| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In Pathfinder there are only three different types of d20 rolls.
Attacks, Saves, and Checks.
If you search Sean K Reynolds's posts, you'll see he references this more than once.
So, what is a Combat Maneuver?
Is it a Save? No.
Is it a Check? No.
Is it an Attack? As Jiggy bolded multiple times, a Combat Maneuver is an Attack.
And, so, if the particular Combat Maneuver is being made in melee, it is a melee attack, and so can be parried.
It's as simple as that.
Combat maneuvers work on a success/fail system based on if the attack is higher than the targets CMD. How does parry and riposte causing it to be a miss, in the context of the normal attack hit/miss system do anything to the success of the combat maneuver?
Great, my bull rush missed, but it was also successful, and because its effect are dependent on "success" and not "hit" I still get to shove you back.
Why does it matter what weapon, or any weapon, is used?
Opportune Parry and Riposte react to melee attacks, and nothing even suggests these need be one's made with weapons.
So, what are you even arguing?
Attacks, in the standard action:attack sense, are made to deal damage on a hit. They use an attack roll, which is added to your attack bonus to see if you hit. If your attack roll is higher than the armor class, you hit and get to deal damage.
Combat maneuvers, use their own actions. Standard action:bull rush as an example. They are made to apply a special effect on a success. They use an attack roll, which is added to your combat maneuver bonus to see if you succeed. If your attack roll is higher than the combat maneuver defense, you succeed and get to apply the special effect of the maneuver.
I think that opportune parry and riposte is describing "melee attack" in the attack roll + attack bonus sense with a melee weapon, and not "any attack roll made in melee range".
Even with all that, parry and riposte causes a melee attack to miss. But combat maneuvers are decided on success/fail and not hit/miss. So does a missed combat maneuver still succeed if the attack roll exceeded the CMD? I think it should.
|
You can perform a Combat Maneuver at the end of a charge.
Hell, Bull Rush receives an additional +2, in addition to the bonus to charging, when used at the end of a charge.
Combat Maneuvers are attacks.
Attacks, are either melee, or ranged.
Combat Maneuvers, used in melee, are melee attacks.
It is really that simple.
Damage plays no part, in any of it.
|
Combat maneuvers are very clearly melee attacks. Where some folks seem to be getting hung up on them is on the damage (or lack thereof) and usage.
As has been pointed out, not all attacks deal damage, so that needs to be taken off the table.
The fact that only some maneuvers are specifically called out as being useable in place of attacks in every situation (Sunder, Trip, Disarm), doesn't relegate the other maneuvers to non attack status, it simply puts them in the same category as every other situational/limited use attack in the game.
But they are still attacks, and still performed in melee (unless you are that rare trickshot archer).
Anyone who thinks that you cannot parry a grapple or bull rush style maneuver, I suggest you watch any martial arts/combat sports activity that allows striking and grappling, or heck, just watch an Aikido tournament and you can even see the probable inspiration for Crane Wing in action.
The hit/miss vs success/failure thing I don't think is a real issue.
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage.
The rules refer to "hits" as an attack succeeding. So those terms are interchangeable.
The lack of damage can be attributed to general vs specific. In general, attacks do damage. However, some attacks don't, such as the melee touch attack from Touch of Fatigue or an attack designated as a combat maneuver.
I understand your point with regard to Attacks of Opportunity. If we say "all combat maneuvers are melee attacks," that opens up a possible problem with allowing them all in AoOs. It also allows you to substitute any combat maneuver in a full attack without being a maneuver master monk. That doesn't seem to be the intent.
On the other hand, a bull rush is clearly an attack. It is a melee attack.
The problem seems to be that we need an errata that differentiates between a "melee basic attack" and other "melee attacks."
I hit the FAQ button. Everyone else should too if they haven't already.
You can perform a Combat Maneuver at the end of a charge.
Hell, Bull Rush receives an additional +2, in addition to the bonus to charging, when used at the end of a charge.
Combat Maneuvers are attacks.
Attacks, are either melee, or ranged.
Combat Maneuvers, used in melee, are melee attacks.
It is really that simple.
Damage plays no part, in any of it.
You can perform some combat maneuvers at the end of a charge. Specifically, trip/disarm/sunder which can take the place of a melee attack; bull rush, which explicitly can take the place of the melee attack at the end of a charge; and overrun as part of the movement of the charge.
