Probably don't have +5 weapons at level 12.
Probably not you are right but a +3 weapon with allign weapon is good enaugh, and allign weapon is a way cheper and easyer spell to cast than say, waves of exaustion. You should always have a wand handy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With that amount of spells and buffs, you can 100-0 that demon in a full-attack, why you should waste time in hoping on a 50% chance to mildly inconvenience him? He has AC 29 for god's sake, flat footed is 23, it's an autohit on all your 4 attack, a +5 weapon ignores
You just described a level 20 fighter. We were talking more like level 12.
DR and with a 2h that buffed you easly deal 50 (12 PA, 12 for 26 str, 4 Greater Heroism, 3 Bard song, 5 base weapon damage (2d4), 5 enchantment, random bonuses like fighter training or rage or bane or wathever) damage per swing
Greater heroism doesn't do damage, it adds to attack. And no we don't have a +5 weapon. Heck my example assumed a +2 (or maybe +1) iirc. Plus we used mass heroism because this is not a solo fighter in a vacuum this is a group environment where more than one person gets to roll dice. Though I will say I did find a mistake as I was looking over it as mass heroism doesn't seem to exist in pathfinder. So a regular heroism will suffice (though that makes both examples more interesting as haste can be an option with a precast extended heroism)
Now our Cad here actually wouldn't get fighter training bonuses on his attack as his ability doesn't work that way. If he did he'd probably have had +4 more on his various maneuvers.
So the fighter as you described would have about a 27-28 attack assuming the actual buffs cast in the original example assuming buffs actually cast rather than buffs as you described them. Since we obviously want to P.Attack that's reduced to about 23-24 attack. So our first attack does indeed hit with no problems.
So our first attack. would deal lets just go ahead and assume 26 strength cause sure why not for : +2 enhancement +7 weapon +12 P.Attack +12 strength +3 competence = 36 damage. I don't have any random bonuses though if I were a different less fun fighter I could deal about 40.
Now we don't have good and silver weapons. So the damage we deal will be closer to 26-30 per hit.
We're not level 20 nor has the bard or wizard cast haste(though as I said above he could, but no body's perfet). So still only three attacks
So let's say all three attacks hit even the last attack which is at -10 giving our crucidaemon a 50% chance to avoid it entirely ;).
We've dealt between 78-90 damage out of a creature with 212 hp.
At the end of our turn she will stil be fighting at full capacity. Her turn comes around and we have options to mess wiht the group, up to and including teleporting to a hidden corner of the room and start buffing/summoning while minions slow you down.
without accounting for crits at 30% chance. And those crits will actually debuff him better than the dirty trick if you took say Tiring critical or staggering critical (minimum level 13 but wathever).
Assuming I crit. 5% chance per hit plus I have to confirm. Versus 55% on an off maneuver I did as an example.
More to the point both feats in question are out of reach to all but much higher level characters. Dazing assault is certainly an option but then our attack is dropped by another -5 and
Edit: i forgot to add in the enlarged bonuses, but as you can see they are not even needed.
You just undubtly proved why combat manouvers are not worth wasting time on.
Here's our waste of time:
Full attack cad deals 90 damage, pretty much as expected for a decent hammer.
Crucidaemon still fights at near full capacity can do anything from 5ft. shift and teleport to casting insanity (DC 26) on the fighter of his choice.
Maneuver CAD (which again is using meanuvers we don't even have feats in just to set an example):
Knocks target prone, blinds, and possibly entangles target. She can't escape, she can't attack without severe penalty.
Now, with our new and more fancy Dirty Trick master we could have nauseated or dazed our foe, destroying her action economy entirely and winning the fight. And I do mean winning in a sense that the crucidaemon has 0 effective action economy. The wizard can beat him to death with his staff at that point.
And frankly I don't need to prove that combat maneuvers are not a waste of time. I've seen it working firsthand.
Tell Tal, the fighter in my CoT game that grappling a bow wielding rogue was a bad idea.
Or Heavy Harry, the rogue, that tripping a certain potentially annoying goblin druid in a hedgemaze of thorns before combat even started was a bad idea.
Or Mallichatti, the barbarian, that sundering the bearded devils glaive in a group with no means of mitigating bleed damage was a bad idea.
Or any number of people who've bullrushed people down pits, overran weenies to get to the caster with charge through, sundered holy symbols, spell pouches and spells themselves even.
Really, all this little thing has undoubtedly proven is that you lack the capacity to think beyond the full attack. You suggest a hundred damage versus three status effects is better for the group. That blinded, prone, and entangled all at once is a minor inconvenience.
Yet, in the end the group may end up taking 0 if any damage from the crucidaemon, may not even have to roll a single save. It's options are limited, it's AC destroyed, the wizard himself can move in and get a few licks in with his staff without much fear.
Chances are, the Crucidaemon is dead the next round rather than a few or many many rounds down the road by sheer dint of its mobility and defenses.
That's what a minor inconvenience and a waste of time look like.
In the end, damage is great and I'm all for it, but when the opportunity rises to save resources and damage by detrimentally affecting a foes positioning or debuffs by all means go for it.
Probably don't have +5 weapons at level 12.Probably not you are right but a +3 weapon with allign weapon is good enaugh, and allign weapon is a way cheper and easyer spell to cast than say, waves of exaustion. You should always have a wand handy.
That's nice. But we still don't have a +3 weapon at least (Granted we could, but our example didn't have that).
We also don't have a cleric so someone's got to UMD that thing.
Assuming I crit. 5% chance per hit plus I have to confirm. Versus 55% on an off maneuver I did as an example.
