Hi,
I've been playing in 3 APs (CotCT, Skull & Shackles and Kingmaker) for some time now, and I've noticed that at no time during the course of these adventures has my character been targeted by a trip, disarm or sunder combat manoeuvers.
I was wondering if this is attributable to my DMs (two beginners with the Pathfinder system, and one middle-experienced), which are wary of/unfamiliar with such manoeuvers, or if the APs just offer "vanilla" options in terms of combat.
No spoilers about these APs please :-), but the answer to that question genuinely interests me.
Not really no, there are tactics for the monsters NPC's but its only one possible way to deal with the situation, more like pointers really.
As any GM will tell you those players are pseky things and will 9 times out of 10 do something you have not planned for (create pit anyone?). Therefore when it comes to combat yes you can have a round by round plan for the BBEG or monster of the night but at the end of the day its the players that dictate how combat is run.
In my experience round 1 follow written tactic, round 2 if you are lucky but normaly its throw written tactics out the window as players have done something unpredictable...improvise, adapt, look at BBEG/Monster stats and do something else.
In other words yes it probably is the inexperianced GM's not using them. But they can be quiet compliacted to learn. I'm sure given time once they have mastered the basic combat system they will start to add some in, indead some monsters such as snakes or giant frogs have grab, and constrict so grapple would need to be implimented for these critters at the very least.
Grab and Constrict are frequently used at the tables I play in.
I agree that the frequency of NPCs performing combat manoeuvers is probably related to the GM's familiarity with the basic combat system.
trip : often enough the most likely to be used (wolves etc.). Troble is the rules question of what exactly happens if you a get tripped again and b having enough people arund to to deliver AoOs to make it worthwhile
Sunder : makes you massively unpopular with your players
Disarm : hardly worth it, unless to show off or in specific duels/situations
Feint : can be... extremely brutal at higher levels
Overrun : ? never seen
Bull Rush : having had at least three characters killed by this, I would say, yes, it is used and , with some forethought by the GMis very deadly. ledges, paths over and along lava,
Nevermind, one of these occured with a telekinesis ring ( spell is equally nice), and you will need some deadly medium to bull rush stuff into. Ever tossed a high level mage straight into some magma ?
Friend's group won the "Mutiny" on the Wormwood
Grab : don't get me started. Killer
Brace vs. charge ? given the range of lances.... *facepalm*
Sunder : makes you massively unpopular with your players
Pretty much this. I consider doing it now and again, but I know if GMs did it to my equipment, I'd be rather unhappy, especially at lower levels.
Disarm : hardly worth it, unless to show off or in specific duels/situations
One-handed enemies would enjoy this, but the AoO can be deadly to said enemy, especially if they're being flanked by several PCs and the Disarm is more of a desperation attempt than "oh, I need to make his weapon mine".
Disarm : hardly worth it, unless to show off or in specific duels/situations
Actually, it's totally worthwhile against a PC with multiple attacks. Consider this situation from an AP I ran not long ago: hasted dwarf fighter PC with an adamantine magic weapon, AC 38 and a serious hate for giants, vs. a rune giant.
If I let the dwarf do his thing, he's going to unload 4 or 5 attacks on the giant, very likely doing 80-100 points of damage per round without breaking a sweat. At that rate, the giant has 3-4 rounds to live, assuming this is a one-on-one fight.
Disarm can be done in place of a melee attack, but doesn't require that you be engaged in an Attack Action (as distinct from a Full-Round Action); the giant's best bet is to attack at +27, attack at +22, then disarm the dwarf with a +34 CMB rather than take his third attack at +17. That will provoke one AOO from the dwarf, but on the subsequent round, he must use a Move action to pick up his axe -- which provokes an AOO from the giant -- and having used that Move action can no longer Full Attack, which also negates the benefit of being hasted.
