Is a combat maneuver considered a "melee attack"?

[Avoron]

It could be option c, if the rules said that it was option c. For Vital Strike, the rules specifically say that you use the attack action. This is much more restrictive than just "an attack" in the sense that fireball is an attack, and it is even more restrictive than "melee attack." Regardless, it is specified to be an ability that is usable on an attack action and only on an attack action. The action is still a melee attack, because you're not actually performing a different action than you would be if you didn't have the feat.

For combat maneuvers, however, the rules specifically say that you perform a combat maneuver instead of making a melee attack. That isn't exactly open to interpretation as "They're a special kind of melee attack." If that was what they were, the rules would say that. But they don't.

And the rules of the Dirty Fighter archetype don't show that combat maneuvers are melee attacks. On the contrary, if they were melee attacks, then that ability would be meaningless. The "as a melee attack" wording seems to imply that you can use it in the same way you would use a trip/disarm/sunder. It's a poorly written ability, and I don't think that's a viable source of information to interpret anything about the general rules. Even if the ability meant that your dirty trick maneuvers count as melee attacks for every purpose, it certainly doesn't have any bearing on the actual issue, which is whether ordinary combat maneuvers, such as a grapple or a trip, are melee attacks.

[Tarantula]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, if something imparts a penalty on melee attacks, it has no effect on Combat Maneuvers?

For example: Solid Fog.

Quote:

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.

Interesting that this whole section it only refers to combat maneuvers as "attack rolls" and not "melee attacks". Because solid fog gives a -2 penalty to all melee attacks, which would apply on melee attack rolls, the penalty would also apply on a combat maneuver attack roll.

Another interesting point for combat maneuvers:

Quote:

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.

With normal melee attacks, you get a +4 to a melee attack against a helpless creature, and stunned you get no special bonus to hit (well, they get a penalty of -2ac and loss of dex). While combat maneuver attacks get to treat as a natural 20 and a +4 respectively.

[Devilkiller]

@Avoron - The Dirty Fighter's dirty trick being a melee attack seems like it might at least affect whether that dirty trick attempt can be parried. RAW it is "an attack". If it is also a "melee attack" then I suppose you could try to make it "miss" although it isn't clear whether "hit" and "miss" have any meaning for dirty tricks.

It seems likely that either the ability should be rewritten or the rules for combat maneuvers in general should be clarified (like - do they count as attacks for the purposes of abilities which can counter attacks? do they count as attacks for fighting defensively?)

[Castarr4]

The question is one of intent. Back in 3.5 the rules read thusly:

3.5 Trip wrote:

You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.

Making a Trip Attack

Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks. ...

3.5 Sunder wrote:

Sunder

You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)...

3.5 Overrun wrote:

Overrun

You can attempt an overrun as a standard action taken during your move.
...
Step 3

Opponent Blocks? If your opponent blocks you, make a Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check

3.5 Grapple wrote:

Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll.

...
Step 2

Grab. You make a melee touch attack to grab the target.

3.5 Disarm wrote:

Disarm

As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.
...
Step 2

Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons.
...
If you fail on the disarm attempt, the defender may immediately react and attempt to disarm you with the same sort of opposed melee attack roll.

3.5 Bull Rush wrote:

Second, you and the defender make opposed Strength checks.

So here we have it. The combat maneuver system is based on 3.5 special attacks turned into a unified system. But you'll notice that while sunder, disarm, trip, and grapple specifically called for melee attacks, overrun and bull rush were opposed Strength checks. Interesting, yes?

Was the change from them being distinctly called melee attacks and checks to combat maneuvers intentional in this particular case? I can't really answer that. But as written in Pathfinder, combat maneuvers don't seem to count as (which is a bit bizarre to me).

This post is not meant to draw a conclusion, but rather to shed some light on the origins of the issue.

While I appreciate the unified system of combat maneuvers, I think that we lost some amount of clarity in the 3.5/Pathfinder switch, which is causing the problem here.

[nennafir]

RumpinRufus wrote:

For the purposes of a swashbuckler's Opportune Parry and Riposte, is a combat maneuver considered a "melee attack" and therefore able to be parried?

From http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat

"Melee Attack: While a melee attack isn't an action type itself, many options and other rules affect melee attacks. Some combat options (such as the disarm and sunder combat maneuvers) can be used anytime you make a melee attack, including attacks of opportunity. These options can't be combined with each other (a single melee attack can be a disarm or sunder combat maneuver, but not both), but they can be combined with options that modify an attack action or are standard or full-round actions. Some options that take or modify melee attacks have limitations—for example, Stunning Fist can be used only once per round. Source: PPC:MTT"

So it does say "A single melee attack can be a disarm or sunder combat maneuver." Either of those at least seem to be melee attacks, because that is exactly what the above sentence is saying.