Any warrior worth his salt has at least a 19 crit weapon and picks up improved critical at 8 so is more like 20-30% chance to crit. Level 12 fighter against a flat footed daemon with AC 23 autohits anything but last attack (5+) making confirming just a case of "rolling against the 1"
I rushed out the math on the first round so i'll get into more detail now.
Level 12 cad
starting strengh 16 +2 racial +2 level bump (third one goes to whatever), +4 strengh belt +3 weapon. Id'd say pretty standard stuff for a melee frontliner at 12, way far from an optimized one. Now let's go into party specific.
Either someone is casting haste if is beneficial for many, or you are going to buy some boots of haste, becouse form level 6 onwards is ludicrous to speak of any martial not hasted. Movement speed, attack, AC, reflexes, extra attack, haste is just too good.
Buff as you said, is heroism greater, bard song from a level 12 bard, enlarge person. Let's calculate the attack.
Last one of your 3 BAB attack is at BAB 2 -4 for PA, +8 str -1 size +1 haste +3 weapon +3 song +4 heroism +2 GWF = +18 hits on a 5+ on CA 23. If all 4 attacks go to town, let's find the damage.
2d8 base damage (bardiche if you want to get fancy with reach) +12 str +12 PA +3 bard song +3 weapon ench +4 GWS = average 43 damage per swing ignoring the DR silver and ignoring the DR good is you have someone with allign weapon. If you got even 1 crit the daemon is dead. Chance to get at least 1 crit with a 19-20 weapon are 1-0,8^4=0,59 meaning you have roughly 60% chance to instantly killing him with you full attack instead of 50% chance to mildly inconvinience him. And even if you fail you still dealt enaugh damage to put him on deaths door so next PC in line can finish him, instead if you get "unlucky" and miss your CMB rolls you accomplish nothings.
Dirty trick Master requires 2 successifull dirty trick meaning 50%^2=25% chance to success if you are hasted (otherwise the second is at -5 so i't 0,5*0,25=0,125 chance to actually "disrupt his action economy")
Really, all this little thing has undoubtedly proven is that you lack the capacity to think beyond the full attack. You suggest a hundred damage versus three status effects is better for the group. That blinded, prone, and entangled all at once is a minor inconvenience.
Well, i'm stating that blinded, prone, and entangled all at once is a minor inconvenience compared to outright dead.
And frankly I don't need to prove that combat maneuvers are not a waste of time. I've seen it working firsthand.
Frankly, i've seen more time beeing proven that full attacking someone to death was the better choice. If we go by game experience, i'm pretty sure the empyrical prove is that they are corner cases in which there is no point to focus on. Care to make a count of the time a manouvers made you win the encounter against how many times full attacking got your body home? I know where my money is.
Last note against allign weapon, a wand of that last 3 minute per charge, so you can precast it with quite the easy, you can't do that always, but the vast majority of the time.
Edit: removed some more heated exclamation, i got carried a bit in the discussion. I don't mean to sound confrontational.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And we'll simplify that.
43 x 4 = 172 damage
Still alive.
If you crit once, yes, he's dead. IF you ahve a 4th party member who can get to him to deal 42 more damage, yes he's dead again. If you don't have align weapon and a +3 weapon (the original example has neither) he's still alive.
If not, then we're back to where we started.
So yes, you've pointed out an ideal situation to kill the cruicidaemon in one full attack with the cad. I've pointed out a kind of ideal but not entirely optimized situation where the "mildly inconvenienced" crucidaemon can't win when we "Waste our time".
Frankly, I don't know where your attitude comes from as I never espoused the idea that you should never full attack, never do damage, and only do combat maneuvers as you seem to be implying. And given the actual work and time I put into this intentionally selecting a high cmd creature, intentionally not picking the absolutely most optimized options, in order to simulate a more realistic party rather than what you believe people should have. I chose my examples and moves as a teaching tool, not to prove a point or make an argument.
If I wanted to get a dirty trick guy who 100% succeeded on everything, I probably could. But that's not the point. We're not power gaming here, we're playing the game in front of us.
That means there are times (yes, more often than not) where a martial character should full attack. There also plenty of times where a full attack isn't ideal, or rather, doesn't grant the high reward that superior positioning and action advantage can. Outright killing an oppoentn works, obviously, but when you can't (as the example CAD) or when it's just not a particularly good idea you have options available to you and it's good to know what those options are and how to use them.
Because, and you're going to find this maddening, there are a number of tables without haste, or even groups where haste isn't all that helpful. Not everyone has the wealth to afford a +3 weapon at level 12, or decided that it was worth it over a new wing to the party's megacastle. We might not even have a 4th party member or even casters.
The point being is that I don't write these things to appeal to the super optimized cookie cutter fighters that I literally never see. I write them as a way to reach out to the many people who maybe aren't quite as optimized as that.
So, if you disagree, that's great a difference of opinion is welcome. Seriously, it's appreciated. But don't drop attitude on me because examples aren't optimized to your beliefs about what should be done.
For kicks, Lets use my Lorewarden11/maneuver master1 compared to the dps guy.
level 12 I'd trip the daemon first to generate 2 additional attacks of opportunity followed by flurry of maneuvers and an quick dirty trick to get and use the last aoo to cause shaken via corgngon smash.
So trip cmb= 11 (bab) + 7 (18+4 belt +2 enlarge) + 4 (trip feats) + 2 (wayfinder) + 2 (brawler armor) + 2 (+1 mighty fists with dueling enchant) + 1 (trait) + 1 (enlarge) + 6 (lore warden)+ 3 bard + 4 (heroism)-2 (flurry of maneuvers)+ 2 (gloves of dueling) + 2 (weapon training) = 45
So I'll auto trip on anything but a 1
Dirty trick doesn't get quite as many bonuses, but now I get the +4 to attack from prone target.
