I did a bit of digging on whether or not a character can use a combat maneuver on ally. After reading a couple of threads on here, I couldn't really find a conclusive answer.
Example from a recent game I GM'd:
A lower-level caster PC was tripped and knocked prone by a trollhound, at the mouth of a narrow corridor.
Another PC, a higher-level with more HP and AC, was in the square behind the prone caster and initiated a Reposition Combat Maneuver. The caster PC simply allowed the maneuver, electing not to roll his CMD. So, the maneuver was successful automatically.
The higher-level PC repositioned the prone caster into their own square, then used a move action to move into an unoccupied square further back, removing the caster from harm and creating room for other PCs further in the iniative order on to deal with the trollhound.
So, essentially the maneuver allowed the prone caster to be removed from the threatened square, without incurring any attacks of opportunity from the trollhound that just tripped him.
...I was pretty dubious about this move, but allowed it as this was a PFS session and I was quite concerned that this newer PC (the caster) was about to meet his maker, but, I only allowed it with the caveat that from that moment on in the game, I would not allow this maneuver on an ally. Nor in any future games.
Here are my problems:
1. While using this maneuver on a "foe" is specified, no where is "ally" specified.
2. Using this on ally essentially guarantees success, since they will not use their CMD against the maneuver. So, not matter how bad your CMB might be, you have this in your pocket to use.
3. Using this maneuver on a prone ally sounds fishy.
4. There are similar feats, such as Friendly Switch, that accomplish similar moves.
So, thoughts? Should this be allowed or not?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
1. While using this maneuver on a "foe" is specified, no where is "ally" specified.
Yeah, it's a bit weird like that. On the other hand, since one PC is obviously physically capable of yanking another, you have to resolve it somehow. Is there a better solution than using combat maneuver rules?
2. Using this on ally essentially guarantees success, since they will not use their CMD against the maneuver. So, not matter how bad your CMB might be, you have this in your pocket to use.
Yes, and?
Using touch spells on allies guarantees success as well, even if they have concealment and deflection bonuses and cover and whatever, because the rules say you can automatically touch them, and only need an attack roll if you try to touch an enemy. Why should this be any different?3. Using this maneuver on a prone ally sounds fishy.
How so?
4. There are similar feats, such as Friendly Switch, that accomplish similar moves.
Yes, but for the price of the feat you get to do it as part of a move action or 5ft step, meaning the higher-level PC in your example (if he had Friendly Switch) could have still full-attacked the baddy; or he could have been 15ft away, done the switch, and still attacked. Without that feat, he instead had to use his entire turn just to do all the moving around.
Not seeing an issue with this, personally.
So, thoughts? Should this be allowed or not?
I'm not aware of any better solutions, or anything clearly disallowing it, so yeah, I'd let it happen. I'm not sure how I'd treat maneuvers whose effect scales for every 5 by which you exceed CMD, though.
ok so it is going to be like that
so this is an acceptable tactic to avoid AoOs on prone allies?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, the main thing is I can't think of a better system to adjudicate it. (I'm open to ideas; this isn't the first time I've tried to tackle this topic.)
But thinking about it, there's two options:
• The prone caster could stand up (move action, AoO), 5ft step back, and cast a spell. Or better yet, cast defensively on the ground and possibly create a situation (like invisibility, or killing/disabling the enemy) where he can stand up safely.
• The ally could reposition him (standard action), and possibly also spend his move action approaching or replacing the caster.
So by allowing the reposition, you're allowing the avoidance of a not-guaranteed-in-the-first-place AoO by means of greater action expenditure, and encouraging teamwork in the process. I'm having trouble seeing any sort of unfairness or lack of balance or undesirability or anything.
Sounds like this situation more likely calls for a drag maneuver (if I understand correctly). But the end result would be the same.
Combat maneuvers against a willing target (ally or no) is not strictly covered by the combat maneuver rules.
If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
So does the combat maneuver automatically succeed vs the willing target? or does the target willingly drop his CMD to make the maneuver easier? Unfortunately I have no hard-and-by-the-rules answers. All I can add is what I would do as a GM.
I would allow it to auto succeed. It takes at least a standard action to perform (see both drag and reposition maneuvers) to get your buddy out of danger. That turn could have been used to actually do something useful like, I dunno, win the battle. This also makes players feel like more of a team and building that type of camaraderie is not a bad thing in my books.
As for your other concerns:
2. If you feel that this requires a bit more maybe a Strength check is required for a particularly weak character to drag a heavy one away. I don't know if a combat maneuver check is the best to simulate that.
3. Funnily enough being prone makes combat maneuvers easier.
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.
So I wouldn't worry about the prone part since that is usually a +4 to melee attacks which translates into a +4 bonus to the combat maneuver check.
