Are the combat maneuvers more or less the same list as in PF?
As to whether combat maneuvers may still appeal - it depends how disabling being grappled (/dirty tricked/etc.) is, and how many damaging attacks it would take to put the enemy down. Tripping being pointless doesn't necessarily make the others a waste of time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Get Improved Combat Maneuver to reduce it to KAC +4 and Weapon Focus (Advanced Melee Weapons) for a +1 to the attack. Use a Taclash, since it has the Disarm quality, granting you a +2 to disarm attempts. A level 1 Soldier can be pretty good at disarming foes, and still have a hand open for using a pistol. After the enemy's disarmed, they no longer threaten; feel free to shoot 'em point blank. Go Hit-and-Run and just be hilarious.
What's great is that Pull The Pin doesn't say you need to be unarmed. Just use your Taclash to yoink some pins, have a good time.
Taclashes are really good for their levels, but there are not enough of them to make a build around. Maybe go Kasatha (or get some cyberarms), pair it with a heftier weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's always been one of my complaints with PF (and now SF): the combat "options" aren't really options. Sure, you could do them, but most of the time they're not viable. Especially if you're not focused on them. And if you do focus on them, well - that's one combat maneuver and all the rest still aren't viable, and you've wasted a limited resource (feats) on them.
That will be one of my house rules. Let's lower that difficulty and make the options more viable.
Is it still 3 feats to get all the combat maneuver (for one maneuver) stuff?
Is it still 3 feats to get all the combat maneuver (for one maneuver) stuff?
One feat per combat manoeuvre to get the +4 bonus.
There's "Improved Combat Maneuver" which adds +4 to one maneuver. Can be taken several times and each time pick a different maneuver.
Then that feat is a prerequisite for "Pull the Pin," which lets you make a disarm check to pull the grenade pin on an enemy.
So it's only one feat for each maneuver. There are seven maneuvers.
So look at some level one iconics.
Our level 1 Ysoki Mechanic, Quib, has a KAC of 14, meaning the DC to bull rush him is 22.
Our level 1 Vesk Soldier, Obozaya, has a melee attack of +4.
So for the soldier to successfully push around the mechanic, she needs to roll 18+. Looking at the rest of the iconics, the best chance she has, as the biggest and strongest of the iconics, is a 17+ to push around the weak technomancer.
As melee attack generally increases with AC, this will always be an issue.
Combat maneuvers will not be viable options in a game. And it's probably true if you also pick up the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's "Improved Combat Maneuver" which adds +4 to one maneuver. Can be taken several times and each time pick a different maneuver.
Then that feat is a prerequisite for "Pull the Pin," which lets you make a disarm check to pull the grenade pin on an enemy.
So it's only one feat for each maneuver. There are seven maneuvers.
So look at some level one iconics.
Our level 1 Ysoki Mechanic, Quib, has a KAC of 14, meaning the DC to bull rush him is 22.
Our level 1 Vesk Soldier, Obozaya, has a melee attack of +4.
So for the soldier to successfully push around the mechanic, she needs to roll 18+. Looking at the rest of the iconics, the best chance she has, as the biggest and strongest of the iconics, is a 17+ to push around the weak technomancer.
As melee attack generally increases with AC, this will always be an issue.
Combat maneuvers will not be viable options in a game. And it's probably true if you also pick up the feat.
And the CR1 monsters in Incident at Absolon Station have KAC of 13 or 15, so same issue there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It should be difficult. Disarming somebody with one weapon takes them out of the fight- it's more or less a one-shot move. That should be harder. Shoving somebody off a cliff is also more or less a one shot before flight. In Pathfinder, the DCs eventually got a lot worse than AC +8, and it took twice the feats to get that +4. If you have an Envoy on hand (level 6+) and take a feat, you're now hitting on the same number you'd hit on without the Envoy, and using a tac-lash means you're hitting on lower than without the Envoy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It should be difficult. Disarming somebody with one weapon takes them out of the fight- it's more or less a one-shot move. That should be harder. Shoving somebody off a cliff is also more or less a one shot before flight. In Pathfinder, the DCs eventually got a lot worse than AC +8, and it took twice the feats to get that +4. If you have an Envoy on hand (level 6+) and take a feat, you're now hitting on the same number you'd hit on without the Envoy, and using a tac-lash means you're hitting on lower than without the Envoy.