So dirty trick cmb= 11 (bab) + 7 (18+4 belt +2 enlarge) + 4 (dirty trick feats) + 2 (wayfinder) + 2 (+1 mighty fists with dueling enchant) + 1 (trait) + 1 (enlarge) + 6 (lore warden)+ 3 bard + 4 (heroism)-2 (flurry of maneuvers)+ 4 (prone)= 43
Now the chances of getting off all 3 is 85%, but even if 1 misses I'm still looking at major debuffing.
Also keep in mind this assumes a super CMB focused character (which is fine since that's what I'm going for).
So I'd say it's just as viable considering that at lvl 12 I'm pretty much auto-succeeding against most if not all monsters CMD.
And in the end like Tark points out, you don't have to use a maneuver in all instances, but I'd say that I'd rather help keep my team alive. An almost dead daemon does just as much damage as an alive one, but a nauseated, prone, shaken daemon isn't doing any damage to anyone. Oh, and I could add grapple to the end for funsies.
edit: I am actually playing this character (level 7 currently) and I love him. He's the funnest character I've ever played (mostly because I talk like The Rock and even get to drop the elbow). He is also stupidly min/maxed, but I throw him out here to show what a min/max cmb character can do.
I think the way quick dirty trick is worded you have to make that your first attack.
I think the way quick dirty trick is worded you have to make that your first attack.
it has to be at my highest attack, which it is when it's an Attack of opportunity.
edit: Now this normally would imply that it's the first attack, but I see no reason why an attack of opportunity made on my turn using my highest attack bonus wouldn't also qualify considering it meets all the criterion.
My PC was not a DPS guy. Hell, he was a cad focused on nothing, he only had the fighter only talent tree and PA for damage. No weapon training,starting str 18 ecc. DPS optimized guys are a different beast.
Beside, TarkXT point was that you don't have to specialize in manouvers to make them usefull, witch i don't find true at all. I do agree that a character optimized like hell like the lorewarden posted is going to make manouvers usefull. But if you put that much optimizing into doing damage you are going to outright break the game, just to give comparison on the proportional usefulness of doing damage vrsus debuffing.
Final note, i missed that before, but quick dirty trick allows you do do only a single DT monuover in a round, so to make someone nauseated you need 2 round.
Final note, i missed that before, but quick dirty trick allows you do do only a single DT monuover in a round, so to make someone nauseated you need 2 round.
not quite. Flurry of maneuvers gets me a dirty trick, and the quick dirty trick gets me a 2nd dirty trick. So, 2 per round.
edit: but with that said I'll bow out since this isn't really about a single build but rather maneuvers overall.
Thanks for this Tark. I love combat maneuvers. I use them a lot, and I almost never take the investment feats. I either use a reach weapon, rely on a high AC to mitigate the AoO, or take them when the enemy isn't threatening (like when they are unaware, already prone, or grappled).
You've broken down the relative benefits of combat maneuvers in impressive fashion.
My only gripe isn't at all with your post, but rather with the way the system treats combat maneuvers at all.
In my opinion, these are all things that anyone who knows how to fight should just be able to do. No feat investment should be needed to try to trip someone and not be stabbed in the face for it.
Combat maneuver feats should make you particularly capable, not just "no longer so bad at it that you get stabbed for even trying." Also, they should scale. You want to be the trip guy? It shouldn't take four feats. It should take one, and that feat should get better as you do.
Just my gripe-y two cents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read any new posts yet.
But mainly I just need to say if I seemed grouchy earlier it's that getting up in the morning and seeing a short post in a subject I quite literally spent hours rules checking, rules double checking an pouring over potential scenarios to make sure I have one with enough variety and then ensuring I can use it to illustrate as many of the points and ideas as I can telling me I wasted my time and don't know what I'm talking about before my coffee tends to infuriate.
In any case...
If you don't agree, you don't agree. Obviously a good number of people do, and my own experiences in my games and others have proven that clever use of maneuvers can trivialize encounters and save party resources.
And in the end damage is still merely a means to end a fight. Maneuvers change the fight, they push it towards making dealing that damage easier. Sure, maneuver CAD guy didn't kill the cucidaemon in one round. But, he couldn't have anyway given what he had and next round the crucidaemon will be able to do little to nothing without provoking at least one AoO so the damage I missed will in all likelihood be made up for. And he still did do damage in the end.
So yeah, keep them in mind when you need them, invest in good ones if you want to. Full attacks won't always be available, but chances are standard actions are. So, keep yourself versatile and willing to do what wins the fight.
Wanted to say i liked the article TarkXT, and will point a few of my players here as well. Thanks for taking the time to write it up.
...but a nauseated, prone, shaken daemon isn't doing any damage to anyone
i just got the image of a daemon with a hangover... ;)
...but a nauseated, prone, shaken daemon isn't doing any damage to anyonei just got the image of a daemon with a hangover... ;)
Hammer of the dwarf that bit ya. :)
I loved this post, and its encouraging approach to something lots of people seem to write off. Every now and then you see some knowitall mouthing off that "dead is the only status worth inflicting," and it's nice to have this handy to point toward another way.
Thanks,
Ghorrin
Tark writes good stuff.
Just wanted to pop up to say that disarm can be powerful, but it really depends on the campaign.
