|
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful tetori monk, collect info on combat maneuvers from various sources while on break from teaching gym classes to babymuscle wizards at Academae. Here is what Bruno know so far:
COMBAT MANEUVERS
Based on Athletics skill (STR-based) OR Acrobatics skill (DEX-based). Steal look like Thievery check based on Feats of Skill blog.
(You get +5 to skill when making attack action (i.e. combat maneuver).) Not the case per Captain Morgan's clarification.
Bruno not know if there will be PF2 equivalent of the Agile Maneuvers feat.
OPPOSING DC
DC 10 + (dumdum opponent's FORT or REF save)
Bruno best guesses for relevant save:
FORT: Bull Rush, Drag, Grapple, Reposition, Sunder
REF: Dirty Trick, Disarm, Overrun, Steal, Trip
GRAPPLED CONDITION PENALTIES?
Flatfooted, no movement, and check to perform any manipulate actions. Escaping grab is Athletics check vs Fort + 10
EXAMPLE MONSTER STATS
Kassen's Golem from Crypt of Everflame: Fort +6 (inferred from DC 16 Grapple check)
Ogre (Creature 3): Fort +8, Ref +3
Redcap (Creature 5): Fort +8, Ref +11
MATHING IT OUT
Level + Proficiency + Stat = Total Bonus
If Bruno was a handsome and beautiful 3rd level monk with 18 STR and expert proficiency in Athletics, his grapple bonus would be:
3 (level) + 1 (prof) + 4 (stat) = +8 Athletics combat maneuvers (corrected)
Bruno, who also a high-flying and flexible 3rd level monk with 14 DEX but only trained in Acrobatics, his trip bonus would be:
3 (level) + 0 (prof) + 2 (stat) = +5 Acrobatics combat maneuvers (corrected)
Even though Bruno could easily grapple all monsters (as Bruno do), trip equally attractive option for Ogre as it targets weakest defense.
THINGS TO PONDER
Sound like combat maneuvers are 1 action. If true, second maneuver at -5 cancel out your +5 from attacking with chosen skill. Against creatures with low save vs a maneuver, you can use first action for your primary maneuver and second action for a secondary maneuver against weakest save. (Of course, this presuppose you're investing in both STR and DEX as well as Athletics and Acrobatics).
If +5 when using skill for combat maneuver apply equally to all maneuvers, does this mean feats like Improved (Maneuver) and Greater (Maneuver) no longer exist as their bonuses seem baked in?
Updated question: Will there be feats to increase Athletics/Acrobatics bonuses in general or maneuvers specifically?
If Improved (Maneuver) and Greater (Maneuver) no longer exist, will we see skill feats specific to particular maneuvers that grant additional effects? Examples: Master Proficiency in Acrobatics and Level 7 allows you to take a trip skill feat to trip a creature 2 sizes larger or perhaps trip them into any square adjacent to you? Legendary Trip feat allows you to trip ANY size creature and inflict a condition as well? Maybe additional effects on Critical Successes?
Since combat maneuvers attack FORT or REF defense (not CMD), flanking an opponent does not help you; in PF1, you would get +2 attack bonus for flanking which would apply to your maneuver. In PF2, opponent gets a -2 to AC -- and you don't target AC with maneuver in PF2.
If Bruno make any mistake, please let Bruno know!
|
|
Bruno wishful thinking:
If you want to protect niche of monks as maneuver masters, perhaps give ability/feat at higher levels that allow them to target weaker of FORT or REF with maneuver regardless of what it usually targets. Maybe a legendary feat that allow to use WIS as ability stat vs WILL DC for a maneuver, playing up the mental/mystic angle of high-level monkery.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since combat maneuvers attack FORT or REF defense (not CMD), flanking an opponent does not help you; in PF1, you would get +2 attack bonus for flanking which would apply to your maneuver. In PF2, opponent gets a -2 to AC -- and you don't target AC with maneuver in PF2.
Ouch, I hadn't noticed that. It seems very wrong that flanking helps for punching someone but not for grabbing them. Do we know for certain that -2 AC is all it does, or might it apply -2 to saves as well?
If it really doesn't help, I wonder whether the devs consider that a pro or a con of the rewrite.
If I understood the podcast, you don't get an additional +5 on top of level+ ability score+proficiency. I believe they were still using 1st level sheets, so the 18 +1 level is +5. The reason there was a specific number for combat maneuvers, and the reason Joe seemed a little confused, was because your armor check penalty doesn't seem to apply to combat maneuvers, so you have a separate value listed for them from the normal athletics score.