Problem is it is not just difficult, it is unattractive.
I suppose this boils down to how much you want your fights to be cinematic fights, with people pushing others through windows, knocking them down downstairs, and throwing sand to their eyes, compared to "I full attack, 22 damage" types of combat.
Non-damage options need to be attractive if you ever want them to be used by a non-specialist, because Damage already have the upper hand here, because death is the best condition, and no matter what, you still have to kill your prone, disarmed, blind foe that you spent 3 actions to put in such bad condition. 3 rounds of attacks, and he probably would be death for now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An improved maneuver and an appropriate weapon makes the target effectively KAC+2. Add an envoy or an operative and it becomes easier. It's not something that will be used by everyone, but for the cost of a feat and an item, you can become good at disarming or tripping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can cast sleep every day, and that's ended more combats in a single round than anything else I've ever seen.
So apparently that philosophy doesn't apply to casters.
But! In 5e, all the combat maneuvers were a contest check. Athletics vs Athletics or Acrobatics. Suddenly, all these options became viable and you'd see them a lot more often. And amazingly, they didn't destroy the entire game. All they did was add flavor to the game and provide more real usable options other than "I attack."
An improved maneuver and an appropriate weapon makes the target effectively KAC+2. Add an envoy or an operative and it becomes easier. It's not something that will be used by everyone, but for the cost of a feat and an item, you can become good at disarming or tripping.
I'm honestly more concerned with regular maneuvers attempted by non-specialist dudes because of circumstances. In general, an specialist will always be good at what they are specialized for (even if said thing, like tripping, might not be an optimal choice to be specialized, because at high level most enemies become inmune). The problem is with every one else. The dudes that are not an automatic trip machine, or the dude who do not throw sand to the eyes of the enemy every round of every combat because that's what he built his character for, but they guy who says "hey, you know what? We are fighting in a desert, this guy does a lot of damage, we are low in HP, what if I throw sand to his eyes and buy us a round of blindness so we can retreat and heal?".
Or pushing someone from a cliff, or into a pit of lava, or using a courtain to entangle them and stuff like that. Errol-flynnesque combat. It's a bit counterintuitive that two guys fighting in a high platform would not attempt to throw the other guy out of the platform because it is not worth it to try anything else but damage.
It should be difficult. Disarming somebody with one weapon takes them out of the fight- it's more or less a one-shot move. That should be harder. Shoving somebody off a cliff is also more or less a one shot before flight. In Pathfinder, the DCs eventually got a lot worse than AC +8, and it took twice the feats to get that +4. If you have an Envoy on hand (level 6+) and take a feat, you're now hitting on the same number you'd hit on without the Envoy, and using a tac-lash means you're hitting on lower than without the Envoy.
This is true that it should be difficult, but if we look at First Contact, a CR 7 Bloodbrother is KAC 21, that's a 29 or 25 (with a feat) DC to hit for a maneuver when in Pathfinder a Greater Barghest is CMD 22 (24 vs. Trip).
A CR2 Contemplative in First Contact is KAC 12 which is a DC 20 or 16 (although you likely haven't invested in the feat at this point) whereas in Pathfinder a Gorilla Ape is CMD 17.
I'm a little torn, but I also haven't had a chance to really try to play with different builds. It could be there are ways we just aren't seeing yet to help a little but it could also just be indicative of the thought process. In an age of jetpacks and lasers and personal shields, a combat maneuver probably ISN'T as viable.
