I was wondering if having more choices in combat would make it more interesting? There are some posts discussing why people don't use the combat maneuvers very often. Opinions range from - we do use them, to they are just not worth it with the AOO, and if they were used it would just make combat longer.
I am of the opinion that I would like see more CMs in my games (I am GM). One of the ideas I saw was to give the PCs either free combat expertise or free improved trip to encourage such actions.
Of course if the good guys get this, all enemies would also get the benefit.
Do you guys see any huge pros or cons to this idea?
Thanks for your ideas...
In The New Argonauts my bronze-age mythic Greece sourcebook, all warrior-type characters got Combat Expertise for free in order to offset their lower ACs compared to standard d20 characters. It worked fine.
The best idea I have seen to address this idea is to negate combat expertise as a prerequisite for most of the "Improved" combat maneuver feats. This would allow players to take these feats and make use of the maneuvers without provoking attacks of opportunity. As it stands, combat expertise is a feat-tax that is burdensome to most classes other than fighters.
Even to fighters it's burdensome as it's points you can't point anywhere other than Int.
You need to get rid of the Int 13 requirement all together, too.
It's too penalizing, especially to monks, who you'd think would be good at tripping.
|
I think the prerequisites for the maneuver feats should be roughly equal - if you're scrapping CE as a requirement for Trip, you should dump the Power Attack requirement for Bull Rush as well.
Alternatively, you replace CE with a different prerequisite feat; currently the linkage between CE and Trip is rather tenuous. Power Attack and Bull Rush don't work great mechanically, but the Strength requirement and flavor of "just push harder" at least makes sense. CE doesn't help your maneuvers at all and the follow-up feats lack a good reason to require Intelligence 13+.
I'm considering using Improved Unarmed Strike instead of CE for those maneuver feat prerequisites. I think the conceptual distance between tripping, grappling and punching isn't too big; IUS isn't the absolute worst feat to have for a warrior, and becomes a less aggravating feat tax if it allows more different successor feats.
The best idea I've seen for encouraging combat maneuvers is dead simple and I want to try it as soon as I run a Pathfinder campaign.
You only provoke an AoO if you fail the maneuver.
The best idea I've seen for encouraging combat maneuvers is dead simple and I want to try it as soon as I run a Pathfinder campaign.
You only provoke an AoO if you fail the maneuver.
This is a good idea...Maybe it would help.
I dunno, from the receiving end of maneuvers, I rather like the AoO as a way to repel attacks.
If you hit on a AOO vs a combat maneuver does that kill the combat maneuver?
|
I dunno, from the receiving end of maneuvers, I rather like the AoO as a way to repel attacks.
in such a system, one could conceive of a feat to restore the privilege.
Improved Combat Reflexes (combat)
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes
Benefit: Opponents who attempt to perform a combat maneuver upon you provoke an attack of opportunity from you. If you deal damage to a foe in this way, subtract that amount from their CMB attack roll to perform the maneuver.
The best idea I have seen to address this idea is to negate combat expertise as a prerequisite for most of the "Improved" combat maneuver feats. This would allow players to take these feats and make use of the maneuvers without provoking attacks of opportunity. As it stands, combat expertise is a feat-tax that is burdensome to most classes other than fighters.
I concur.