You can't make a charge and grapple, dirty trick, drag, reposition, or steal.
The hit/miss vs success/failure thing I don't think is a real issue.
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage.
The rules refer to "hits" as an attack succeeding. So those terms are interchangeable.
The lack of damage can be attributed to general vs specific. In general, attacks do damage. However, some attacks don't, such as the melee touch attack from Touch of Fatigue or an attack designated as a combat maneuver.
I understand your point with regard to Attacks of Opportunity. If we say "all combat maneuvers are melee attacks," that opens up a possible problem with allowing them all in AoOs. It also allows you to substitute any combat maneuver in a full attack without being a maneuver master monk. That doesn't seem to be the intent.
On the other hand, a bull rush is clearly an attack. It is a melee attack.
The problem seems to be that we need an errata that differentiates between a "melee basic attack" and other "melee attacks."
I hit the FAQ button. Everyone else should too if they haven't already.
If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
If an attack beats the AC you hit. If it doesn't, you miss.
If a combat maneuver beats the CMD, you succeed. If it doesn't, you fail.
The fact that combat maneuvers never need to hit means that a miss shouldn't effect them. You could have an AC of 1,000 and still get bull rushed because their CMB roll exceeded your CMD.
You can't sub bull-rush into attacks during a full-attack action. You can only make it as a standard action, or instead of the attack at the end of a charge.
I FAQed this when it first came up... hopefully we get an answer.
We have an answer. I fail to see how reiterating it is necessary.
What answer is that?
Pathfinder defines an attack as an offensive combat action, see my previous post. So combat maneuvers are attacks.We have an answer. I fail to see how reiterating it is necessary.What answer is that?
The original question was, are they melee attacks which can be parried with opportune riposte and parry. To that, I say they are not. Yes, they are attacks, no they can't be parried.
|
Pathfinder defines an attack as an offensive combat action, see my previous post. So combat maneuvers are attacks.We have an answer. I fail to see how reiterating it is necessary.What answer is that?
I'm pretty sure that Tarantula meant an official Paizo answer. Your quote is in the magic section, and I'm not sure if it's relevant outside of spells. It's a gray area. (It's getting to the point where "attack" is getting nearly as confusing as "level". http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html )
They are attacks, they are made using your melee reach, so guess what, they are melee attacks.The original question was, are they melee attacks which can be parried with opportune riposte and parry. To that, I say they are not. Yes, they are attacks, no they can't be parried.Pathfinder defines an attack as an offensive combat action, see my previous post. So combat maneuvers are attacks.We have an answer. I fail to see how reiterating it is necessary.What answer is that?
And I'll contend again, that there is "melee attack" in the general english meaning of an attack made at melee range. Which combat maneuvers are. And melee attack, as in the specific attacks made with a weapon that utilize an attack roll + attack bonus against AC and on a hit deal damage. Which combat maneuvers are not.
Just to be sure, this is just one person disputing what a "melee attack" is?
I am one of a couple people. Specifically, I don't think combat maneuvers(except for trip/sunder/disarm) are viable for the opportune parry and riposte ability of swashbucklers.
Combat Maneuver is made by performing attack roll, but its not a melee attack, its combat maneuver. It is modified by anything that adds to your "attack roll" (like True Strike), but not anything that adds to "melee attack" (you cant use Ferocity domain power Ferocious Strike to deal damage to someone you trip or disarm).
I think of it as i can use fork (attack roll) to eat steak (melee attack) or noodles (combat maneuver) but that does not make steak equal to noodles.
I've got an orc PC with the Dirty Fighter archetype. In a few levels he'll go from being able to perform a dirty trick as a standard action to being able to perform a dirty trick "as an attack instead of a standard action". I think it would be pretty weird Swashbucklers weren't able to parry his dirty tricks before that but suddenly became able to afterwards. I also think it seems telling that the rules say "as an attack" rather than something like "in place of an attack". This is just a single class feature of one obscure Fighter archetype, but to me it seems to imply that whoever wrote those rules considers combat maneuvers to be attacks.
Parrying a grapple sounds a little odd, but I guess maybe you just sort of fend it off with your weapon (albeit without causing any damage like you would with an AoO). I'd be interested in seeing an official answer on whether it is possible though it seems like most folks in this thread would think that it should be.
@DarkPhoenixx - Strips of beef tendon might be somewhere between steak and noodles. I think folks mostly eat them with chopsticks rather than forks though.
