| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disclaimer: I haven't completely thought this through yet, and the idea might have problems. In particular, removing the attack trait from the maneuvers also currently gives them armor check penalty, which seems undesirable. Let's set aside that for the moment, and revisit later.*
Combat maneuvers have seen some vast improvements this edition. Getting rid of the complicated CMB and CMD and having them all work without feat investment are great changes. And I've seen players, especially newer ones, have fun trying to mix them into their turns. They even occasionally pay off-- shoving creatures off cliffs is great for example.
The problem is that because multiple attack penalties (MAP) applies, they often fail or have questionable utility compared to other options. Furthermore, they have critical failure conditions that strikes, demoralize, and spells don't, like your grapple being reversed or falling prone. This means using them as anything other than an "open" is kind of a trap. (Or, as it turns out, using the Assurance feat, but that's a pretty weird exploit.) This is further exacerbated by several goals only being achievable on a critical success, such as actually disarming or pinning someone, and things like flat-footed not reducing athletics DCs.
Comparatively, the advantages created by combat maneuvers rarely do more than one can create with an action that suffers no penalty or has fewer drawbacks. Examples:
Even a critical disarm has cost that character one interact action to pick it up again, unless you pick it up first, and even that only matters so much if they have a decent back up weapon. Best case scenario is you've set them up to provoke an AoO. (Side note: I just realized that drawing a weapon seems to provoke an AoO in this game, not just picking one up off the ground. Interesting.) You know what else costs an enemy an action? A step or a stride, with 0 chance of failure or penalty.
Trip and Grapple mostly just inflict the flat-footed condition, which can be done by moving into a flank instead or feinting, and it's not significantly better than what you can do with a Demoralize either. Being immobile or prone can be fixed with a single action.
Shoving USUALLY just adjusts positioning, which again, stride or step can often do, and tumble can otherwise do.
Now, there are definitely tactics and teamwork that can improve the rewards of these maneuvers, but IMO encouraging said tactical play is way better than putting finicky penalties that limit it. I think I'm gonna try this as a house rule in my non-Doomsday Dawn game and see how I like it.
*Let's talk fixes to side effects for removing MAP. Remove the attack trait from combat maneuvers, and instead create an "armor penalty" trait for actions that suffer the penalty. This also creates design space for some interesting granularity. Disabling devices and smuggling small objects on your person don't really strike me as things armor check penalty should apply to, although one could make a case it should apply to feinting. Stuff like that.
With this new tag in mind, a better layout on character sheets might be to have a separate box for your skill modifier when subject to ACP. Lacking this already causes confusions when using combat maneuvers in heavy armor, I've seen.
One other interesting design space to work in might be something like the Disarm model of success for other maneuvers. Say tripping without MAP was OP. Make it so that instead of MAP, you knock them prone on a critical success, but a success makes an enemy off balance and makes gives anyone else a +2 circumstance bonus to knock them down. This creates an interesting system where multiple attempts to accomplish a goal, whether done by you or your allies, actually have cumulative benefits rather than simply pass/fail scenarios.
Another way to incorporate this idea into trip actually fits neatly with some other mechanics that otherwise seem like they will rarely be used: Maintain Balance and Arrest Fall. Have a success on a trip give someone the same effect as standing on uneven ground, and any time they take damage or someone else uses an action to knock them off balance (probably with no roll on the tripper's part), they have to attempt an acrobatics check to avoid falling over. You can remove this condition by using a balance action on your turn.
With some of these changes, a few things might need to be tweaked. Feinting might need a buff. A few feats may be less appealing, like enhancements to strikes that move people around and such. But honestly those options could maybe use a buff anyway, or even be removed in some cases. Shoving folks 5 feat for 2 actions just isn't that exciting for a feat, I think.
So yeah, there's Captain Morgan's Hot Take.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right off the cuff without thinking it through, I like the idea.
Immediately it means we go from Attack-Attack-Attack (with almost no chance on that third attack) to Attack-Attack-Maneuver. Many of the most interesting fights in the movies involve lots of maneuvers. Shoving, grabbing, disarming, tripping, etc.
Having learned and taught martial arts for years, I recognize that some of the combat maneuvers in this game are generally a bad idea in real combat, and some maneuvers that work well in real combat don't exist in this game.
I'm OK with that.
The maneuvers in this game are cinematically pleasing. They would look good on film. Think about Inigo Montoya fighting the Man in Black. There was disarming and shoving in that fight, and terrain played a big part too.
This game needs more of THAT kind of fighting. Make it cinematic. Make it fun.
(But don't make these maneuvers OP or our new combat sequence will be Maneuver-Maneuver-Maneuver, which would probably mean we went too far.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To further expand on this, I'd really like it if no character ever had to say "well I guess I can just attack a third time." The sweet spot is probably having a second attack be still be a good pick when held up to things like raising a shield, demoralizing, or a combat maneuver, but the third action should be utilized for more interesting possibilities.