4. As to feats like Friendly Switch.. that allows this type of thing as part of a move action or even a 5ft step. Which is already an improvement on the standard action required for a maneuver.
Edit: super ninja'd. But here are my thoughts anyway.
I'd say it's fine. A party member is basically using at least a standard action to save an ally. I usually use Drag maneuver to rescue party members due to being able to move as part of the drag action.
alright, I am coming around on allowing this in future sessions, especially since when GM'ing PFS I am as by-the-book as possible, without limiting player-fun-having
but it still concerns me that this essentially negates trip at lower levels
also, I tend to think on things like this by wondering how it would go if I used a similar tactic against the players
...in this case, I have a feeling the response would not be a pleasant one, from the players, if a mook pulled his/her bbeg boss away from trip/prone AoOs
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
but it still concerns me that this essentially negates trip at lower levels
Negates, or overcomes?
also, I tend to think on things like this by wondering how it would go if I used a similar tactic against the players
...in this case, I have a feeling the response would not be a pleasant one, from the players, if a mook pulled his/her bbeg boss away from trip/prone AoOs
I approve of that attitude. As for what the reaction would be, I think in this case it would be dependent on what the various players' past experience had been with this issue. If other GMs have kept them from using that tactic and then you bust it out, they'll probably feel cheated (though not your fault), whereas if they've never encountered the idea before they'll probably excited at the possibilities.
alright, I am convinced
I feel better now that I allowed it and will continue to do so in future sessions
Oh yeah I mean other than that whole PFS thing about PvP
sorry BBT I do not think I was clear that this was a PFS session
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It would be nice to have an FAQ on this, actually. :) There are three main questions that immediately come up:
1. Can you use a combat maneuver on an ally?
2. What modifiers (if any - up to and including automatic success) are applied to the ally's CMD when attempting the maneuver?
3. Do movement-based combat maneuvers (such as drag, reposition, bull rush*) used on an ally provoke attacks of opportunity against the ally being moved?
*Picture a runaway wagon barreling down at a stunned ally, and your fighter courageously rushes him and tackles him out of the way.
yeah Xaratheus, pretty much the topics I wanted to raise, though I feel that at least in my particular GM'ing situation I am satisifed with the responses I got here
but, to respond to your wagon example, the fighter never ever ever has any risk because he automatically succeeds every time
which do not get me wrong, I am sure puts a smile on a players face and that is pretty much my goal in PFS
Personally, this is how I'd rule.
- You can use combat maneuvers on an ally.
- CMD for melee maneuvers is 5+Size. This is kind of an arbitrary number - since the target is willing it should be easy, but in the heat of battle not automatic success, especially if the one trying is weak etc. It's the same CMD as the AC of attacking a square or an immobile medium-sized object.
- All the other normal rules apply for maneuvers such as provoking if you don't have the improved feat etc.
I think it's nice to cut the martials some slack on this one, and with that ruling (which I mean as "this is how I'd do it", not "this is what the rules tell you to") the martials can have great use of it, especially with some feats etc, while the casters have lesser use of it.
BBT's logic is sound on the basic question. You can attack an ally; therefore, you can use a combat maneuver on him.
That still leaves the other two questions.
From a personal perspective, I would allow the maneuver to auto-succeed, but I would probably grant AoOs to enemies against the ally being moved (unless the person performing the maneuver had the Improved feat for the maneuver).
well, before we get too far off in the weeds on other stuff around my example, I guess I could rule it a number of different ways
but this being a PFS example, I'd like to rule it completely in-line with a more RAW answer, which I think I have now to my satisfaction
still though...
BBT brings up something interesting with the PvP rules for an 'attack'
Ilja has a great solution, but it is a little 'houseruley' and I am not sure that is totally cool for PFS, in the minds of some players and GMs
The player being dragged is still leaving a threatened space. Then, yes, they do provoke.
If the ally dragging the tripped ally is within reach of an enemy, and unless they possess the proper Improved feat, would also provoke.
You can choose NOT to apply spell resistance, which is a basis for the argument that you could choose NOT to resist a combat maneuver from an ally.
If they are tripped, then they lose their Dex modifier to their CMD. So 10 + Str + Size mod.
***EDIT***
Actually, the ally doing the dragging would provoke regardless if they are within reach of an enemy. Depending on how many AoO's that enemy gets, it will have to choose which person to attack, the dragger or the dragee.
***Further Edit***
It's a pretty common scenario in books and in movies, an ally fallen and a brave and stalwart person dragging them away from danger.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, as far as staying "not too houseruley", here's where we stand:
I think it's pretty well established now that performing a maneuver on an ally is a possibility.