My fighter in a Jade Regent campaign is maneuvers-focused - fights with a flail, has greater disarm, has the full reposition line, is about to get greater trip (and finally get combat reflexes afterwards).
With the right party, a good reposition will let you kill an opponent with a single combat maneuver check.
Trip doesn't come up quite as often, but it's devastating when it does.
Note to self: next time I run into an enemy that's floating 5 feet off the floor, need to see about repositioning the bugger back onto the floor and then talking the GM into letting me trip it. Because spite.
Sorry, rambling. Disarm is situational, but pretty great for the right situation - shutting down other fighter-types that are meant to be DPR beasts. For example, Jade Regent is full of oni. Nearly all oni use weapons, and hit really damn hard with their weapons. A quick disarm can get their damage down to a much more reasonable level very quickly.
I suspect disarm would work just as well against all those giants in Rise of the Runelords.
Greater disarm's goofy - the "launch a weapon 15 feet in a random direction" bit is neat, but not awesome compared to other things. It's more useful for the extra +2 to the check, which gets you to come out to a net 0 on one of my favorite dick moves - a barehanded disarm to take someone's weapon from them and wield it against them. Few things drive home "I completely outclass you" quite like yanking someone's weapon out of their hand and stabbing them with it.
Tark, do you feel that fighter weapon training in the "close" weapon group (which includes gauntlets and unarmed strikes) helps with unarmed combat maneuvers? My group runs it as helping, but I could see it pretty easily being ruled otherwise.
i also want a low level guide. and info on what classes and archtypes work best. ive used a vanilla fighter with a whip to pull off a tripping and repo tank, but i didnt optimize him and a good many of his moves didnt work, or i just didnt know how to use him right. this guide is awesome...
Thank you so much for this guide Tark!
To add:
I have created in the past few years 2 different sunder specialists, both barbarians. One being more focalized than the other, but even still sunder is an amazing combat manuever.
Sunder their spell pouches, magic focuses, special items, weapons, armor. However, sunder and it's CMB is required for the barbarian rage power Spell Sunder. This is where I believe sunder should get a better score/rating/critique, due to its power and use.
Spell sunder magical darkness, remove a curse, break apart a geas effect, sunder buffs off e enemy. It's so very versatile and still requires a CMB sunder check. So for that alone, I ws able to get my CMB up to ~+100 and go crazy fun with it.
I think spell sunder helps raise sunder up a bit for its use. Just my $.02.
I suspect disarm would work just as well against all those giants in Rise of the Runelords.
Yes and no. Slam attacks still hurt a lot. In fact shifty pulled off a disarm on one critter in that AP and its damage actually went up higher since it had two slam attacks behind its preferred weapon. Go figure.
Tark, do you feel that fighter weapon training in the "close" weapon group (which includes gauntlets and unarmed strikes) helps with unarmed combat maneuvers? My group runs it as helping, but I could see it pretty easily being ruled otherwise.
Currently, afaik, the only means to get weapon bonuses to a maneuver is if it has a descriptor that allows it too as the case is for trip weapons. Sadly there are no weapons for thigns like bullrush or overrun but a couple that do in fact help with grappling (I think dan bongs).
There are magic items that help with CMB's and should definitely be taken into consideration. Also consider any item that boosts attack rolls and strength into this as well.
@Grizzly: I avoided class specific stuff for the sake of space and time.
Maneuvers are differnet from class to class. Cavaliers are amazing at overruns and bullrushes, paladins and rangers do very well against their favored targets, clerics do wonderfully with maneuvers that don't require much investment, etc. etc.
As for a low level guide I think people more want low level examples as I never wrote the guide purely wiht high level in mind. Is that correct?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be correct Tark as far as I'm concerned.
More examples so as to start an example-based series of maneuvers that improve by level, preferably with the same iconic Combat Maneuver character - so we can see the math of the improvements and the validity of the choices made - both feat and tactical.
Or character(s)... :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, feats like Pushing Assault always kind of bugs me. The feat generates enough force to knock the creature backwards with no save, but if the area it would be knocked into is hazardous, a magical, omnipotent force prevents the movement from happening.
Other feats or mechanics that are similar (like bull rush) has the addendum that when if the target hits something during the movement, it takes 1d6 points of damage or more. This one doesn't have even that. If the person can't stand in that square, it just stops...
You know, feats like Pushing Assault always kind of bugs me. The feat generates enough force to knock the creature backwards with no save, but if the area it would be knocked into is hazardous, a magical, omnipotent force prevents the movement from happening.
Other feats or mechanics that are similar (like bull rush) has the addendum that when if the target hits something during the movement, it takes 1d6 points of damage or more. This one doesn't have even that. If the person can't stand in that square, it just stops...
That's the magic of game balance. If there is no good defense against it it can't do things like auto-kill an encounter.
@Alexander: Not bad really though it doesn't scale as well as bullrush (bullrush technically has a maximum of infinite feet it can throw you).
Still, knocking someone prone, knocking them into objects, and then following up with the rest of your attack seems a solid way to set up a fairly savage beating.
I wonder is there errata or clarification that says whether or not the movement of awesome blow causes an aoo?
So decided to present a brief low level scenario.
So low level it's level 1.
We'll start with a level 1 Swashbuckler.
He wants to emphasize countering enemies using a pair of twin wakizashi (to emphasize is ties to Tian)
So his feats are combat reflexes and exotic weapon proficieny (wakizashi).
Later he plans on going into Two Weapon Fighting so he can continue to generate enough panache to continue countering enemies.
So wiht 20pt. buy his stats look something like
Str 14
Dex 16
Con:12
Int: 7
Wis: 12
Cha: 16
So we have our swashbuckler dumb as a brick but what fighter isn't?
