored Dexterity.
I have been testing a house rule that adds that flavor and provides my PC's with a sense of agency. It essentially combines the PFRG approach with the 3.5 design. All combat maneuvers are opposed rolls using CMB except that CMB now adds Dexterity, and they still provoke attacks of opportunity.
CMB = Base Attack Bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
The only thing you have to watch out for, depending on the combat maneuver (bull rush, drag, trip, disarm), is whether the attacker won by 5 or more or lost by 10 or more.
I have found in play that combat maneuvers are resolved quickly this way especially since the rolls are simultaneous and CMB's don't change as often as other forms of attack and the results are on the table. As a GM, I have found that the extra d20 roll is worth not having to check a character sheet for CMD, and players only having to remember one number. Because of this, player's are more inclined to try combat maneuvers which breaks the monotony of basic attacks and adds variety and spice to combat. On the receiving end, they enjoy getting to roll defensively rather than an automatic result especially if their foe has the appropriate improved feat.
On the flavor end, grapples now have a sense of struggle, and that sly rogue can disarm as well as the hulking barbarian. I have also added feint and parry (from the duelist prestige class) as combat maneuvers, so they use CMB instead of their standard ruling. Is anybody else tinkering with combat maneuvers?
so you basically went back to 3.5s version.
i'djust take the 10 from cmd and let them roll a d20 when they defend
Well, I did say I combined the two, but more specifically I took the opposed rolls of 3.5 and the uniformity of pathfinder. In 3.5 you always had to check the special attack to see if it was an attack roll or a strength roll or something else altogether. In addition, I accounted for Dexterity which PFRG only accounts for on the defensive end and 3.5 only accounted for on the defensive end of Overrun and even then you had to choose between Dexterity and Strength. It's not wholly new; it's slightly adapted hence a houserule.
Furthermore, I can always take 10... I'm the DM, but then to be fair I'd have to allow my players to do the same which would make the outcome a forgone conclusion, and time wasted as an indecisive player decides whether to roll or take 10. It's just easier to remember one bonus (or possibly a negative) and let the dice fly. Plus when we roll out in the open for a combat maneuver, it feels like a contest, and combat maneuvers almost never need to be fudged so there is no reason not to.