Rinse and repeat every round, and the giant gets three attacks each round (including the AOO, at +27) at +27/+22 (4d6+22/17–20), while the dwarf gets two.
|
Disarm : hardly worth it, unless to show off or in specific duels/situations
Disarm can be particularly effective from GROUPS of intelligent NPCs.
Fighter with combat reflexes blocking your way? One baddie runs up, soaks the AO and disarms the fighter. Rest of baddies run passed (bonus points if they make faces as they run by) to HAMMER the squishy casters the fighter is guarding.
|
I'm trying to come up with good examples of situations where sunder is a better choice than disarm.
- You have Imp. Sunder as a feat and not Imp. Disarm; duh. And since the prerequisites of Sunder are easier to stomach, that's semi-plausible.
- It's armor or a spell component pouch you're targeting. But how often do you really need to sunder armor? It doesn't work against natural armor, and clever spellcasters will have a backup component pouch.
- You just want to destroy, and have too many adamantine weapons.
- The enemy is somehow able to retrieve his weapons way too quickly, or has some equipment that prevents disarming.
But apart from those situations, sunder seems a poor tactic;
- Against weapons worth taking away, it may take several attacks to succeed. Magic/Adamantine weapons tend to be tough.
- You're destroying your loot. If that weapon is important enough to take away, it's worthwhile loot.
I haven't seen sunder used in practice a lot; maybe it's easier than I think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best uses I've seen of disarm:
- Remove a potion from the enemy's hand before he gets a chance to drink it (step up + combat reflexes makes this especially devastating)
- Relieve the evil cleric of his holy symbol
- Take away a caster's bonded item
As already noted, most enemies don't use combat maneuvers, since there's a feat investment in being any good with them. A lot of combat maneuvers also require standard actions to do, meaning that it's usually more practical to just beat someone to death.
Now, some APs will have enemies that are good at maneuvers. For example, book 4 of Jade Regent has monks with improved disarm. My fighter with his very high DC vs. disarm actually got disarmed by one of those monks doing a flurry and continuing to make disarm attempts until she rolled a 20. At which point she threw my weapon down a pit. That was annoying.
An important thing to remember is that if you attempt a combat maneuver without having the appropriate feat or ability and take the AoO, any damage from the AoO is also applied as penalty to the check.
Damon, I'm pretty sure a CMB check used in place of an iterative attack still suffers the iterative attack penalty. Now, PCs who aren't monks or fighters tend to have miserably low CMDs, so a +24 would do the the trick just fine.
If you play Carrion Crown, you'll get enough bull rush attempts to last a lifetime...
:-/
Best uses I've seen of disarm:
- Remove a potion from the enemy's hand before he gets a chance to drink it (step up + combat reflexes makes this especially devastating)
- Relieve the evil cleric of his holy symbol
- Take away a caster's bonded item
Those are actually pretty smart. My own group of players has yet to uncover the usefulness (or uselessness) of Combat Maneuvers. I do find the really interesting from a mechanical and also a narrative point of view. However, does the feat tax (combat expertise) pay out. Would it unbalance the game to allow people to pick the improved "insert combat maneuver here" ?
Those are actually pretty smart. My own group of players has yet to uncover the usefulness (or uselessness) of Combat Maneuvers. I do find the really interesting from a mechanical and also a narrative point of view. However, does the feat tax (combat expertise) pay out. Would it unbalance the game to allow people to pick the improved "insert combat maneuver here" ?
Combat expertise is actually a good feat. The defense numbers look small, but if you can combine them with already having a good AC it gets pretty mean. My fighter in Jade Regent's been in a number of combats where expertise reduced the chance he could be hit from about 20% to 5%.
Combat expertise being the gateway also rewards melee characters for not dumping Int. The maneuver feats behind the expertise gate, especially the greater maneuver feats, can swiftly change a battle. For example, Greater Trip and Greater Reposition allow opportunity attacks vs. the victims. Based on your party composition, that can allow someone to indirectly deal catastrophic damage with a single roll.
So whether removing the gateway would cause any problems for your game would probably depend on your players, and whether they get the opportunities now available to them.