Early on they come upon a group of kobolds led by a level 2 kobold sorcerer.
The kobolds prove tough opponents screening for the sorcerer and ranged attackers while the sorcerer uses spells like grease and daze to disrupt any organized counter assault.
REcognizing the threat of the sorcerer our swashbuckler manages to acrobatics through the small horde.
But, earlier in the fight it was discovered the kobold had a really high AC (+4 MAge Armor, +3 Dex, +1 Size, +1 Natural, +4 shield) of about 23.
Obviously this is incredibly bad for a first level group.
However our friends CMD is laughable (CMD10). With an atack roll of +6 (adding +1 bless from a divine caster and +1 from bard music) he's got a really good chance to do something nasty to the sorcerer to drag that AC down into the dirt.
So, he decides to trip him. This triggers an AoO from the kobold who makes a weak attack against the swashbuckler and immediately gets countered. And, to the gm's surprise he targets the kobolds spell component pouch destroying it and spilling the contents out onto the floor shortly before the sorcerer joins the pile.
With the sorcerer on the ground the gm has to pull back kobolds from the front to save them and relieve pressure off the sorcerer or face an unending cycle of trolling where the swashbuckler can do whatever he likes.
Tark, there are some issues in the above. For one, the Kobold, if he dumped his strength to 7 wit the racial to 3, and his size, has a penalty of -5, now he has a +3 dex mod and +4 deflection bonus from shield, meaning he should, at the bare minimum, have a CMD of 12. Not a big deal but I don't know how much that factors into the above.
The above Swashbuckler is apparently using two wakizashis despite not possessing TWF (based off what you posted above). This means that he's unlikely to have a positive bonus to his CMB, because the TWF penalty applies to CMB.
Another thing I noticed is you mentioned the sorcerer having a spell component pouch. He has no need of one because he's a sorcerer and gains Eschew Materials at first level.
The last thing is that you have the Swashbuckler using acrobatics to get past the kobolds and then makes two attacks, one a trip and the other a sunder, all before the kobolds or sorcerer can react beyond the sorcerer making an attack of opportunity.
Tark, there are some issues in the above. For one, the Kobold, if he dumped his strength to 7 wit the racial to 3, and his size, has a penalty of -5, now he has a +3 dex mod and +4 deflection bonus from shield, meaning he should, at the bare minimum, have a CMD of 12. Not a big deal but I don't know how much that factors into the above.
The above Swashbuckler is apparently using two wakizashis despite not possessing TWF (based off what you posted above). This means that he's unlikely to have a positive bonus to his CMB, because the TWF penalty applies to CMB.
Another thing I noticed is you mentioned the sorcerer having a spell component pouch. He has no need of one because he's a sorcerer and gains Eschew Materials at first level.
The last thing is that you have the Swashbuckler using acrobatics to get past the kobolds and then makes two attacks, one a trip and the other a sunder, all before the kobolds or sorcerer can react beyond the sorcerer making an attack of opportunity.
He's not using two wakizashi. The second attack came as an AoO generated by his parry/riposte ability. The TWF mention was just noting a later desire (maybe 3 or 5 depending).
Silly me for missing the spell component pouch thing. Teaches me to do these thigns after a long exhausting day at 11pm.
Other than that I didn't assume a dump on the kobolds part but at least a 10 strength (dude still has to do things like lift his flimsy arms above his head dramatically) to knock it down to 6.
He gains no deflection bonuses. Shield spell makes a shield bonus and mage armor makes an armor bonus respectively. For deflection bonuses you need shield of faith.
The big error here is the spell component pouch. It leaves us with a need to somehow stop his spellcasting.
I think using dirty trick instead of trip as our initial action and then trip as an AoO from riposete/parry would work.
Another one for you. This time with a level 4 monk.
His feats will be Combat Reflexes, Improved Grapple, Dragon Style and Power Attack
Fighting in an underground fighting tournament our friend the monk was tired of the other players deriding his choice of class despite the manliness of punching out an orcs spine wiht his bare hands.
His current opponent is a nightmare match with a barbarian who would otherwise easily win a damage race with his greatsword.
However fortune manages to favor the monk as a low roll causes the monks stunning fist to land.
Now we're left with a dillemma here.
If we stun him he'll drop his sword and drastically drop his ac and cmd for the rest of the round, but he'll stil be enraged and may not fall before he picks his sword back up and finishes us. If we fatigue him he keeps his sword but drops him out of rage and penalizes him greatly.
Seeing as we can't afford another attack regardless we go for the stun dropping his ac dramatically, dropping his sword, and giving us an opportunity to do a couple of more attacks on him. We don't know how much hp he has (and given how he's wrecked us so far we can only assume "more than us") but we can make it so we can get as many attacks as necessary for it not to matter.
So, we'll trip him next. His normal CMD of about 21 drops to around 17. This is a fairly doable number for our CMB of +8 especially when you add in that we get a +4 bonus to those rolls giving us a +12 on that trip attempt.
With him prone on the ground there's not much else we can do so we smash him on the ground with his near non-existent AC. There's not much point in sundering his greatsword since we can't destroy it right off.
Once the monk's turn rolls around again he'll have the barbarian on the ground without his sword. With improved grapple we can jump on the barbarian MMA style (with the barbarian suffering a -4 penalty to his cmd against it and a -4 penalty to CMB in trying to break free) and basically force the barbarian to wrestle us. A fight we can definitely win.
Let's try another one with standard action maneuvers.
