Is there anything to support a character voluntarily failing a CMD.
If not, as a DM, would you allow it?
An example being, one character wanting to Bull Rush another character out of danger.
Another example, a character wanting to be Grappled by a monster so that it can get close for a special attack.
Both seem reasonable and heroic.
As a DM this can always be house ruled, would this be supported in PFS?
depends on the situation, and how cheezy the players are trying to be.
for example trying to bullrush someone out of a grapple the difficulty would be more against the grapplers CMB than your allys CMD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I don't think so. As a GM, I would allow a character to voluntarily become flat-footed for the entire round, lowering their CMD and AC. Enough cost to discourage cheese, but still an option.
If you can voluntarily fail a saving throw, I think you should be able to voluntarily drop your CMD.
How low you can drop it another question.
I would say anything under your control should could be dropped.
CMD is 10+ Str + Dex + Dodge + Deflection + Insight + {Maneuver Feats} + {Other}
The base 10 and deflection bonuses are out of your control, so I wouldn't let you drop those.
Any stat boost (Str, Dex, Wis for monks, etc.) should be under your control, so you could probably drop those to 0.
Dodge bonuses are based on Dex and go away when you're flat-footed, so I think you could effectively make yourself flat-footed to the opponent.
Insight bonus is a bit tricky: is it "information that you act on" or a separate "thing"? I tend to think of it as information, so I would let you drop insight bonuses. Other GMs may see it differently.
Bonuses from "Improved {Maneuver}" are also tricky. I suppose if you could intentionally not use the feat and purposefully provoke an AoO, then you could drop the CMD bonus also. I haven't got a clear answer whether you could not use a feat if you have it, though.
Other sources will vary. For example, if you have the +4 sacred bonus to CMD from performing you celestial obedience to Falayna, you wouldn't be able to turn that on and off.
Now, you could probably make yourself essentially "helpless" to the attack, so you could treat your Dex as 0. If you did that, I would probably make you be "helpless" until your next turn.
So you could at the very least lower your CMD down to
10 + (0 for Str) + (0 to -5 for Dex) + Deflection + {Maneuver feats?} + {Other?}
If you go the "helpless" route, you should be able to drop your CMD down below 10 in most cases.
I like the idea of allowing flat footed CMD
I'd be more generous than letting them flat footed. If someone wants to fail, I'd allow the to act as if they had Dex 0 for CMD, or something like that.
I would be more worried about reposition abuse than bull rush/ grapple.
Made a thread about this same thing awhile back, from what happened in a PFS session.
While no official answer was reached, the general consensus was that if one player is going to use most or all of their actions to do a combat maneuver on an ally, let them do it.
I dislike that there is virtually no possibility of failure, but since then in the handful of times that it has come up in PFS or at my home table I've allowed voluntary failure/automatic success/however-you-want-to-look-at-it.
Is there anything to support a character voluntarily failing a CMD.
If not, as a DM, would you allow it?An example being, one character wanting to Bull Rush another character out of danger.
Another example, a character wanting to be Grappled by a monster so that it can get close for a special attack.
Both seem reasonable and heroic.
As a DM this can always be house ruled, would this be supported in PFS?
No. The other person still has to make the attack roll. If you have a deflection bonus up that would still count also, among other things.
I think it would be ok to say you are no longer use str and dex to resist, but depending on the situation that may cause other problems.<----not a rule, just a way to help a player out.
If not, as a DM, would you allow it?
As a DM this can always be house ruled, would this be supported in PFS?
I forgot to answer this part.
I might allow it on a case by case basis.
No it is not supported by PFS.
Think about this for a second:
DM:"The creature is trying to grab you."
PC:"I will let it grab me."
DM:"It grabs you."
There is no conflict, so there is no contest. At best, I may allow an intelligent assailant to sense motive to figure out the PC is trying to maneuver in close using the assailant's action. But since the player isn't using his Maneuver Defense in Combat, there's no need for the creature to roll against his CMD.
This came up the other night in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Players were trying to get Cindermaw to swallow them, and Cindermaw WANTED to swallow them. Why roll? Does it build tension?
As for bullrushing an ally, I see no difficulty unless the ally is blinded for some reason and can't see who is tackling him. It makes perfect dramatic sense that an ally could knock someone out of the way of danger if they had an action ready.
Think about this for a second:
DM:"The creature is trying to grab you."
PC:"I will let it grab me."
DM:"It grabs you."
There is no conflict, so there is no contest. At best, I may allow an intelligent assailant to sense motive to figure out the PC is trying to maneuver in close using the assailant's action. But since the player isn't using his Maneuver Defense in Combat, there's no need for the creature to roll against his CMD.