How that will end up working, however, is undefined. As such, you'll have to come up with something yourself (and it's perfectly acceptable to "fill in the blanks" as a PFS GM, as long as the rules really are silent on an issue; just as long as your adjudication doesn't break some other rule in the process).
Options I see:
1) Maneuver auto-succeeds with no roll. Follows precedent of touch spells (no attack needed) and beneficial save spells (can forego making a save). The only problem is maneuvers whose effect is based on the margin of success (such as bull rush).
2) Just roll a maneuver check like you would against an enemy. Has the advantage of being pretty straightforward, and favors martials yanking casters around instead of the very weird situation of a 7STR caster yanking Mr. Platey all over the battlefield.
3) Roll a maneuver check against a modified DC. Possibly the most precise solution, but requires you to determine the DC, which is somewhat arbitrary. You could make it a flat 10 (precedent: Aid Another, flat-footed touch), or recalculate CMD as though the target had DEX of 0 (precedent: helpless AC).
4) Mix and match: use #1 for non-scaling maneuvers and #3 for scaling ones, or some other combination.
Personally, I think I favor auto-success for non-scaling maneuvers and a check against DC 10 for bull rush and similar.
|
|
It is well established that a combat maneuver is an attack.
Anyone who has read the Core Rulebook and the section on combat maneuvers knows it with complete certainty. This is RAW.
This is also for PFS, so anything houseruled is not available.
So, if you can attack a creature, ally or not, you can use a combat maneuver on it.
If PFS makes it impossible to attack an ally, then you cannot use a combat maneuver on them.
Now, a creature would use his normal CMD, ally or not, unless, a creature can opt to be hit by an attack.
This, is the key question.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For an unconscious, paralyzed or helpless character I'd probably apply the 'effective Str and Dex 0' rule as well, which would drop the DC to, well, 0 (+/- size modifier). This reflects that the character is just lying there limply rather than trying to avoid becoming 'flat-footed' to further enemy attacks.
I wonder if the 'prone penalty' should be applied or not? Most of the times you'd use a Combat Maneuver on an ally is to re-position them, and I don't really see that it's easier to push/pull/throw aside a prone person than one who's standing up...
There are already rules in place in the Combat chapter for combat maneuvers against helpless targets.
Also, any penalty to AC applies to CMD as well, so the prone condition applies as normal.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Let's take it to the rules forum and FAQ it!
Question: Can I attack an ally?
Question: Can I choose not to defend myself?
***Edited for BBT's questions***
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The player being dragged is still leaving a threatened space. Then, yes, they do provoke.
Some maneuvers specify that the target's forced movement does not provoke.
If the ally dragging the tripped ally is within reach of an enemy, and unless they possess the proper Improved feat, would also provoke.
The combat maneuver rules specify that not having the feat only causes you to provoke from the target of the maneuver, not anyone else who happens to threaten you at the time.
If they are tripped, then they lose their Dex modifier to their CMD. So 10 + Str + Size mod.
Being prone causes a -4 to AC against melee attacks and a +4 to AC against ranged attacks. It does not deny you your DEX mod.
Some maneuvers specify that the target's forced movement does not provoke.
Correct, certain ones do. But, as drag and reposition specify that an AoO is not provoked on the dragee or repositionee unless the Greater feat is posessed, it wouldn't be a stretch to reverse that in the case of an ally requiring the Greater version to NOT provoke.
The combat maneuver rules specify that not having the feat only causes you to provoke from the target of the maneuver, not anyone else who happens to threaten you at the time.
The table for AoO's does state that Combat Maneuvers cause an AoO. Also Move a Heavy object also provokes according to the table. In this instance then it would provoke when dragging an ally.
Being prone causes a -4 to AC against melee attacks and a +4 to AC against ranged attacks. It does not deny you your DEX mod.
BAH! I was thinking helpless not prone!
Edited my previous questions BBT.
|
Sorry to post, but this came up with us and I didn't see a solution and didn't see the argument for basic encumbrance rules vs. combat maneuvers.
What about it just being a drag/encumbrance/move heavy object issue?
You can drag 5 times your max based on str.
So, encumbrance would be:
weight of your gear + (weight of dragged object or person / 5)
Then cross reference that with the encumbrance effects table to get your speed you can drag someone and if it is past your max heavy load.
As far as AoO, the combat maneuvers state someone being moved doesn't provoke, and that makes sense if they are still spending their energy defending, not moving themselves. Being moved usually doesn't provoke in any case I've seen, other than ones where someone has a feat to intentionally make you, and that's probably optional even then.
As far as the person doing the dragging, there would possibly be two. One for moving out of a threatened square and one for moving a heavy object, assuming it makes it into that encumbrance silo.