|
Someone in another thread found this little-known nugget from the Core Rulebook's Combat Chapter under Combat Maneuvers:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver.
It seems strange that combat maneuvers, while interesting, are generally speaking considered to be less viable than straight damage over the long-haul of a Pathfinder's career - yet, there is rather large limitation looming over anyone who tries to make a combat maneuver.
It's not the same with attacks. Even ranged attacks which do provoke in melee don't get a penalty to hit.
Seems like an oversight in design? I wouldn't blame anyone, since I only just heard about this for the first time the other day after years of play!
To be fair, it makes sense logically speaking; getting clocked by a ten pound mace when trying to perform a complicated battle maneuver would certainly impair my ability to perform said maneuver.
It makes just as much sense to apply a penalty to any check that provokes an attack. I suppose the attack penalty for CMs is there because in the past getting hit simply caused it to instead fail.
I think it's an unnecessary penalty though.