This came up the other night in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Players were trying to get Cindermaw to swallow them, and Cindermaw WANTED to swallow them. Why roll? Does it build tension?
As for bullrushing an ally, I see no difficulty unless the ally is blinded for some reason and can't see who is tackling him. It makes perfect dramatic sense that an ally could knock someone out of the way of danger if they had an action ready.
Yeah, that senario isn't the issue. It's this one.
Player: I reposition John 5 ft that way.
John: I let him!
DM: ok
John: I 5ft shift and full attack!
DM: doh!
Think about this for a second:
DM:"The creature is trying to grab you."
PC:"I will let it grab me."
DM:"It grabs you."
There is no conflict, so there is no contest. At best, I may allow an intelligent assailant to sense motive to figure out the PC is trying to maneuver in close using the assailant's action. But since the player isn't using his Maneuver Defense in Combat, there's no need for the creature to roll against his CMD.
This came up the other night in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Players were trying to get Cindermaw to swallow them, and Cindermaw WANTED to swallow them. Why roll? Does it build tension?
As for bullrushing an ally, I see no difficulty unless the ally is blinded for some reason and can't see who is tackling him. It makes perfect dramatic sense that an ally could knock someone out of the way of danger if they had an action ready.
Yeah, that senario isn't the issue. It's this one.
Player: I reposition John 5 ft that way.
John: I let him!
DM: ok
John: I 5ft shift and full attack!
DM: doh!
Generally not a big deal as it is still maintaining action economy. How is this different from one character D-Dooring another character into full attack range?
Generally not a big deal as it is still maintaining action economy. How is this different from one character D-Dooring another character into full attack range?Think about this for a second:
DM:"The creature is trying to grab you."
PC:"I will let it grab me."
DM:"It grabs you."
There is no conflict, so there is no contest. At best, I may allow an intelligent assailant to sense motive to figure out the PC is trying to maneuver in close using the assailant's action. But since the player isn't using his Maneuver Defense in Combat, there's no need for the creature to roll against his CMD.
This came up the other night in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Players were trying to get Cindermaw to swallow them, and Cindermaw WANTED to swallow them. Why roll? Does it build tension?
As for bullrushing an ally, I see no difficulty unless the ally is blinded for some reason and can't see who is tackling him. It makes perfect dramatic sense that an ally could knock someone out of the way of danger if they had an action ready.
Yeah, that senario isn't the issue. It's this one.
Player: I reposition John 5 ft that way.
John: I let him!
DM: ok
John: I 5ft shift and full attack!
DM: doh!
Ddoor is a 4th level spell that has a limited number of uses in a day. Reposition is a combat maneuver. Also ddoor costs the caster the rest of their turn and puts them adjacent to the baddie, while reposition allows the support person their move action (and they don't have caster/squishy requirements as front liners.)
So essentially, there's a lot different.
As long as imitative isn't violated, and the rules for re-positioning are being fully observed, that's not a problem.Think about this for a second:
DM:"The creature is trying to grab you."
PC:"I will let it grab me."
DM:"It grabs you."
There is no conflict, so there is no contest. At best, I may allow an intelligent assailant to sense motive to figure out the PC is trying to maneuver in close using the assailant's action. But since the player isn't using his Maneuver Defense in Combat, there's no need for the creature to roll against his CMD.
This came up the other night in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Players were trying to get Cindermaw to swallow them, and Cindermaw WANTED to swallow them. Why roll? Does it build tension?
As for bullrushing an ally, I see no difficulty unless the ally is blinded for some reason and can't see who is tackling him. It makes perfect dramatic sense that an ally could knock someone out of the way of danger if they had an action ready.
Yeah, that senario isn't the issue. It's this one.
Player: I reposition John 5 ft that way.
John: I let him!
DM: ok
John: I 5ft shift and full attack!
DM: doh!
Right, and so the discussion is whether or not voluntarily dropping your CMD guard for one attack is "within the rules."
Remember Gimli told Aragorn to toss him at the orcs. ;)
|
As long as initiative isn't violated, and the rules for re-positioning are being fully observed, that's not a problem.Yeah, that scenario isn't the issue. It's this one.
Player: I reposition John 5 ft that way.
John: I let him!
DM: ok
John: I 5ft shift and full attack!
DM: doh!
Would you still say it's not a problem if the bad guys did it?
The person performing the maneuver is sacrificing their standard action AND they have to be within melee range, so yes, I would absolutely allow it and don't see a balance issue. There wouldn't be AoO shenanigans due to allies not provoking them, so where's the problem?