My fighter in Jade Regent has been picking up all of the feats for Reposition, Trip, and Disarm, and his ability to shut down opponents is fantastic. The various giants and oni we run across rarely get to keep their weapons for longer than the 1st round, and by the next round they're usually prone and tossed into flanking with the rogue, or flung past the inquisitor and her barbarian cohort. Repositioning enemies to where the rogue can remove their spleen is usually referred to as "The Woodchipper."
Disarm can be done in place of a melee attack, but doesn't require that you be engaged in an Attack Action (as distinct from a Full-Round Action); the giant's best bet is to attack at +27, attack at +22, then disarm the dwarf with a +34 CMB rather than take his third attack at +17. That will provoke one AOO from the dwarf, but on the subsequent round, he must use a Move action to pick up his axe -- which provokes an AOO from the giant -- and having used that Move action can no longer Full Attack, which also negates the benefit of being hasted.
Note that if the rune giant uses his third iterative attack to attempt a disarm, he's taking a -10 to his CMB, so it'd only be +24, not +34. Also, if the rune giant were smart, he'd simply 5-foot-step away from the dwarf and the disarm wouldn't provoke, since he has plenty of reach.
I'm a prolific user of the combat maneuvers. I make a point of having a post-it note with at least four of them written on it, and I do my best to use those maneuvers in the course of the evening's session.
Of the full list of the PC's foes, the number of them that are:
A: tactically brilliant
B: able to view combat from a remote 3rd person perspective, and
C: aware of the tactics of both the PCs and the alien intelligences controlling them from beyond the cosmos
is basically 0, so there is always room for a mistake or less than optimal tactical choice.
That said, I've had bull rushes that ended up with the wizard stuck in a corner for a full attack, trips that prevent the cleric from reaching a dying companion, dirty trick flank gang-ups that turn a pair of EL-2 rogues into a murdermachine, and one overrun that left a fighter next in line, instead of the ogre, for an advancing gelatinous cube.
The final boss in Legacy of Fire makes for awesome sunder hijinks, since his feat/strength/weapon loadout makes him pretty much guaranteed to break a weapon each round, unless PCs are lucky or prepared. Only thing that spared the paladins weapon was divine bond making it have a higher enhancement bonus.
Note that if the rune giant uses his third iterative attack to attempt a disarm, he's taking a -10 to his CMB, so it'd only be +24, not +34. Also, if the rune giant were smart, he'd simply 5-foot-step away from the dwarf and the disarm wouldn't provoke, since he has plenty of reach.
My bad. Well, +24 on the CM is still better than +17 on the 3rd attack.
As far as the reach thing goes, rune giants also have air walk as a constant ability; for some of the encounters the giants hovered just out of PC reach while bashing them. Somehow it seemed especially cruel to do that to a dwarf, though. Gotta give the guy an outlet for all that giant-hate. :)
I honestly never knew that you could do a Disarm attempt in place of ONE attack. I thought it went in place of ALL attacks. At a -10 penalty? That's not terrible, honestly. I'll need to keep that in mind..
It's a -10 penalty in that situation because it was replaced his third iterative attack. If it was done replacing his second attack, it would be at a -5. Replacing his first attack would have no penalty.
I was wondering if this is attributable to my DMs (two beginners with the Pathfinder system, and one middle-experienced), which are wary of/unfamiliar with such manoeuvers, or if the APs just offer "vanilla" options in terms of combat.
It has nothing to do with your GM. In general the authors make cookie cutter NPCs that have feats such as Toughness, Improved Init, and Iron Will, which prevents NPCs from having interesting builds where they could possibly take advantage of combat maneuvers like the ones you suggested.
It's a pet peeve of mine and I often end up rewriting NPCs for this very reason.
This thread has given me some good ideas as a GM.