Are rice noodles really that fancy? I'd like to suggest udon noodles, preferably from Marukame Udon in Waikiki. The Curry Udon and Niku Udon are both great, especially with some tempura and an egg.
Back on subject though, it looks like the rules pretty consistently refer to the CMB check as an "attack roll". To me that very strongly implies that a combat maneuver is in fact an attack. The only possible problem I see with using the Swashbuckler's Opportune Parry and Riposte against combat maneuvers is that the rules for OPaR say the attack "automatically misses" whereas the combat maneuver rules consistently refer to succeeding and failing rather than hitting and missing.
That seems like a hair thin distinction to me, but I guess somebody could try to make a case for it. I also notice that the "miss chance" from concealment applies to combat maneuvers though. That implies at least to me that they can fail because they "miss".
I've got an orc PC with the Dirty Fighter archetype. In a few levels he'll go from being able to perform a dirty trick as a standard action to being able to perform a dirty trick "as an attack instead of a standard action". I think it would be pretty weird Swashbucklers weren't able to parry his dirty tricks before that but suddenly became able to afterwards. I also think it seems telling that the rules say "as an attack" rather than something like "in place of an attack". This is just a single class feature of one obscure Fighter archetype, but to me it seems to imply that whoever wrote those rules considers combat maneuvers to be attacks.
I think that whoever wrote the ability should have consulted other combat maneuvers which can be done in place of an attack and wrote the ability to be consistent. If anything, that ability shows that prior to that, making a dirty trick was not "an attack".
Maybe the writer knows that Combat Maneuvers used in melee, are melee attacks?
Then what bonus exactly is given for being able to make the dirty trick "as an attack" if it already is an attack?
Found this in another thread. Its a paizo blog post about disarm/sunder/trip being the only combat maneuvers made with a weapon. I think it lends further evidence that the other combat maneuvers are not made with a weapon and are not melee attacks in the sense opportune parry and riposte cannot be used on them.
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom
Note 6 on the Actions table in the Combat Chapter:
6 Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action.
In place of doesn't establish that it isn't a melee attack either. If you can pick an apple in place of an orange, does that mean that apples aren't fruits? The rules are written with certain presumptions on the part of the reader and one of those presumptions is that the reader has an intellectual capacity greater than a bowl of prepared horseradish. Fact: Combat Maneuvers are attacks. Fact: By default, Combat Maneuvers are performed at melee range. Conclusion: Combat Maneuvers are melee attacks. The fact that you're trading one kind of attack for a different kind of attack fails to negate that conclusion. Savvy?
So do you think a swashbuckler can opportune parry and riposte against a steal attempt?
Note 6 on the Actions table in the Combat Chapter:
6 Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action.
This phrase, and others like it in the various combat maneuver descriptions have given me the impression in the past that a "melee attack" is the wording for a non-ranged, non-combat maneuver attack. There have been a lot of good points brought up by both sides. I'm tempted to discuss semantics of words like "substitute", but that is probably a dead-end. Instead, here is my rationale: if combat maneuvers are all melee attacks, and combat maneuvers like trip can be used "in place of a melee attack", then by extension you could substitute a trip, disarm, sunder, or bull rush in whenever you have the opportunity to make any other kind of combat maneuver. There are a variety of feats and abilities that would become pretty questionable if this were the case.
Vital Strike is a melee* attack that can't be taken during a full attack or at the end of a charge. I don't see why that couldn't be the case for most combat maneuvers as well.
*or ranged, but melee is what's relevant here.
|
|
Vital Strike is a melee* attack that can't be taken during a full attack or at the end of a charge. I don't see why that couldn't be the case for most combat maneuvers as well.
*or ranged, but melee is what's relevant here.
Nope.
Power Attack doesn't work with it, and it doesn't work with sunder attempts.
You know, because that's how it must work.
All other interpretations are inconceivable.
;)
In the case of the Dirty Fighter archetype the rules say that his dirty trick can be performed "as an attack instead of a standard action". Combat maneuvers also clearly require an "attack roll". Taking stuff like this into consideration I'd have a tough time deciding that combat maneuvers definitely aren't attacks without some input from Paizo.
However, even if a combat maneuver is an attack there could be a question regarding whether making an attack "miss" would apply to attacks which have a success or failure criteria instead of hit or miss.