Yeah- I don't want maneuvers to be easy or attractive for non-specialists. I want there to be a chance of it working, and I'm glad they're not penalized with an attack of opportunity, but it should be a move of desperation rather than something the GM must plan around every time.
I think "better than counting on a crit" is good, so as long as you hit on a 19 with it as a non-specialist, it's a viable move of desperation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is the disagreement.
I want fights to be cinematic, and people using the scenary around them (Windows, tables, chandeliers, pits, etc). In patfhinder, I made the AOO only happen AFTER the maneuver IF you miss, to encourage people to try things other than "I full attack. Wait 2 minutes, I'm adding up some math from spell buffs.... that's it, 125 damage"
For those that don't want players to try maneuvers, the fact that maneuvers are not going to be tried is a bless, not a bug.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat maneuvers look a lot worse than Pathfinder, which I would have found hard to believe had someone suggested it before the CRB for Starfinder was released.
There are really three main problems:
Which is the disagreement.
I want fights to be cinematic, and people using the scenary around them (Windows, tables, chandeliers, pits, etc). In patfhinder, I made the AOO only happen AFTER the maneuver IF you miss, to encourage people to try things other than "I full attack. Wait 2 minutes, I'm adding up some math from spell buffs.... that's it, 125 damage"
For those that don't want players to try maneuvers, the fact that maneuvers are not going to be tried is a bless, not a bug.
We're in disagreement about what's cinematic too. I'm picturing opening combat by running up and stealing the miniboss's heavy weapon and then booking it. That's something you set to Yakety Sax. Low on health and resorting to trying to take the miniboss's weapon out of desperation is cinematic. That's why I think success on a 19 is a useful feature- better odds than counting on your crit effect.
It depends a LOT on the cinema. Beginning scene of Star Wars was dozens of armored troops shooting lasers at rebels hiding behind cover and also shooting lasers. Nobody was pushing anyone anywhere. I think a laser-gun shootout is probably more in tune with Sci-Fi movies and lots of maneuvers more like Indiana Jones or something similar.
We're in disagreement about what's cinematic too. I'm picturing opening combat by running up and stealing the miniboss's heavy weapon and then booking it. That's something you set to Yakety Sax. Low on health and resorting to trying to take the miniboss's weapon out of desperation is cinematic. That's why I think success on a 19 is a useful feature- better odds than counting on your crit effect.Which is the disagreement.
I want fights to be cinematic, and people using the scenary around them (Windows, tables, chandeliers, pits, etc). In patfhinder, I made the AOO only happen AFTER the maneuver IF you miss, to encourage people to try things other than "I full attack. Wait 2 minutes, I'm adding up some math from spell buffs.... that's it, 125 damage"
For those that don't want players to try maneuvers, the fact that maneuvers are not going to be tried is a bless, not a bug.
We are also in disagreement about how much of the movie should be cinematic. It's not just about the miniboss, who could also have easily countermeasures (like a harness for his heavy gun, the gun implanted in his shoulder, or just having a tougher "CMD" than the standard mook). It's also about how much cool maneuvers you use fighting those mooks before the miniboss. Which are the ones you see falling from balconys and stuff in Errol Flynn's movies.
Something that you need to roll a 19 is not something you are going to try against mooks, and certainly it's not something you are going to try against a deadly boss, because if you need to roll 19 as a desperate attempt, 90% of the time you die. The crit effect happens slightly less, but does not has the opportunity cost of doing no damage at all, miss or hit, and does at least something a good percentage of times you use it (regular damage when you don't crit). A dirty maneuver to entangle that hits with 19+ someone won't do anything at all 90% of the time, and just entangle the other 10%. A weapon with the entangling crit rider will do damage normally, and 5% of the time, it'll entangle as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's only one bad guy with one weapon and hundreds of hit points, then a 50% chance to steal his weapon is not an unreasonable high opportunity cost.
Sure it is not. I can see people trying it in those situations.
