|
Why that argument is still going on? provoking an AoO for making a combat maneuvers is not a good idea like in 99% of the time
It's usually a very good idea when up close to a wizard, as they either won't hit you, or the damage will be a small penalty.
If they even have a weapon in hand to make an AoO on you with...
I am aware of the opinion of SKR, but is that official? hopefully no. It would be an awful change IMHO.Which is why it is a party based t ogame.
The same logic applies to a wizard ambushed by mooks who grapple him trying to cast a spell.
Grapple doesn't even stop you from casting anymore. Which is pretty stupid, IMO.
Lemmy is taking that out of context.
Ciretose, I understand your point. I just don't understand how it's related to the point I was making...
The fact that combat maneuvers have a good chance of being successful in a few corner cases doesn't mean they are actually useful.
If you don't have the feat, you are pretty bad at tripping, sure, there are people who are worse at not being tripped, but they're s not the reason you want those feats, and most likely, not the best targets for trip either...
Casters often don't carry weapons to be disarmed... And if they do carry weapons, they can do just fine without them (unlike martial classes).
If you got close enough to trip a wizards, chances are you can kill him anyway. The problem is not killing the wizard, is getting close to him.
The point is that to be able to be reasonably good at tripping (and by that I mean, capable of consistently tripping targets who are not terrible at not being tripped) you need 2 feats. One of which provides no benefit to your trip attacks.
The point is that there are lots of feat taxes for doing ordinary stuff. And some other ordinary stuff that can't be done even with feats (like moving and attacking twice with your sword), as if that was too powerful, while casters get to move and cast as much as they like and have to worry very little about feat prerequisites.
Lemmy is taking that out of context.I am aware of the opinion of SKR, but is that official? hopefully no. It would be an awful change IMHO.Which is why it is a party based t ogame.
The same logic applies to a wizard ambushed by mooks who grapple him trying to cast a spell.
Grapple doesn't even stop you from casting anymore. Which is pretty stupid, IMO.
Then explain it to me, because I'm pretty confused.
|
It is a quite often an intelligent strategic move for a full BaB class to use a manuever regardless of the feat, as the AoO isn't really a threat to them since they are designed to take Melee hits.Come one ciretose you are not even reading the thread!!
I am.
If the AoO isn't going to hit, as would generally be the case with a witch, sorcerer, or Wizard, it makes sense. They will likely miss, and even if they do hit you will probably still beat their CMD.
Even with 3/4 classes or against enemies using ranged weapons, it can be an effective move.
We can test the math if you like. Pick a level.
|
|
That is the other 1% of the times.Why that argument is still going on? provoking an AoO for making a combat maneuvers is not a good idea like in 99% of the time
It's usually a very good idea when up close to a wizard, as they either won't hit you, or the damage will be a small penalty.
If they even have a weapon in hand to make an AoO on you with...
It was a go to move against enemy wizards and sorcerers for a number of builds. It is absolutely great for monks, who can continue to pummel while grappling.
You now have the BBEG in a position where they have a hard time escaping and/or doing anything particularly useful, and yet where you can still do much of what you do well.
And I wouldn't say encounters against casters are 1%
Lets find out. We'll pick a level and take a look at the math.
Testing hypothesis. Crazy I know!
Here's a creature to grapple. Its only CR 7 and its medium sized.(Not serious of course.)
Can we go back to talking about other things? Like mobility and fixes? I especially like the talk about fixes. It felt like something that helped everyone, rather than arguing.
|
|
Succeding a maneuver against a squish is not particulary impresive. I proppose 10 level againast all CR 10 monsters to see the percentage of times is a good idea to provoke an AoO against an enemie.We can even a CR 10 NPC of all base classes.Lets find out. We'll pick a level and take a look at the math.
Testing hypothesis. Crazy I know!
I love how Wizards are both Gods and Squish :)
If you are able to take an equal level NPC out with a maneuver, it is effective IMHO.
But your test works for me, although CR 10 doesn't seem to have many casters.
So 10th level Fighter CMB. Let's say 22 Strength (arguably low, but we'll go with it).
10 + 6 =16
With a weapon they are trained in, add + 2 (plus whatever bonus they get from the weapon)
So what would be a reasonable AC for a 10th level fighter and and reasonable attack bonus for the squish?
|
|
Lets find out. We'll pick a level and take a look at the math.
Testing hypothesis. Crazy I know!
Here's a creature to grapple. Its only CR 7 and its medium sized.(Not serious of course.)
Can we go back to talking about other things? Like mobility and fixes? I especially like the talk about fixes. It felt like something that helped everyone, rather than arguing.