The new action economy has made great strides in this regard, but there's still some room to improve access.
Right off the cuff without thinking it through, I like the idea.
Immediately it means we go from Attack-Attack-Attack (with almost no chance on that third attack) to Attack-Attack-Maneuver. Many of the most interesting fights in the movies involve lots of maneuvers. Shoving, grabbing, disarming, tripping, etc.
Having learned and taught martial arts for years, I recognize that some of the combat maneuvers in this game are generally a bad idea in real combat, and some maneuvers that work well in real combat don't exist in this game.
I'm OK with that.
The maneuvers in this game are cinematically pleasing. They would look good on film. Think about Inigo Montoya fighting the Man in Black. There was disarming and shoving in that fight, and terrain played a big part too.
This game needs more of THAT kind of fighting. Make it cinematic. Make it fun.
(But don't make these maneuvers OP or our new combat sequence will be Maneuver-Maneuver-Maneuver, which would probably mean we went too far.)
Yeah, this basically captures my thoughts on the balance point as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My first thought upon reading the Disarm maneuver was 'So... 'success' isn't success at all? It just gives me a +2 to try again? But only until it's the monster's turn? But... my next attempt takes a -5 because it's an attack... so... yay for only having a -3?!'
So if MAP is to stay, at the very least I would hope 'success' means NOT having to eat the -5 on your next attempt.
So success: You get a +2 on your next try and this attempt doesn't count towards the MAP.
Failure: You can try again. At (another) -5. Good luck with that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first thought upon reading the Disarm maneuver was 'So... 'success' isn't success at all? It just gives me a +2 to try again? But only until it's the monster's turn? But... my next attempt takes a -5 because it's an attack... so... yay for only having a -3?!'
So if MAP is to stay, at the very least I would hope 'success' means NOT having to eat the -5 on your next attempt.
So success: You get a +2 on your next try and this attempt doesn't count towards the MAP.
Failure: You can try again. At (another) -5. Good luck with that...
While I agree with your assessment of the problem, that solution seems way too finicky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I just now read Disarm for the first time.
What a worthless mess. Sorry, but there is no better description for it, except maybe a few that won't get past the profanity filter.
First, you have to have an empty hand. So forget about using Disarm if you have a weapon and shield or a 2H weapon or even a weapon and torch.
Second, you need a critical success which, as the math demonstrates, is close to requiring a natural 20 against most equal-level enemies.
Third, it's an attack so it gets MAP so just forget about it unless you do it on your first attack or you're fishing for 20's. Even as a first attack, you'll rarely have more than 5% chance to succeed so you're really just making a zero-damage attack that imposes the MAP against your first real attack of the round.
Fourth, you have about a the same chance of becoming flat-footed for a whole round.
Fifth, if all you do is a normal success, then your opponent suffers a penalty that means absolutely nothing unless you have allies who:
1) go before that opponent
2) have a free hand
3) are trained in Athletics
4) have a high enough athletics check to make it worth their time to try
5) accept the risk of being flat-footed
6) are willing to waste an action attempting to disarm with about a 15% chance of success
7) won't bother unless THEY have more allies who:
a) go before that opponent
b) have a free hand
c) are trained in Athletics
d) have a high enough athletics check to make it worth their time to try
e) accept the risk of being flat-footed
f) are willing to waste an action attempting to disarm with about a 15% chance of success
Etc.
It's turtles futility all the way down...
Yikes.
Not even worth thinking about it.
Now, if it ignored MAP, well, then I would never even think about it.
But, if it also applied that penalty to the opponent's attack rolls, you know, because his grip is weakened and all, well, then I (finally) would consider using this action.
But, if it also applied that penalty to the opponent's attack rolls, you know, because his grip is weakened and all, well, then I (finally) would consider using this action.
I suggested this somewhere along the line. +2 bonus to future disarm attempts. Target takes a -2 on all attack rolls (with the affected weapon: double slice wouldn't take it to BOTH) which ends only when the target takes the "change grip" action to adjust the grip on their weapon back to "normal."
Even then it's not great, but at least it isn't aggressively on fire.
While I agree with your assessment of the problem, that solution seems way too finicky.So success: You get a +2 on your next try and this attempt doesn't count towards the MAP.
Failure: You can try again. At (another) -5. Good luck with that...
Soo... are you implying you hate spells now? Because that's how spells work: Different effects for success and failure on the saving throw, depending on criticality. Why not use that same format for combat maneauvers? Especially if that means they are no longer a broken mess?
As for needing a free hand to disarm: I'm okay with needing a feat for that. I imagine an 'untrained' disarm attempt is really going for a weapon with your hand because you simply lack the training to do it with your weapon.
But then 'Improved Disarm' better does A LOT more then just allow disarming with a weapon!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM Blake: Honestly, I think getting rid of MAP would be a really good first step for disarm. Even then the odds of success might not be very good, but disarming anyone built like a PC is VERY powerful this edition. There's an argument that because the payoff is so high it should offer slim odds of success. It is less effective on monsters like giants with slams that scale, though.