The third attack from above, btw, was drawn from spending a ki point.
|
This thread reinforces my view that combat maneuvers are great at low levels, and suck at high levels. What's the difference between AC and CMD?
AC gets armor, natural armor, and shield bonuses.
CMD gets base attack and strength bonuses.
Everything else that adds to one adds to the other too (though size modifiers have inverse affect)
At low level bab+str<armor+shield+nat armor
At high level the opposite is true:
Armor caps out at +14 (+5fullplate), shield caps out at +9 (+5tower shield), natural armor generally caps at +5 (amulet)
14+9+5=28
BAB caps at 20
str (18 base +2race +5 levels +5tome +6enhancement =36) caps at +13
20+13=33
Monsters often get more natural armor, but no armor or shield, large sizes, extra high str. Basically at low level AC is higher than CMD. At some point, it switches and CMD becomes much higher.
This thread reinforces my view that combat maneuvers are great at low levels, and suck at high levels. What's the difference between AC and CMD?
AC gets armor, natural armor, and shield bonuses.
CMD gets base attack and strength bonuses.
Everything else that adds to one adds to the other too (though size modifiers have inverse affect)At low level bab+str<armor+shield+nat armor
At high level the opposite is true:
Armor caps out at +14 (+5fullplate), shield caps out at +9 (+5tower shield), natural armor generally caps at +5 (amulet)
14+9+5=28
BAB caps at 20
str (18 base +2race +5 levels +5tome +6enhancement =36) caps at +13
20+13=33Monsters often get more natural armor, but no armor or shield, large sizes, extra high str. Basically at low level AC is higher than CMD. At some point, it switches and CMD becomes much higher.
Yes, but CMD is also easier to drop and CMB can also be quite high as well.
I see it less as becoming high and more in coming in line with pc capabilities. At higher levels there si an optimizer contradiction where people will tell you that full attacks are the only thing worthwhile.
They will also tell you getting that full attack is difficult to impossible due to the mobility and capabilities of high level critters.
This naturally leads us to seek out ways to negate this problem gravitating towards pounce builds, archers, mounted characters, and D. Dervish builds to get that full attack.
Let's set this idea aside for a moment to focus back on CMBs.
The thing you forget to add in your math is that AC and CMD are not the same. We roll our attack against the AC and our CMB against CMD.
It's an important distinction since both receive bonuses in different ways depending on the actual maneuver used.
Consider a melee fighter is going to get around (+20 bab +5 Weapon +11 str +2 weapon focus feats +6 Weapon training) 44 attack at level 20.
Given most opponents have an AC of ~40ish at this level it makes hitting AC highly enticing especially since CMD around this point hits the 50's with great frequency (pit fiend at 53, balor at 66, ancient blue dragon at 49 (53 againts trip)).
This is especially true if you only look at a charaters base CMB (in this case the fighter in question would have a CMB of 31. 44 is using a weapon enhanced maneuver).
One could translate this as CMB's being less useful. Really, it just means that if you want to make maneuvers a part of your regular repertoire you have to be as willing to specialize in it as other characters throw everything into damage.
Consider if our fighter friend gave up weapon training to be a lore warden instead. His attack would actually drop to around 40. Still high and certainly higher than a normal fighters cmb in any case.
However, now he has a +8 to combat maneuvers and now his CMB is 39. We're also going to add feats as well throwing at least another +4 on top of the 39 for a 43. With Know Thy Enemy that's another +2 for 45 and then we can consider weapon enhanced maneuvers for another +5 coming to 50.
So, suddenly the balor becomes possible (but still highly improbable this is a case where you should probably just attack), the pit fiend is easy and the dragon is flat out screwed.
It seems if anything Higher CMD's exist because the potential return of investment in maneuvers is quite high. this is especially apparent when we talk about chain Dazing/NAuseating pit fiends or repositioning dragons to eat about 4 AoO's from one attack action.
Now to return to an earlier point about full attacks it is true that in many cases a full attack can simply knock out an enemy right away. The trick of course is getting that full attack action. We explained earlier that many high level melee builds considered viable either have pounce, a means to move and full attack (mounted skrimisher, d. agility, or are ranged attackers.
However another potential method is to simply stop an opponent from preventing the full attack, hence the popularity of trip builds back in the 3.5 age. Pathfinder provides us a few menas to do this and high level maneuvers rank among them. TEtori grapplers only need to grab you once to rip you to pieces. Dirty trick fighters can flat out panic, nauseate, or daze you with one dirty trick maneuver. Disabling an oponent this way is merely setting up for the next full attack which often does as much damage as a pouncer does.
So, high level maneuvers are no different than any other strategy in that they require investment to continue their wroth going into high levels. It's no different than spending feats on spell penetration or weapon focus. It's about staying relevant and understanding that no one strategy is going to ever be viable 100% of the time.
|
|
This thread reinforces my view that combat maneuvers are great at low levels, and suck at high levels. What's the difference between AC and CMD?
AC gets armor, natural armor, and shield bonuses.
CMD gets base attack and strength bonuses.