You have to prove something is broken before you can discuss how to fix it.
So far the only numbers posted were 20% off.
Define the goalposts that are "Broken" and we can talk about what needs to be "fixed"
Define the goalposts that are "Broken" and we can talk about what needs to be "fixed"
People were talking about maneuvers and its related feat chains. That's something you can talk about. The fact you don't have to worry about provoking that AoO from 1/2 BAB classes(only Fey have that right?) doesn't save you from magical beast, dragons, aberrations, undead, or any of those other nasties. Making maneuvers more useful would help things. Making attacking while moving easier would help things. Fixing spells... is probably best left to another thread.
|
|
So we have the question of what is a reasonable CMD for a Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch.
10 + 5 + Strength modifier (Likely 0) + Dexterity modifier (maybe 3) + special size modifier (likely none)
And we are looking at 17 CMD vs the 16 (or higher) CMB above.
Attack is going to be Base attack of +5 plus likely 0 Strength and I'll even give you a +2 weapon...just because.
You have a +7 attack vs what AC?
Full plate is +9, and you have full movement in armor so why not. Add in some Dex, Ring, Amulet...I don't think 27 is an unreasonable expectation, but I'm open to being corrected.
So we have the caster only hitting on a 1 and failing on anything but a 20.
What am I missing?
|
|
So 10th level Fighter CMB. Let's say 22 Strength (arguably low, but we'll go with it).
10 + 6 =16
With a weapon they are trained in, add + 2 (plus whatever bonus they get from the weapon)
Afther a quick search The Average CMD is like 30. and the average damage per hit is like 12-15.
SO even with 10 + 6 (str) + 2 (WF) +2 (WT)+2 (Weapon enhacement), the fither still need like a 20 to succed at the maneuver.
You are assuming they hit with the AoO.
Again, the CR 10 are mostly melee. Are you arguing you only encounter Sorcerers, Wizards and Witches 1%?
|
|
So 10th level Fighter CMB. Let's say 22 Strength (arguably low, but we'll go with it).
10 + 6 =16
With a weapon they are trained in, add + 2 (plus whatever bonus they get from the weapon)
Afther a quick search The Average CMD is like 30. and the average damage per hit is like 12-15.
SO even with 10 + 6 (str) + 2 (WF) +2 (WT)+2 (Weapon enhacement), the fither still need like a 20 to succed at the maneuver.
You are assuming they hit with the AoO.
Again, the CR 10 are mostly melee. Are you arguing you only encounter Sorcerers, Wizards and Witches 1%?
If they do not hit your example only have 50% of succed. Not to mention that a lot of those mosnters are inmune to sunder,disarm and trip. And the fighter would only have CMB 16 for grapple, bull rush and the others.
Which is why I never take the feats. When you would use them most is against the classes easiest to do it against, where you don't need the feat.
Against the CR 10 Monster Creatures, it makes more sense for me to just attack them.
Against Wizards, Sorcerers, and Witches (and possibly ranged weapon Clerics and Oracles) it makes quite a bit of sense to pull a manuever like grapple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My unbuffed Wizard is a great warrior! He can defeat a mouse in melee. And he didn't even need Power Attack.
Therefore, Wizards make great warriors and Power Attack is not necessary for any melee build.
So we have the question of what is a reasonable CMD for a Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch.
10 + 5 + Strength modifier (Likely 0) + Dexterity modifier (maybe 3) + special size modifier (likely none)
And we are looking at 17 CMD vs the 16 (or higher) CMB above.
Attack is going to be Base attack of +5 plus likely 0 Strength and I'll even give you a +2 weapon...just because.
You have a +7 attack vs what AC?
Full plate is +9, and you have full movement in armor so why not. Add in some Dex, Ring, Amulet...I don't think 27 is an unreasonable expectation, but I'm open to being corrected.
So we have the caster only hitting on a 1 and failing on anything but a 20.
What am I missing?
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.
Don't forget all of these also apply to the wizard so his CMB is gonna be up above 17.
Also the whole "ignore tanks, gib wizard" screams metagamey.Not if the opponent has half a brain. Then it screams "self-preservation."
Not only that, the casters are squishier. If it will take me several rounds to take out the tank and only one round to take out the caster, why wouldn't I try to take the caster out first and eliminate rounds and rounds of attacks?
Plus, my attack on the caster might disrupt spell casting either by death or concentration checks.
Bleed damage FTW.