The other puzzling thing about that +5 in the Podcast is that the number didn't go up when they levelled up. I remember it during the Delves at Paizocon, (which was level 1) and when they were playing in the last two podcasts they were level 2. Furthermore should the Rogue have the +5 to Athletics? He for sure didn't have an 18 in Str for the Athletics check to climb the Construct. I have a feeling that the +5 is a static number that everyone shared...
I remember it looking like this:
Athletics: +1 (+5 in combat)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other puzzling thing about that +5 in the Podcast is that the number didn't go up when they levelled up. I remember it during the Delves at Paizocon, (which was level 1) and when they were playing in the last two podcasts they were level 2. Furthermore should the Rogue have the +5 to Athletics? He for sure didn't have an 18 in Str for the Athletics check to climb the Construct. I have a feeling that the +5 is a static number that everyone shared...
I remember it looking like this:
Athletics: +1 (+5 in combat)
They weren't handed updated character sheets, as far as I can tell. They were handed level 1 sheets and then walked through leveling up on the spot. I imagine Joe simply hadn't added his level adjustment there.
Not sure why the rogue had a +5, I'll admit.
The other puzzling thing about that +5 in the Podcast is that the number didn't go up when they levelled up. I remember it during the Delves at Paizocon, (which was level 1) and when they were playing in the last two podcasts they were level 2. Furthermore should the Rogue have the +5 to Athletics? He for sure didn't have an 18 in Str for the Athletics check to climb the Construct. I have a feeling that the +5 is a static number that everyone shared...
I remember it looking like this:
Athletics: +1 (+5 in combat)They weren't handed updated character sheets, as far as I can tell. They were handed level 1 sheets and then walked through leveling up on the spot. I imagine Joe simply hadn't added his level adjustment there.
Not sure why the rogue had a +5, I'll admit.
Maybe the same thing that lets rogues use dex to damage allows dex for athletics checks in combat. Dirty fighter or something like that.
Maybe the same thing that lets rogues use dex to damage allows dex for athletics checks in combat. Dirty fighter or something like that.The other puzzling thing about that +5 in the Podcast is that the number didn't go up when they levelled up. I remember it during the Delves at Paizocon, (which was level 1) and when they were playing in the last two podcasts they were level 2. Furthermore should the Rogue have the +5 to Athletics? He for sure didn't have an 18 in Str for the Athletics check to climb the Construct. I have a feeling that the +5 is a static number that everyone shared...
I remember it looking like this:
Athletics: +1 (+5 in combat)They weren't handed updated character sheets, as far as I can tell. They were handed level 1 sheets and then walked through leveling up on the spot. I imagine Joe simply hadn't added his level adjustment there.
Not sure why the rogue had a +5, I'll admit.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence of that. We know that dex to damage is used with Finesse weapons. (unless you take a feat that adds more weapons to the list) But how does a Finesse weapon effect climbing up a Construct?
Unfortunately, there is no evidence of that. We know that dex to damage is used with Finesse weapons. (unless you take a feat that adds more weapons to the list) But how does a Finesse weapon effect climbing up a Construct?Maybe the same thing that lets rogues use dex to damage allows dex for athletics checks in combat. Dirty fighter or something like that.The other puzzling thing about that +5 in the Podcast is that the number didn't go up when they levelled up. I remember it during the Delves at Paizocon, (which was level 1) and when they were playing in the last two podcasts they were level 2. Furthermore should the Rogue have the +5 to Athletics? He for sure didn't have an 18 in Str for the Athletics check to climb the Construct. I have a feeling that the +5 is a static number that everyone shared...
I remember it looking like this:
Athletics: +1 (+5 in combat)They weren't handed updated character sheets, as far as I can tell. They were handed level 1 sheets and then walked through leveling up on the spot. I imagine Joe simply hadn't added his level adjustment there.
Not sure why the rogue had a +5, I'll admit.
I thought rogues had a class feature separate from the finesse weapon property that let them use dex to damage not just attack... but now I can't find it so I guess I was misremembering.
EDIT: I think I was confusing the PF2 rogue with the PF unchained Rogue.
I think "Climb" as a combat maneuver would be an excellent addition.
|
|
Bruno thinking that PF2 Prone condition will be either -2 AC penalty (down from -4 AC in PF1) or incur Flat-Footed condition.