One caveat would be that the ally has to be aware of your attempt and voluntarily lower their defense for you. If they don't know it's you or are cursed in some way, their instinct will of course be to thwart the maneuver.
At the very least, you must agree that you're allowed to voluntarily lower your defenses for grappling and repositioning. Imagine how frustrated the young adults of Golarion would be if the PDT ruled to the contrary. =[
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The person performing the maneuver is sacrificing their standard action AND they have to be within melee range, so yes, I would absolutely allow it and don't see a balance issue. There wouldn't be AoO shenanigans due to allies not provoking them, so where's the problem?
One caveat would be that the ally has to be aware of your attempt and voluntarily lower their defense for you. If they don't know it's you or are cursed in some way, their instinct will of course be to thwart the maneuver.
At the very least, you must agree that you're allowed to voluntarily lower your defenses for grappling and repositioning. Imagine how frustrated the young adults of Golarion would be if the PDT ruled to the contrary. =[
Oh that is what they call it in Golarion? :)
|
Oh that is what they call it in Golarion? :)The person performing the maneuver is sacrificing their standard action AND they have to be within melee range, so yes, I would absolutely allow it and don't see a balance issue. There wouldn't be AoO shenanigans due to allies not provoking them, so where's the problem?
One caveat would be that the ally has to be aware of your attempt and voluntarily lower their defense for you. If they don't know it's you or are cursed in some way, their instinct will of course be to thwart the maneuver.
At the very least, you must agree that you're allowed to voluntarily lower your defenses for grappling and repositioning. Imagine how frustrated the young adults of Golarion would be if the PDT ruled to the contrary. =[
What a Dirty Trick!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Army of minions bullrushing and repositioning the BBEG in to melee range every turn.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ddoor is a 4th level spell that has a limited number of uses in a day. Reposition is a combat maneuver. Also ddoor costs the caster the rest of their turn and puts them adjacent to the baddie, while reposition allows the support person their move action (and they don't have caster/squishy requirements as front liners.)
So essentially, there's a lot different.
DDoor can transport multiple people at once, can cross walls, change elevation, span chasms, travel substantial distances, and does NOT put the caster adjacent to the baddy (in fact, it can put the melee buddy directly in between them).
A version of that which can only move one person within arm's reach through an unobstructed path to another space within arm's reach should absolutely be a lot easier to do.
Ddoor is a 4th level spell that has a limited number of uses in a day. Reposition is a combat maneuver. Also ddoor costs the caster the rest of their turn and puts them adjacent to the baddie, while reposition allows the support person their move action (and they don't have caster/squishy requirements as front liners.)
So essentially, there's a lot different.
DDoor can transport multiple people at once, can cross walls, change elevation, span chasms, travel substantial distances, and does NOT put the caster adjacent to the baddy (in fact, it can put the melee buddy directly in between them).
A version of that which can only move one person within arm's reach through an unobstructed path to another space within arm's reach should absolutely be a lot easier to do.
I'm just having a hard time with during combat while my guard is up that I will allow a particular attack to land but still maintain all of my other defenses for all other attacks this round.
I think that is what's being missed is that a combat maneuver is an attack, it isn't your ally incidentally touching you as part of a spell, it is a violent use of force that physically moves you 5ft from where you were no matter your balance, momentum, or body position.
Imagine trainning in a world where you can't lower your CMD.
"Sensei, would you please allow us to trip you only once, just to see if we're doing it right?
"Sorry kid, just can't."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm just having a hard time with during combat while my guard is up that I will allow a particular attack to land but still maintain all of my other defenses for all other attacks this round.
I think that is what's being missed is that a combat maneuver is an attack, it isn't your ally incidentally touching you as part of a spell, it is a violent use of force that physically moves you 5ft from where you were no matter your balance, momentum, or body position.
Delivering a touch spell is every bit as much an attack as a CMB check is, yet the target doesn't have to do anything special to let it auto-hit without a roll; simply being an ally is enough. Heck, even your deflection bonuses will let it through.
Saying that the act of reaching my hand toward my ally is either an auto-success or a full-on CMB check depending on what I plan to do with my hand afterwards is just ridiculous.
Ddoor is a 4th level spell that has a limited number of uses in a day. Reposition is a combat maneuver. Also ddoor costs the caster the rest of their turn and puts them adjacent to the baddie, while reposition allows the support person their move action (and they don't have caster/squishy requirements as front liners.)
So essentially, there's a lot different.
DDoor can transport multiple people at once, can cross walls, change elevation, span chasms, travel substantial distances, and does NOT put the caster adjacent to the baddy (in fact, it can put the melee buddy directly in between them).
A version of that which can only move one person within arm's reach through an unobstructed path to another space within arm's reach should absolutely be a lot easier to do.