Everything else that adds to one adds to the other too (though size modifiers have inverse affect)At low level bab+str<armor+shield+nat armor
At high level the opposite is true:
Armor caps out at +14 (+5fullplate), shield caps out at +9 (+5tower shield), natural armor generally caps at +5 (amulet)
14+9+5=28
BAB caps at 20
str (18 base +2race +5 levels +5tome +6enhancement =36) caps at +13
20+13=33Monsters often get more natural armor, but no armor or shield, large sizes, extra high str. Basically at low level AC is higher than CMD. At some point, it switches and CMD becomes much higher.
nah youre looking at it in a harsh way. some monsters have enormous CMD, a balor as an example. but you wouldnt try to trip a balor because of that fact. this doesnt mean you wouldnt be able to trip other creatures you would fight at that level. if you dont like trip change it to bull rush or grapple or sunder or disarm or dirty trick or ...
imo unless you're trying to, maneuver should not be a major focus of your character. a fighter has an advantage at being really good at 2-3 maneuvers at once, monks can utilize one maneuver like bull rush, trip, or grapple and do really well while still being a monk at other things.
in conclusion all im saying is that when you try to look at the big bad bbeg type characters, yes CMD can be hard to bypass but then you just resort to traditional means of dispatching them. on the other hand the more realistic "normal cr (not mooks) challenge" monsters you fight throughout the day will be fully susceptible to those maneuvers.
Great article TarkXT. I also like maneuvers.
My real issue is that, the way I see it, if you are not a Lore Warden, you cannot expect to have a reliable outcome against the tougher opponents, like the ones you mentioned. Tetori and Brutal Pugilist also raise respectable CMB and couple it with decent to awesome features, but thats it. Every other PC (save for the barb that rage-cycles Strenght Surge) will have trouble making maneuvers a (as much as we can say) a "universally" good tactic. And, if I have learn anything from the guides written for both PF and 3.5, the best choices are the ones that work (almost) every time, the situational ones are always worse, no matter how good they are when they can be effective. I am talking for mid-to high lvls, at low lvls maneuvers certainly rock.
I am also extra dissapointed that the two specific achetypes that are supposed to be all about the dirty trick, the cad and the dirty trick fighter, lack any serious CMB booster like lore warden has, and even more they trade weapon training, making them even worse at raising their CMB than the traditional fighter. Totally akward.
Another point I just noticed you misssed (unless there is a revision not posted in pfsrd), is that Lore Warden trades only armor training 1 for the bonus to CMB and CMD and keeps all the weapon trainings, making his CMB sky rocket. Not the wisest choice designing-wise, but it certainly makes maneuvers reliable even at high lvls.
Interesting he keeps all the weapon trainings. I must have forgotten that.
A note about the Dirty fighter and Cad is that even though they lack the serious lore warden CMB booster (dirty fighters still get a +2 and Cads a +5) they have more ways of using the maneuver. Cads can actually use their payback bonus on dirty tricks (you can't use weapon training on it anyway) and able to use it incidentally as part of an attack on a flat footed opponent, or later as part of a critical hit.
Dirty fighters are better than cads in the sense that once dirty trick becomes an attack action and you get your hands on dirty trick master you get the ability to straight up disable an opponent almost completely in a single full attack. Fun fact: you can stack dirty fighter with Dervish of Dawn or Swordlord.
So in exchange for raw numbers they get increased opportunities and effectiveness. Getting numbers is easy.
Weapon training does apply to Dirty Trick if you use a weapon to perform the trick.
|
|
I am not going to argue with that. I will just note that, the tactic you focus on should be effective on the BBEGs. And unless the BBEG is a frail caster, you need excessive optimising and proper class and build selection in order ot make the maneuvers viable on him. I am not against needing to optimise in orer to achieve a solid result, but with maneuvers even if you do so you still are behind the larger CMD checks.
you'll be very happy with the brawler then. because thats the entire stick of that class.
Right, so we were talking standard action maneuvers that aren't dirty trick. Let's see what a bit of investment in overrun can do,
To ser up we're a level 3 group with a cleric, rogue, barbarian, and wizard.
The group is ambushed by a group of warrior npc's wielding glaives and a lvl5 wizard npc who drops our wizard into a pit during the surprise round.
Blows are exchanged and, recognizing the threat of the NPC wizard, the rogue works his way around to attempt to drop him by himself while the barbarian and cleric are tied up by the warriors.
MAnaging to knock out the rogue with a sleep spell (this gm is mean) the sorcerer draws a club and moves in to coup de grace (really mean).
With the wizard indisposed, and the cleric unable to stop it that leaves the barbarian up to come up with a solution.
He has the charge through feat anticipating a happy life of pouncing things past level 10.
So first the barbaian will run over the warrior in front of him as part of a charge action. With Rage, Imp Overrun, charge bonuses and active bless spell the barbarian's +16 CMB will crush the warriors 16 cmd relatively easily. However now we have the dillemma of the sorcerer.
If we attack him we will certainly do a lot of damage. But, no guarantee that will kill him. That's bad since all he has to do is 5ft. shift and continue to coup de grace letting his warriors come to his aid adn screen for him again.
So what then?
He could bull rush with his ridiculous CMB and potentially knock the wizard quite a ways away from his warriors, but, this doesn't necessarily remove the threat.
Sundering is also an option, removing the club from his hands means he can't coup de grace next round and is left practically defenseless against the barbarian barring a bad save.
This is the option we go with. With the club being a tiny fragile stick before the greatsword this at least removes the threat of the rogues death coming into play.
However this leaves us with the problem of the warriors backing up to threaten the rogue and barbarian from doing their job.
The cleric has two buffs going; divine favor (+1 attack and damage at this level I believe) and Bless. He didn't really build himself for heavy combat with a 14 str. So his +6 attack and cmb bonus aren't very impressive.
With his turn coming up he knows the barbarian will soon have the two warriors and the wizard upon him.
At this point maneuvers are risky and without knowing our opponents hp we can't be sure we're dropping our opponent right away.
However we still have options.
Shifting forward into the warrior's reach he then casts true strike from a domain slot.
While an odd move it's rather clever in that it leaves the warrior in a dillema of every action is bad.