Reasoning: -4 AC penalty is almost too strong in PF2 math, but -2 AC penalty seems right. If Prone were a -4 AC penalty AND you were flanking target for another -2 AC penalty, that's a -6 AC penalty--which is huge in the >10< system...hence why Bruno think it will be reduced to -2 AC penalty. If Prone penalty not reduced AND stackable with flank, then trippers are must-have for humanoid-heavy campaigns for easier crits. If Prone simply incur Flat-Footed condition (so no double dip on flank), that disappointing because it feel counter-intuitive to gang up and beat down foe on floor, but the AC penalty is the same if you were alone.
Possibility: Prone is -4 AC penalty, but is Circumstance type penalty, so it does not stack with Flat-Footed condition (which is -2 AC circumstance penalty). This seem slightly more fidgety than just making prone a flat -2 AC penalty.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bruno thinking that PF2 Prone condition will be either -2 AC penalty (down from -4 AC in PF1) or incur Flat-Footed condition.
It's mentioned in the first Monster Blog that being prone makes you Flat Footed. This is relevant to that blog because Tigers pull people prone and Tigers have Sneak Attack.
But yeah, this is confirmed.
I am not too thrilled about Combat Manoeuvres being tied to Skills, but I look forward to seeing more.
One thing I like about it is now the magic item you have which makes you a better athlete also improves your grappling acumen.
Doing this resolves an asymmetry in PF1 where things like trip and disarm could be done with a weapon and thus use the (eventually sizeable) enhancement bonus of the weapon, but you weren't able to grapple anybody with your +4 sword.
Well, we know that cover still gives +4 to AC. So there's still a 4 to AC in the game... I don't know if that means anything.
|
|
Bruno thinking that PF2 Prone condition will be either -2 AC penalty (down from -4 AC in PF1) or incur Flat-Footed condition.It's mentioned in the first Monster Blog that being prone makes you Flat Footed. This is relevant to that blog because Tigers pull people prone and Tigers have Sneak Attack.
But yeah, this is confirmed.
Thank you, Deadmanwalking!
Well, we know that cover still gives +4 to AC. So there's still a 4 to AC in the game... I don't know if that means anything.
If I recall, PF2 cover is two bonuses: +2 for having cover and you can take cover as an action to get another +2. If so, then yes, the devs understand how big +4 is in this system.
|
|
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful tetori, think about grappling. Always.
1) You want high STR and proficiency invested into Athletics as that is your grapple "attack" score.
2) You want high CON and proficiency invested into FORT save as that is your opponent's grapple escape DC.
3) You want good DEX and proficiency invested into Unarmored (as monk) as your foe will obviously attack you.
If you're a STR-based monk, that means you need to invest in STR, CON, DEX (for AC) and possibly WIS. Monks get proficiency in a save (which you can keep investing in) as a class feature, so that helps shore up FORT for grapple. Also, there's the whole Resonance thing...
Bruno really curious about potential maneuver-centric feats (like Agile Manuevers equivalent), stances (like Turtle Shell equivalent) or skill-specific feats/boosters (for Athletics).
Bruno know it too early with too little knowledge for true theory-crafting, but it help pass time.
Bruno thinking that PF2 Prone condition will be either -2 AC penalty (down from -4 AC in PF1) or incur Flat-Footed condition.It's mentioned in the first Monster Blog that being prone makes you Flat Footed. This is relevant to that blog because Tigers pull people prone and Tigers have Sneak Attack.
But yeah, this is confirmed.
I just wanted to added this tidbit about the Prone condition from the GCP "Crypt of the Everflame" Podcast:
I can infer that people take a -4 AC penalty when prone. Emmerich (who had an AC of 17) was prone, the skeleton hit with a 14. So DC 13?...
Here's the Forum link:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6zz&page=3?Playtest-Reveals-from-the-Cryp t-of-the#145
Wasn't he dying not just prone? Unconscious characters likely only get their armour no dex or anything.Bruno thinking that PF2 Prone condition will be either -2 AC penalty (down from -4 AC in PF1) or incur Flat-Footed condition.It's mentioned in the first Monster Blog that being prone makes you Flat Footed. This is relevant to that blog because Tigers pull people prone and Tigers have Sneak Attack.
But yeah, this is confirmed.
I just wanted to added this tidbit about the Prone condition from the GCP "Crypt of the Everflame" Podcast:
I can infer that people take a -4 AC penalty when prone. Emmerich (who had an AC of 17) was prone, the skeleton hit with a 14. So DC 13?...Here's the Forum link:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6zz&page=3?Playtest-Reveals-from-the-Cryp t-of-the#145
Jason specifically looked up the Prone Condition from the play test document he had. AS I recall...