Still feels very metagamey to me. I could see more elite soldiers doing that, or people under the command of a lieutenant. But, the average minion choosing to run past the big, scary, fighter seems very far-fetched. I mean, It's difficult for me to justify a nobody running past the fighter to fist-fight someone that can bend reality.
Of course, I could see them running away from both :)
Lets find out. We'll pick a level and take a look at the math.
Testing hypothesis. Crazy I know!
Here's a creature to grapple. Its only CR 7 and its medium sized.(Not serious of course.)
Can we go back to talking about other things? Like mobility and fixes? I especially like the talk about fixes. It felt like something that helped everyone, rather than arguing.
This is assuming there is a problem. The issue is that some people don't believe there is a problem, while others believe there are. And without sitting down with the math instead of conjecture, we're not going to convince anyone one way or the other.
Hell, even with the math, we probably aren't going to convince anyone one way or the other.
Why that argument is still going on? provoking an AoO for making a combat maneuvers is not a good idea like in 99% of the time
Because there are ways around it. Having a high enough AC to not care, or provoking an attack by moving first, then doing your Combat Maneuver, or using a reach weapon.
So we have the question of what is a reasonable CMD for a Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch.
10 + 5 + Strength modifier (Likely 0) + Dexterity modifier (maybe 3) + special size modifier (likely none)
And we are looking at 17 CMD vs the 16 (or higher) CMB above.
Or you can add Defensive Combat Maneuvers... Pretty common feat.
CMD: 10 + 10(HD instead of BAB) - 1 (Str modifier) + 3 (Dex) +2 (Ring of Protection)
CMD: 24... 25 if he doesn't drop Str. 19 if he doesn't pick Defensive Comba Training.
Still not very high... I was just curious to know what would be an "average CMD" for a Wizard... There are probably a few other means to boost it, but I'm not particularly in the discussion...
This "trip vs Wizards" is getting boring... And is completely unrelated to whatever point we were making before -.-'
This "trip vs Wizards" is getting boring... And is completely unrelated to whatever point we were making before -.-'
I can agree with that. While it is on topic, it probably could be moved to another thread for better focus.
"2 skill points per level are enough"
Ah, yes, I did. Although I think the relevant thread died... -.-'
Then explain it to me, because I'm pretty confused.
Lemmy is taking that out of context.
All SKR said was that Somatic comp are possible. You still need to get your material comp out, and you must make a Conc check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level). The bit about not being able to cast a spell with a Somatic comp at all was a typo.
So, step one- get the material comp (requires a grapple check ) if needed. Next make a conc check.
Lemmy is taking that out of context.Then explain it to me, because I'm pretty confused.All SKR said was that Somatic comp are possible. You still need to get your material comp out, and you must make a Conc check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level). The bit about not being able to cast a spell with a Somatic comp at all was a typo.
So, step one- get the material comp (requires a grapple check ) if needed. Next make a conc check.
So you can cast while grappled, but you have to make a concentration check...
Isn't that what I said?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All SKR said was that Somatic comp are possible. You still need to get your material comp out, and you must make a Conc check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level). The bit about not being able to cast a spell with a Somatic comp at all was a typo.
So, step one- get the material comp (requires a grapple check ) if needed. Next make a conc check.
It's not a typo. It's how it worked in 3E, and there was no need to change it.
I find it especially silly that SKR says it should be allowed because now grapple is just holding someone's arm, yet the people who defend this change say "well, it's made up for by the much harder concentration DC." If grappling is less of an impediment than in 3E, why would the concentration get harder?! I'm not opposed to the hard concentration checks (IMO grapple should be reasonable and pinned should be insanely hard, not the same DC for either), but how the hell can you put forth both statements and not feel stupid?
Lemmy is taking that out of context.Then explain it to me, because I'm pretty confused.All SKR said was that Somatic comp are possible. You still need to get your material comp out, and you must make a Conc check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level). The bit about not being able to cast a spell with a Somatic comp at all was a typo.
So, step one- get the material comp (requires a grapple check ) if needed. Next make a conc check.
So you can cast while grappled, but you have to make a concentration check...
Isn't that what I said?
"Grapple doesn't even stop you from casting anymore. Which is pretty stupid, IMO."
It never did, that was just a typo (it was supposed to be "any action that requires TWO free hands, not ONE free hand"). And, unless you can get the material in hand, AND make the Conc check, it most certainly does stop you from spell casting.
Not a rule change at all. SKR was simply correcting a typo.
well,so, anyone have another faulty asumption?
I'm sort of afraid to mention something at risk of it being too much of an opinion rather than mechanical fact or starting something nasty.