I'm just having a hard time with during combat while my guard is up that I will allow a particular attack to land but still maintain all of my other defenses for all other attacks this round.
I think that is what's being missed is that a combat maneuver is an attack, it isn't your ally incidentally touching you as part of a spell, it is a violent use of force that physically moves you 5ft from where you were no matter your balance, momentum, or body position.
It is the exact same principle. You are lowering your defenses to allow someone to affect you.
I would have a problem with the wizards familiar repositioning and bullrushing the enlarged figther into position with auto succes maneuvers. But lowering CMD i am fine with.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The big problem with "autosuccess" is determining the degree of success on maneuvers where that matters. Spending a standard action to reposition someone 5 feet is probably fine. Letting the monk autosucceed at bull rushing a full plate armored fighter 50 feet forward and setting him for a full attack seems to me to be an abuse.
So this is the scenario I have a problem with:
Surprise round, enemies 40' away:
Monk: "I could just move up, but instead I'll bull rush/drag my fighter friend as a standard action. Now we're both up there!"
It lets people use their standard actions to give both moves and full attacks to other people - and themselves, and if allowed, becomes the go-to tactic in a number of common situations.
So while I support being able to use combat maneuvers on allies to an extent, I think autosuccess should be limited to the minimum levels of success - 5 foot moves. If you want more you have to roll against CMD.
Edit: an even more egregious example of abuse would be to have a wizard cast expeditious retreat on his familiar, and have it use combat maneuvers to do all the party's movement "off turn" so they never have to use their own move actions, and in fact get better movement out of it, especially if said familiar has fly speeds.
I would have a problem with the wizards familiar repositioning and bullrushing the enlarged figther into position with auto succes maneuvers. But lowering CMD i am fine with.
A tiny creature cannot even attempt to Bullrush a medium creature, never mind a large one. CMD never comes into play due to size limitations.
The big problem with "autosuccess" is determining the degree of success on maneuvers where that matters. Spending a standard action to reposition someone 5 feet is probably fine. Letting the monk autosucceed at bull rushing a full plate armored fighter 50 feet forward and setting him for a full attack seems to me to be an abuse.
So this is the scenario I have a problem with:
Surprise round, enemies 40' away:
Monk: "I could just move up, but instead I'll bull rush/drag my fighter friend as a standard action. Now we're both up there!"It lets people use their standard actions to give both moves and full attacks to other people - and themselves, and if allowed, becomes the go-to tactic in a number of common situations.
So while I support being able to use combat maneuvers on allies to an extent, I think autosuccess should be limited to the minimum levels of success - 5 foot moves. If you want more you have to roll against CMD.
Edit: an even more egregious example of abuse would be to have a wizard cast expeditious retreat on his familiar, and have it use combat maneuvers to do all the party's movement "off turn" so they never have to use their own move actions, and in fact get better movement out of it, especially if said familiar has fly speeds.
I would handle the levels of success like this: No roll equals minimum results. If you want to get big results you have to do it the normal way and roll vs full CMD.
I'm just having a hard time with during combat while my guard is up that I will allow a particular attack to land but still maintain all of my other defenses for all other attacks this round.
I think that is what's being missed is that a combat maneuver is an attack, it isn't your ally incidentally touching you as part of a spell, it is a violent use of force that physically moves you 5ft from where you were no matter your balance, momentum, or body position.
Delivering a touch spell is every bit as much an attack as a CMB check is, yet the target doesn't have to do anything special to let it auto-hit without a roll; simply being an ally is enough. Heck, even your deflection bonuses will let it through.
Saying that the act of reaching my hand toward my ally is either an auto-success or a full-on CMB check depending on what I plan to do with my hand afterwards is just ridiculous.
Do you have a rule cite that says an ally doesn't have to land a touch attack to affect you with a touch spell in combat?
Hurry up and heal him!
I can't! He's wearing a ring of protection!
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
That seems like a specific rule that implies a general rule that works as the opposite.
There is no specific or general rule pertaining to using combat maneuvers on allies, as far as I know. The combat maneuver rules are intended to be used on enemies, obviously, but there is no logical reason why they couldn't work on an ally. There are numerous examples that could be given of pushing/pulling people out of harm's way or grabbing someone who's about to fall off of something. If you saw someone being electrocuted by touching a stick to an electric fence, wouldn't you try to use "sunder" on the stick with another stick? If your friend was about to inadvertently drink something that they were allergic to or that had long-since expired, wouldn't you try to "disarm" them? I don't think you should have to spend a feat or more on performing such simple actions in a slightly different context than the game rules assume.