In Starfinder, tho, it's 10% chance, not 50%. And then it becomes inviable.
Specially when you are not trying it against the only bad guy with only one gun and hundreds of hit points, but trying to push some random goblin from an elevator because it's cooler and funnier than shooting him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends a LOT on the cinema. Beginning scene of Star Wars was dozens of armored troops shooting lasers at rebels hiding behind cover and also shooting lasers. Nobody was pushing anyone anywhere. I think a laser-gun shootout is probably more in tune with Sci-Fi movies and lots of maneuvers more like Indiana Jones or something similar.
True. When people use the term 'cinematic' I start looking for things to randomly explode regardless of tech level or cause, and the main romance to spontaneously implode then recover two scenes later for no good reason.
I suppose some people might houserule CMB/CMD back into the game along with some Feats and PF style maneuvers, if that's what they prefer.
Or just lower the +8.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just lower the +8 to a +4.
Then a specialist will be at +0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's it. Zero downside aside from no damage. They had to make them harder when they removed the downsides.
Considering damage is 'The best thing you can do in combat', that's a pretty big downside.
That's it. Zero downside aside from no damage. They had to make them harder when they removed the downsides.Considering damage is 'The best thing you can do in combat', that's a pretty big downside.
Also considering that it was the same penalty in 5e and there were no issues. The only thing that happened is you'd see people shove/trip opponents more often. It gives martial classes a bit more options, a few more things to do besides "I attack."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5e doesn't require you to take a feat to get the penalty down to just 'Very high'.
There's also the fact that the ONLY downside to trying a Combat Maneuver is not doing damage in the round.
There's no attack of opportunity.
You don't get tripped or disarmed if you fail either of those checks. You just don't do damage for a round.
That's it. Zero downside aside from no damage. They had to make them harder when they removed the downsides.
If it cost you a standard action and only works on a 19+ roll, the downside is being dazed for 1 round 90% of the time you try it. Because 90% of the time you do nothing for that round
I'll just lower the +8 to a +4.
Then a specialist will be at +0.
My first hunch is this too. I'll wait until I have the book and try a few games for a judgement.
I like the change. In Pathfinder, grappling specialists at low levels were just downright silly, pinning giants and whatnot, ending the combat in a laugher.
In high-level combat in PF, monsters are grappling the players ALL the time, to the point that it wasn't fun, especially considering how many higher CR, large monsters get a free grapple with their attacks. And they were automatic successes in favor of the monster and the player playing a game of dagger vs stomach membranes. Yay!
Looking at the 4th level soldier pregen vs. the CR 7 Bloodbrother, the Bloodbrother has a slightly better than 50% chance of successfully grappling. Against the 8th level soldier, it's around 25%.
Giving the players a chance versus the monster/aliens special attacks related to combat maneuvers will make the game more fun as they were too easy to pull off in PF.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we convert a succubus to Starfinder is it harder or easier to grapple her? I'm hoping this makes it much harder.
If we convert a succubus to Starfinder is it harder or easier to grapple her? I'm hoping this makes it much harder.
CMD (or CMD equivalent in the case of Starfinder) goes from 22 to 28, so yeah, its harder. There are also fewer bonuses to hit or to grapple checks after picking up the +4 for the improved maneuver feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really liked combat maneuvers in PF because they let martials affect combat in non-damage related ways. Trip builds could really hamper mobility and melee effectiveness, disarm builds defanged any humanoid NPCs, bullrush builds made create pit devastating even if the Reflex save was 11. Knocking someone off a cliff isn't just cinematic, it's mechanically effective. I'll reserve my opinion until I've read through the whole CRB, but if it's that hard to land maneuvers in SF I'm going to be pretty bummed out.
Are there any scientific lubricants you can apply to make a grapple check harder?