"2 skill points per level are enough"
I wish they were, but I've been playing with a lot of paladins and clerics without points in knowledge: Religion. Something went wrong some where I think. Hope your god isn't big on a particular skill set...
Lemmy is taking that out of context.Then explain it to me, because I'm pretty confused.All SKR said was that Somatic comp are possible. You still need to get your material comp out, and you must make a Conc check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level). The bit about not being able to cast a spell with a Somatic comp at all was a typo.
So, step one- get the material comp (requires a grapple check ) if needed. Next make a conc check.
So you can cast while grappled, but you have to make a concentration check...
Isn't that what I said?
"Grapple doesn't even stop you from casting anymore. Which is pretty stupid, IMO."
It never did, that was just a typo (it was supposed to be "any action that requires TWO free hands, not ONE free hand"). And, unless you can get the material in hand, AND make the Conc check, it most certainly does stop you from spell casting.
Not a rule change at all. SKR was simply correcting a typo.
Then my mistake was adding the word "anymore".
I wish they were, but I've been playing with a lot of paladins and clerics without points in knowledge: Religion. Something went wrong some where I think. Hope your god isn't big on a particular skill set...
I really think 4+Int should be the bare minimum for every non-wizard.
I'd not even care if Wizards got more skill points if that's whats necessary to raise the skill points of other classes!
It's not a typo. It's how it worked in 3E, and there was no need to change it.
I find it especially silly that SKR says it should be allowed because now grapple is just holding someone's arm, yet the people who defend this change say "well, it's made up for by the much harder concentration DC." If grappling is less of an impediment than in 3E, why would the concentration get harder?! I'm not opposed to the hard concentration checks (IMO grapple should be reasonable and pinned should be insanely hard, not the same DC for either), but how the hell can you put forth both statements and not feel stupid?
Not quite. In 3.5 you could cast any spell with just a Vocal comp, no big problem. This now requires a rather hard Conc check, and concentration checks are MUCH harder in PF. Pretty much, in 3.5 you could auto-make most conc check by just maxing out the skill. Throw a feat in there or some decent CON, and it was a cinch.
Now, it's VERY difficult. Vs a Giant, a wizard casting Tport to get out requires a 39. For a 9th level wizard that requires rolling a 24 on a D20 (in other words, impossible). In 3.5 it would require rolling a 10.
Grappling is MORE of an impediment, not less. Now, however, a wiz might burn a feat and a trait, giving him a +6. Now he only has to roll a 18.
So, it's different. It's possible, just more difficult. In 3.5it was impossible with some spells, pretty easy with others.
PF is not 3.5. They changed concentration quite a bit. Yes, they accidentally left in some old 3.5 language, but then they fixed it.
what cold go wrong? this is not a monk thread afther all :pwell,so, anyone have another faulty asumption?I'm sort of afraid to mention something at risk of it being too much of an opinion rather than mechanical fact or starting something nasty.
Something like talking about alignment restrictions does tend to explode... One of my biggest peeves though is thinking its a great way to handle things. Removing options from players is usually the worst imo. I love a modular design where you pick things and customize the character as you go. We also have at least one thread on spell casting already, so I don't think I should drag any of that baggage here.
I wish they were, but I've been playing with a lot of paladins and clerics without points in knowledge: Religion. Something went wrong some where I think. Hope your god isn't big on a particular skill set...I really think 4+Int should be the bare minimum for every non-wizard.
I'd not even care if Wizards got more skill points if that's whats necessary to raise the skill points of other classes!
I think I've seen that statement before. Can't say I disagree. I love my skill points, but 2+ makes life rough. During a chase you may as well just sleep if your don't have skill points. What gets me is when people say its okay because those characters aren't supposed to be good at things, but with 2+ your not really left with much to do outside of combat without a class feature or fiat to help you out. The new classes from APG don't suffer it and the ToB classes which I consider a fix for a lot of things didn't.
Something like talking about alignment restrictions does tend to explode... One of my biggest peeves though is thinking its a great way to handle things. Removing options from players is usually the worst imo. I love a modular design where you pick things and customize the character as you go. We also have at least one thread on spell casting already, so I don't think I should drag any of that baggage here.
Alignment... I hate it so damn much...
However... There's a reason I don't read Paladin/alignment threads anymore, so let's ignore the topic in this thread.I think I've seen that statement before.I really think 4+Int should be the bare minimum for every non-wizard.
I'd not even care if Wizards got more skill points if that's whats necessary to raise the skill points of other classes!
Quite possible. it's a common complaint. 2+Int simply isn't enough for any class that is not an Int-based full caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, apparently you completely misunderstood my argument and I need to approach this from a different direction...