If the warrior attempts to support the npc wizard the cleric can trip him with a +26 cmb. It's unlikely the warrior can hope to do enough damage to stop this wiht an AoO of his own.
If the warrior 5ft. shifts away and then attacks the cleric can move around (eating the AoO because in a second it wont matter) and bull rush the warrior into the pit the wizard is leaving.
The warrior could try a maneuver of his own but the resultant AoO that comes of it would be equally bad for him.
This puts the cleric in the position of controlling the fight by giving the warrior bad options for his next turn building action advantage through good positioning and numbers.
Though none of the npc's have actually died this puts the group in a good position to turn things around. The barbarian can wake up the rogue or maybe start putting serious pressure on the npc wizard. The group's wizard should hopefully have a means out of the pit by this point (if not it does affect the clerics turn).
Ultimately with the front line of warriors disrupted adn the npc wizard on the defensive the fight swings in our favor.
There can be endless debates about 'what if' and all the highly variable situations but all I will say is this.
Get across the various options on offer, and think what they might be able to bring to your combat. They are simply extra options that can have wide ranging and beneficial implications if pulled off correctly, so you don't have to get addicted to them and use them every encounter - just bear them in mind and be across them so that when the opportunity arises you are all over it and can maximise it to your advantage.
Exploit exploit exploit and exploit some more - really ruin your opponents day.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Raging) Barbarians can do some crazy things with weapon-based combat maneuvers:
+1 Furious Dueling (PSFG) Weapon gives a +9 (combined luck & enhancement) to all combat maneuvers that can be performed with that weapon (excluding bull rush, grapple, overrun, steal and drag) all by itself.
|
Let's not forget that combat maneuvers have more variety in what they do. Winning an encounter is more than simply dealing damage and for several reasons.
Example- If the damage you deal is not sufficient to kill the target but that target can do something very nasty on its turn, a maneuver may be a more feasible solution.
Maybe the bad guy has a x3 crit greataxe, improved critical, several other critical feats, some perfect strike feat applying to his weapon and has the ability to give himself rerolls....hitting him for 70 DMG is great but if he has 180 HP and you're the DPs, aren't you infinitely better off disarming him? As a dps character, wouldn't being disarmed be an effective combat option against you? Walking into a room with a bunch of guys who have guns and yours is taken from you usually makes fighting your way out far more difficult.
Example 2- In the many circumstances where you are unable to make a full attack you can instead perform a combat maneuver. If you have advanced far enough with the maneuver (usually the greater version) and have chosen the appropriate maneuver and complimentary feats (trip and vicious stomp) you can still manage something close to or better than your full attack. A tripped for with greater trip will provoke. Vicious stomp will trigger. When they stand that will provoke. You have now performed 3 attacks at your highest bab, two against prone ac which allowed you to invest in more things like combat expertise and power attack or domain strike/conductive powers, etc. You also have aided your party in dealing damage while simultaneously mitigated the damage the enemy could potentially deal.
However you look at it, in the situations where disarm is useful, more often than not it means that you are dealing relatively more DPR than the enemy disarmed is, particularly in cases (more than half) where the enemies are of a CR higher than the parties apl.
The fact that you personally did not full attack should no longer be relevant from a logical or mathematical standpoint because in each case trip is valuable, arguably more so than a full attack.
Overrun, dirty trick, bull rush, etc, all have clear purposes and help to achieve a goal. Further, those goals can be modified (overrun can be used to deal damage, knock foes prone and control the battlefield while still allowing you to pinpoint ground based targets for punishment- drag can be used to save allies or put enemies into terrible situations while also providing some Damage right before they enter said situation).
The DPR advocates have subscribed to a philosophy on these boards that is filled with hypocricy and double standards. On the surface, and indeed below it, the content of the general ideology is sound. There is much to learn from optimizing. But tanks in no way shape or form have to ever deal a single point of damage to tank. Ever. And DPs builds are not required to full attack only while dealing the maximum possible damage the mechanics allow. I can make similar claims about many stereotypes here (and have proven several of them).
When I speak of hyporicy and double standards I am referring to concepts like-
Part of the Optimizer creed:
If your fighter cannot flat out kill the enemy with damage on his turn, then he is doing it wrong because maximum damage and pure offense is all that matters. Don't waste time with debuffs, controlling the enemy or doing things that don't result directly in their death. You operate in a vaccuume and must be entirely and utterly self sufficient because pathfinder is a single player game. When pathfinder is strangely played as though other players exist, expect each person to win the encounter on their turn. This applies to monsters as well and is why initiative matters.
PS. Don't waste time on defense. Armor class is useless, everything is about offensive action.
However, if you make a blaster wizard you will be informed in very short order how blasting is terribly inefficient and you should be debugging, supporting, and doing all the things that clearly should not be done in a fight because it doesn't actually kill things outright.
This ignores the fact that blasting actually does kill things outright. It can take things from full to negative con and do it to many things at once and usually be done once or even twice a round. And for some reason when you're a caster, rebuffed enemies is OK but not when you're a martial class.
Wizard or barbarian or maneuver master/lorewarden, if you can deal tons of damage, it should either be universally a valuable asset or not. If controlling the battlefield and applying debuffs is valuable then someone's choice of being martial or not shouldn't change that value.
But time and again we hear the optimization camp make claims that they apply in favor of their arguments when it is convenient to prove their point and then disregard those claims when they are used to support ideas they disagree with. It's like having a religious debate. *rolls eyes*
Huh, 45 people hit the favorite button on this. That would make this the most popular one of these I've done.
