|
Specifically:
1. Does making the combat maneuver check break invisibility?
2. Similarily, does making this check benefit +2 from the invisibility vs. sighted opponents?
3. Can this check benefit from the Monk Maneuver Master
By RAW, I would figure that this is not a combat maneuver, just the check, and the answer line would be No, No, No, and the invisibility would only be broken on the first actual attack? I can't figure out the intent here.
4. Slightly related question but not specific to this ability, am I correct in that being invisible only denies dex to AC, but doesn't remove dex from CMD?
5. There was a thread about this, but can I make the check against different opponents until I either run out of opponents, or pass the check?
6. Am I forced to charge if I fail the check?
1. i would say no if it is a check and not an attack.
2. again no for the same reason
3. i would say yes after reading the archetype
Miscellaneous Modifiers
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.
4. ^
5. it does not list an action type, so i would say yes6. again i would say no.
these are just my very exhausted opinions, except #4 which i was pretty sure the lost everything along with ac vs invisible attackers.
|
|
Miscellaneous Modifiers
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.
4. ^
flat-footed -> denied dex to AC
flat-footed -> denied dex to CMDinvisibility -> target denied dex to AC
but I can't find anywhere that it would say:
denied dex to AC -> denied dex to CMD, or
invisibility -> target denied dex to CMD, or
invisibility -> target flat-footed
The last one wouldn't really make sense either. Flat-footed is a global condition of an entity: if I'm flat-footed, I'm always flat-footed to everyone. Whereas I can be denied my dex to AC against some opponents but not against others.
but I can't find anywhere that it would say:
denied dex to AC -> denied dex to CMD, or
invisibility -> target denied dex to CMD, or
invisibility -> target flat-footed
You are not considered flat-footed when a condition cause you to be denied your Dexterity bonus to AC. This is a common mistake that even the developers have made.
Only specific case where you are called out as being flat-footed are you flat-footed, but people often use the term as shorthand for being denied your dexterity bonus to AC, which leads to this confusion.
1. Does making the combat maneuver check break invisibility?
"Combat Maneuver: This is an action taken in combat that does not directly cause harm to your opponent, such as attempting to trip him, disarm him, or grapple with him (see Chapter 8). (PFRPG 11)"
"Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. (PFRPG 302)"
Not that I entirely agree with that line of reasoning. "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. (PFRPG 199)" That sounds suspiciously like an attack to me.
2. Similarily, does making this check benefit +2 from the invisibility vs. sighted opponents?
Yes. "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. (PFRPG 199)"
3. Can this check benefit from the Monk Maneuver Master
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. I'd call it a combat maneuver.
4. Slightly related question but not specific to this ability, am I correct in that being invisible only denies dex to AC, but doesn't remove dex from CMD?
"Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD."
I would call being denied your dexterity bonus to AC a 'penalty.' Especially, since it calls out that a flat-footed creature would apply this 'penalty.'
5. There was a thread about this, but can I make the check against different opponents until I either run out of opponents, or pass the check?
The feat is poorly written. I see it as you charge an opponent and make a combat maneuver against that person. If you succeed then you get your full attack as a bonus.
6. Am I forced to charge if I fail the check?
Same as #5. I don't see how you can make a combat maneuver (at least the standard ones) without getting into melee range. Charging requires at least 10' of movement.
this is true. i have also been unable to find specifics in reference to cmd question, but i did notice that the condition of flat footed is denied dex bonus AND cannot make AoOs, so its different that just no dex bonus. i honestly cant find it anywhere.
Granted combat maneuver a not that harmful it is still a direct attack to a target that should brake invisible. Flat foot is denied Dex to the CMD (core book 199)
5. There was a thread about this, but can I make the check against different opponents until I either run out of opponents, or pass the check?The feat is poorly written. I see it as you charge an opponent and make a combat maneuver against that person. If you succeed then you get your full attack as a bonus.
6. Am I forced to charge if I fail the check?Same as #5. I don't see how you can make a combat maneuver...
I disagree. I think the tiger trance is fairly straightforward as far as the order of operations goes. It tells you to make the check against an enemy within charge range and if successful you MAY charge them. It does not say "when you charge an enemy you make make a combat maneuver check; if successful you may make a full attack."
As to whether or not you could do it multiple times each round? Well, I agree that, per RAW it doesn't give an action type. This seems to me like DM-option territory; personally, I don't think it would be broken to allow you to make the check against each viable target in one round, but I wouldn't hold it against anyone who disallows it.
|
|
1. Does making the combat maneuver check break invisibility?"Combat Maneuver: This is an action taken in combat that does not directly cause harm to your opponent, such as attempting to trip him, disarm him, or grapple with him (see Chapter 8). (PFRPG 11)"
"Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. (PFRPG 302)"
Not that I entirely agree with that line of reasoning. "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. (PFRPG 199)" That sounds suspiciously like an attack to me.
Yeah, but the thing here is that it's not obvious if combat maneuver check is a Combat Maneuver in itself. Usually combat maneuvers are listed or separately specifically stated to be combat maneuvers. In this case, this is just a check. Certainly, to a point it looks like a combat maneuver, but in other aspects it doesn't. The check itself happens when far away, so it's quite different from the typical maneuvers which require interaction. This can be a hint towards RAI: it can be that the intent is that you charge first, then make the maneuver to see if you get full attack. But then the ability is rather poor.
Overall, depending on the interpretation, this ability can range from strong ability to near useless. The limited rounds on the trances, and the fact that it takes a full-round action to enter one is a big drawback (you cannot enter the trance in the surprise round completely to charge on the next round). If you can try the maneuver check against many opponents, it's somewhat useful, but if it's a full-blown maneuver against a single target you're forced to charge, you could just as well position yourself in the surprise round and full attack on the next.
This one is looking poorer and poorer the more I think about it...