Grappling is MORE of an impediment, not less.
Ok! There you go, I just quoted you! Grappling is MORE of an impediment in PF than 3E. Source: you.
Why then, can a spellcaster attempt to cast a somatic spell at all in PF, when he could not in 3E? It doesn't matter how high the concentration check, no DC will ever equal "no check for you!" /soup nazi voice
If grappling is more of an impediment, why can you cast way more spells than in 3E while grappling? How does that make sense?
|
|
My unbuffed Wizard is a great warrior! He can defeat a mouse in melee. And he didn't even need Power Attack.
Therefore, Wizards make great warriors and Power Attack is not necessary for any melee build.
Or, that feat isn't going to allow me to use that manuever against a large creature who has a dangerous AoO anyway, so why not invest in something else and still use the ability when it would make sense.
Or is being able to disable a full caster not useful in your games?
|
|
At the risk of hearing you say Schrodinger once again. Don't most of those classes have a variety of pretty standard way(Spells perhaps) to stop you from doing that.
Have, as it it is possible they have it, yes.
Actually have it active and in the build at the level we are discussingg? Maybe, maybe not. It is hard to say since asking someone to post a build seems to be taboo.
Schrodinger applies when you say "I could do this" without showing what the trade off is. You could do lots of things. But not all of them at the same time.
Which is the problem in many of these discussions. Lemmy keeps saying options, but having the options be possible doesn't mean they are actually available in the build, at the time you need them.
Which is why I keep asking for builds or numbers.
|
|
So we have the question of what is a reasonable CMD for a Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch.
10 + 5 + Strength modifier (Likely 0) + Dexterity modifier (maybe 3) + special size modifier (likely none)
And we are looking at 17 CMD vs the 16 (or higher) CMB above.
Attack is going to be Base attack of +5 plus likely 0 Strength and I'll even give you a +2 weapon...just because.
You have a +7 attack vs what AC?
Full plate is +9, and you have full movement in armor so why not. Add in some Dex, Ring, Amulet...I don't think 27 is an unreasonable expectation, but I'm open to being corrected.
So we have the caster only hitting on a 1 and failing on anything but a 20.
What am I missing?
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.
Don't forget all of these also apply to the wizard so his CMB is gonna be up above 17.
"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. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."
So my numbers will be similarly buffed.
So what would the real numbers be?
Are we staying level 10?
|
|
So we have the question of what is a reasonable CMD for a Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch.
10 + 5 + Strength modifier (Likely 0) + Dexterity modifier (maybe 3) + special size modifier (likely none)
And we are looking at 17 CMD vs the 16 (or higher) CMB above.
Or you can add Defensive Combat Maneuvers... Pretty common feat.
CMD: 10 + 10(HD instead of BAB) - 1 (Str modifier) + 3 (Dex) +2 (Ring of Protection)
CMD: 24... 25 if he doesn't drop Str. 19 if he doesn't pick Defensive Comba Training.
Still not very high... I was just curious to know what would be an "average CMD" for a Wizard... There are probably a few other means to boost it, but I'm not particularly in the discussion...
This "trip vs Wizards" is getting boring... And is completely unrelated to whatever point we were making before -.-'
So do you add that feat, and if so what feat don't you add?
And it isn't trip. It is any combat manuever, with or without taking the feat.
|
|
He was just talking about large spellcasters. How about Mokmurian or whatever his name is from RotRL.
Was he? I wasn't. But ok, let's look at Mokmurian's CMD (minor spoilers, but just about numbers_
From the Anniversary edition, He is CR 15, CMD 36, including all the buffs.
His base attack is +22, so it could be risky to attempt the maneuver if it will provoke depending on your AC, but even for a 10th level fighter with no buffs it is 50/50 to succeed if the AoO misses.
And if you are fighting a CR 15 enemy, you are probably higher than 10th level.
In fact, you are supposed to be 13th level for that encounter. So you have at least a 19 (13 +6) and likely and much higher CMB, as that includes no bonuses and a strength of 22. If it is a weapon maneuver, you add +3 for example from Weapon training, weapon focus, etc...
And you also also hopefully have a higher AC.
So depending on AC, it could make sense. Even against a very strong, large creature.
I probably wouldn't try it in this instance, given that he is ridiculously strong for a caster, being a Giant, and has a badass melee weapon with all sorts of special features, but it is very much doable for a 13th level fighter, even without feats.
It is even better for a monk, since he is likely to have bonuses to unarmed which work with grapple.
YMMV.