Hmm. This was maybe my favorite change from Pathfinder (wherein combat maneuver checks always seemed to be either very easy or nigh-impossible). Now, they're usually hard, but not unachievable with the right feats and/or circumstantial benefits, like an envoy's morale boost. Remember that hitting KAC + 4 with a standard action is essentially the same as hitting KAC with one attack in a full attack--something that full-BAB classes can usually do more than half the time against First Contact monsters with a CR equal to their level.
It should be difficult. Disarming somebody with one weapon takes them out of the fight- it's more or less a one-shot move. That should be harder. Shoving somebody off a cliff is also more or less a one shot before flight. In Pathfinder, the DCs eventually got a lot worse than AC +8, and it took twice the feats to get that +4. If you have an Envoy on hand (level 6+) and take a feat, you're now hitting on the same number you'd hit on without the Envoy, and using a tac-lash means you're hitting on lower than without the Envoy.
This strikes me as basically right. In my opinion, it would be bad if the system encouraged you to use combat maneuvers as a matter of course, as it would if they were generally competitive with regular attacks. Now, they'll usually be more trouble than it's worth--but there will still be occasional situations in which landing a maneuver can neutralize an opponent in one action.
If we convert a succubus to Starfinder is it harder or easier to grapple her? I'm hoping this makes it much harder.
Oh no, the succubus in a grapple thread made it through the Gap!!!!!
Well, depends on the succubus' KAC....
5e made Combat Maneuvers easy to pull off, and it didn't really cause any problems - the main result was more interesting and dynamic combat where players often choose other options outside of simply "I attack", leading to more varied and exciting combats overall.
I struggle to see why would that be a bad thing.
I don't have experience with 5e combat, but I think I agree with you philosophically about the issue. Ideally, combat maneuvers should be easy enough to pull off that players can use them often, but not so easy to pull off (or at least not so rewarding for their difficulty) that players use them habitually--so the rote "I attack" gets replaced with an equally rote "I trip, then attack" or whatever.
If you have a lot of combat feats for unrelated things, you can grab a feat for a flexible combat feat, letting you specialize in a maneuver when it comes up. Mostly a soldier trick.
I don't have experience with 5e combat, but I think I agree with you philosophically about the issue. Ideally, combat maneuvers should be easy enough to pull off that players can use them often, but not so easy to pull off (or at least not so rewarding for their difficulty) that players use them habitually--so the rote "I attack" gets replaced with an equally rote "I trip, then attack" or whatever.5e made Combat Maneuvers easy to pull off, and it didn't really cause any problems - the main result was more interesting and dynamic combat where players often choose other options outside of simply "I attack", leading to more varied and exciting combats overall.
I struggle to see why would that be a bad thing.Ah, I see what you mean now.
Still, I very much dislike about Starfinder's Combat Maneuvers that KAC+8 is prohibitive. You effectively need a feat to even consider using one of the options. That doesn't strike me as fun design that encourages people to mix up their options in combat, instead encouraging them to be one-trick ponies, either specialising in a single maneuver or simply killing things dead.
Right. I suspect--or anyway hope--that this will seem less prohibitive in practice, as players will be able to use teamwork (e.g. the envoy's class abilities) to temporarily boost attack bonuses or lower their target's AC in order to land combat maneuvers in cases where doing so would really make an impact.
Still, this does seem to be of a piece with Paizo's annoying practice of gating options that would otherwise be available to any player creative enough to take advantage of them behind feats. (I'm like fifty percent sure that the only reason Strike Back is in the SCB is to troll people like me.)
I now think my first guess about how they were going to handle combat maneuvers would have been a better idea -- opposed attack rolls. After all, why should armor protect you against combat maneuvers?
You are all ignoring circumstances. An enemy being flanked (+2 to hit), an enemy being put prone (-4 AC), flat-footed (-2 AC) ... etc.
So sometimes, given the right skill+circumstances, yes your combat maneuvers WILL be useful and fun to play
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are the circumstance penalties for attacking 14 months after the enemy was last present?