How about this as a compromise: You may voluntarily lower your CMD to the base of 10 and rolling a 1 auto-fails, with the possibility of one or the other of you being staggered for 1 round?
There is no specific or general rule pertaining to using combat maneuvers on allies, as far as I know. The combat maneuver rules are intended to be used on enemies, obviously, but there is no logical reason why they couldn't work on an ally. There are numerous examples that could be given of pushing/pulling people out of harm's way or grabbing someone who's about to fall off of something. If you saw someone being electrocuted by touching a stick to an electric fence, wouldn't you try to use "sunder" on the stick with another stick? If your friend was about to inadvertently drink something that they were allergic to or that had long-since expired, wouldn't you try to "disarm" them? I don't think you should have to spend a feat or more on performing such simple actions in a slightly different context than the game rules assume.
How about this as a compromise: You may voluntarily lower your CMD to the base of 10 and rolling a 1 auto-fails, with the possibility of one or the other of you being staggered for 1 round?
You're right there are no rules specific to combat maneuvers vs allies, so the general rule that you have to hit CMD of the affected character.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...unless trying to move or otherwise physically affect an ally isn't a combat maneuver at all, and should be resolved entirely outside that system. After all, maneuvers are clearly written for enemies.
ETA: Perhaps the question should not be "In what ways, if any, do I modify the combat maneuver mechanics when the target is an ally?" Perhaps the question should be "Since I'm obviously physically capable of moving/affecting an ally, what is the appropriate way to resolve such an endeavor?"
For that question, is "perform a combat maneuver" really the best answer in the first place? Should we really look to an enemy-exclusive mechanic as a model for how to interact with allies? I submit that the answer is "no", and we should be resolving physical interaction with allies in a different manner altogether, and probably one more in line with precedents set by other rules for interacting with allies.
Ddoor is a 4th level spell that has a limited number of uses in a day. Reposition is a combat maneuver. Also ddoor costs the caster the rest of their turn and puts them adjacent to the baddie, while reposition allows the support person their move action (and they don't have caster/squishy requirements as front liners.)
So essentially, there's a lot different.
DDoor can transport multiple people at once, can cross walls, change elevation, span chasms, travel substantial distances, and does NOT put the caster adjacent to the baddy (in fact, it can put the melee buddy directly in between them).
A version of that which can only move one person within arm's reach through an unobstructed path to another space within arm's reach should absolutely be a lot easier to do.
I'm just having a hard time with during combat while my guard is up that I will allow a particular attack to land but still maintain all of my other defenses for all other attacks this round.
I think that is what's being missed is that a combat maneuver is an attack, it isn't your ally incidentally touching you as part of a spell, it is a violent use of force that physically moves you 5ft from where you were no matter your balance, momentum, or body position.
You mean like healing or teleport or any other touch spell that one of your friends might do that you automatically allow them to touch you for on any given round?
Any helpful touch spell is usually an automatic touch as long as the target lets them. Why would maneuvers be any different?
Ddoor is a 4th level spell that has a limited number of uses in a day. Reposition is a combat maneuver. Also ddoor costs the caster the rest of their turn and puts them adjacent to the baddie, while reposition allows the support person their move action (and they don't have caster/squishy requirements as front liners.)
So essentially, there's a lot different.
DDoor can transport multiple people at once, can cross walls, change elevation, span chasms, travel substantial distances, and does NOT put the caster adjacent to the baddy (in fact, it can put the melee buddy directly in between them).
A version of that which can only move one person within arm's reach through an unobstructed path to another space within arm's reach should absolutely be a lot easier to do.
I'm just having a hard time with during combat while my guard is up that I will allow a particular attack to land but still maintain all of my other defenses for all other attacks this round.
I think that is what's being missed is that a combat maneuver is an attack, it isn't your ally incidentally touching you as part of a spell, it is a violent use of force that physically moves you 5ft from where you were no matter your balance, momentum, or body position.
You mean like healing or teleport or any other touch spell that one of your friends might do that you automatically allow them to touch you for on any given round?
Any helpful touch spell is usually an automatic touch as long as the target lets them. Why would maneuvers be any different?
For the exact reasons I put in the post you quoted, and because of the special rule allowing ally spell touches quoted by Jiggy.
The way that I would run it is like this.
1: is the target aware of his ally's intent. ( speaking is a free action so I generaly assume so.)
2: does the target weigh more than you "drag across the ground weight"?
It's not perfect but people I play with seem ok with it. Think about it. If a wizard notices a eneamy trying to sneak in behind the group in combat. Can he pull his fighter buddy aside to protect him? I would say not as a 7-10 STR wizard can't drag a 200lb fighter in full plate and with all of his gear.