How NPCs are built (usually without Improved Maneuver Feats) definitely impacts the presence of CMBs, but that isn't enough to exclude their usage completely: any attack with reach advantage will prevent the target from taking the AoO for an un-improved maneuver, and any time you are attacking a flat-footed opponent they also cannot take an AoO against you. So all those situations, which are not that uncommon, are prime situations to use CMBs with NPCs/monsters not necessarily built around performing CMBs. Remember that most attack modifiers apply to CMBs so flanking, higher ground, etc is just as useful for CMBs as normal attacks. But if the NPC/Monster goal is to kill the PCs, they have damaging attacks that are very effective at that, and normal attacks have equal or better 'action economy' (some CMBs are not in place of an attack, and have special action requirements ala Standard Action vs. any attack which can be via Full Attack, Cleave, AoO, etc), choosing to do a CMB in that situation may simply not be the logical tactic to use. But when CMBs can aid the NPC/Monster's tactical situation just as much as a normal attack (based on comparison of one CMB vs. one attack, as well as what you could have done if not limited by CMB action requirement, etc), then they should certainly consider using it. As mentioned, NPC/Monsters aren't supposed to be omniscient, sometimes they will make a suboptimal choice (which could mean taking a CMB or taking a normal attack instead of a CMB), sometimes they will get lucky and choose to do something for the wrong reasons, etc. Also consider NPCs awareness of the broader situation beyond the one PC they are aware of/attacking, they may act differently than if they are aware of all PCs/the broader situation. But likewise, their knowledge of other NPCs/monsters that the PCs aren't aware of (that can be expected to later fight the PCs) may also change their tactical calculus.
The first Reign of Winter module included suggestions that the ice elementals would try to use bull rush and similar tactics to steer the PCs toward specific spots
Runelords also had several segments where spellcasters or people with Sunder would specifically target weapons the PCs were using. In some situations this may be to improve the survivability of the PCs. After all, if a giant is trying to break a PC's weapon, then that's an attack not directed against the PC.
I'd love to see grapple being used more often by NPC-style opponents, especially since some players love pumping their AC to untouchable levels, but their CMD usually is quite lower.
However, that leaves the problem that the other PCs can just shoot/stab the grappler indiscriminately, since his own AC will be lower and there is no chance to hit the grappl-ee in Pathfinder.
The whole tactical context really changes the value of each CMB.
Bullrush is not very useful on an infinite flat plain.
By a cliff, or near some 'bad place', it becomes very useful.
I wouldn't worry too much about using Sunder, unless you know the PCs will need that item in the very next encounter.
WBL is a general guideline, and if their wealth becomes low, then new replacement wealth can be sent their way sooner or later.
Varying from WBL (lower/higher), not by too much, but by some amount, is a way to make the game more interesting,
with your job as GM including balancing encounters for when they are both below and above WBL.
WBL is just a tool to make your job easier by reducing the amount of balancing needed when they ARE at WBL.
Still, Sunder is far from a universally beneficial tactic, so it's not going to be super-common anyways.
Trips can often be useful to make as AoOs vs Movement, preventing the target from getting to their desired position and leaving them prone somewhere they can't do as much useful. The Reach Advantage thing (avoiding AoO for non-improved CMB) definitely applies here to Reach Weapon AoOs.
Also remember that unless they have Combat Reflexes, there is only 1 AoO, and once this is taken any non-improved CMBs can be performed with no risk. You can even choose to provoke an AoO via un-needed movement and then perform your AoO.
Probably the PRPG combat system is not ideal to have a constant streatm of 'interesting' things like maneuvers that everybody can do, but it is definitely not the case that there is no scope for them. If an AP doesn't mention CMBs that doesn't mean they can't be used, normal combat rules still apply, which include CMBs.
You might want to read the Blog post covering Combat maneuvers and weapons (search for those terms), there is some new functionality re: Trip Weapon quality and Sunder is now in place of any attack rather than using the 'attack action' (specific standard action), neither of those has yet made it to Errata or the official FAQ even though Paizo has clarified/changed them.