If you get rid of MAP, you have the potential to roll multiple times, as do your allies. If you're fighting a big bad anti-paladin with a +X weapon, getting that weapon out of their hand can really shift the battle and might be worth multiple attempts from multiple party members.
While I agree with your assessment of the problem, that solution seems way too finicky.So success: You get a +2 on your next try and this attempt doesn't count towards the MAP.
Failure: You can try again. At (another) -5. Good luck with that...
Soo... are you implying you hate spells now? Because that's how spells work: Different effects for success and failure on the saving throw, depending on criticality. Why not use that same format for combat maneauvers? Especially if that means they are no longer a broken mess?
As for needing a free hand to disarm: I'm okay with needing a feat for that. I imagine an 'untrained' disarm attempt is really going for a weapon with your hand because you simply lack the training to do it with your weapon.
But then 'Improved Disarm' better does A LOT more then just allow disarming with a weapon!
The difference is spells work in a vacuum-- the degree of success a spell has doesn't usually impact the rules for you next action. A better example would be the fighter feat Furious Focus, which causes a missed attack to not count towards your MAP. It itself is already more finicky than I'd like, owing mostly to being a press which means it only works when you are doing 3 or more attacks in the round.
The difference between Furious Focus and Disarm is that you opt into Furious Focus, and Disarm is just a core part of the rules. Feats have greater leeway to create exceptions to the rules than just some random maneuver-- I don't want to have to flip to double check the disarm text every time someone wants to use it.
Soo... are you implying you hate spells now? Because that's how spells work:While I agree with your assessment of the problem, that solution seems way too finicky.So success: You get a +2 on your next try and this attempt doesn't count towards the MAP.
Failure: You can try again. At (another) -5. Good luck with that...
Are you sure about that?
Because this is what you're saying spells do:
You cast Fear!
The creature fails its save!
Effects: The next time you cast Fear, the target takes a -2 to its save
If you're fighting a big bad anti-paladin with a +X weapon, getting that weapon out of their hand can really shift the battle and might be worth multiple attempts from multiple party members.
Maybe.
But most likely, half the group is not trained in Athletics. So you're probably down to just you and one ally.
You need a free hand and so does that ally. Nobody using a shield or a 2h weapon or anything else in their off-hand.
Assuming there are still two of you, and that big, bad antipaladin is appropriately leveled (e.g. not a boss several levels above you, so maybe he's just a slightly-large, semi-bad antipaladin), it might go like this:
(also assuming the devs remove MAP from Disarm)
On your first attempt you probably have a 5% to disarm him but have about a 50% chance to apply the weakened grip on a success. You also have about a 5% chance to become flat-footed for a whole round, making you easier for that antipaladin and all of his friends to hit and critical hit.
On your second attempt it might be the same as the first. Statistlcally, 3/4 of the time you would weaken his grip on your first two attempts.
After three tries, you have about a 27% chance that you disarmed him, about a 15% that you are flat-footed for a round, and roughly an 85% chance that you have weakened his grip.
What was the cost? You might have done zero damage. Or maybe you got lucky and disarmed him earlier in your round and had one or two actions left to attack. The odds of that are worse than the odds I listed above, but it could happen.
Now, maybe you do have an ally who is trained in athletics, has a free hand, hasn't already taken his turn, and wants to join you in disarming. His chance of success is, statistically slightly better because the antipaladin might have a weakened grip already.
If he uses all three actions, the two of you are, probably, really close to 50% success, give or take a bit depending on how quickly you landed the first basic success to weaken his grip.
At the cost of having two front-line damage dealers possibly do no damage for a round.
Which still might be worth it. If it works. If the antipaladin is not a boss (in which case the chance of success goes way down and the chance of being flat-footed goes way up - it's probably suicide to try it on a boss).
Nah, never gonna be worth investing in.
The difference is spells work in a vacuum-- the degree of success a spell has doesn't usually impact the rules for you next action. A better example would be the fighter feat Furious Focus, which causes a missed attack to not count towards your MAP. It itself is already more finicky than I'd like, owing mostly to being a press which means it only works when you are doing 3 or more attacks in the round.
The difference...
Are you sure about that?
Because this is what you're saying spells do:
You cast Fear!
The creature fails its save!
Effects: The next time you cast Fear, the target takes a -2 to its save
Check it out: Pre-errata, Fear DID impose a penalty on saving throws. So yeah.
Blindness also differentiates between affecting the target for a round, a minute, or forever. Although at least the last two might easily mean 'until the end of its life'.
But you know what really gets my goat about Disarm? Look at the PF1 version: "If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands)."
Does that remind you of anything?
Except now, 'success' isn't. Success +10 does what you set out to do, and what used to be success +10 is now impossible. That. Sucks.
And it isn't even that much of an advantage to disarm a foe now! Taking away a 'mook-blender-build's' full attack was good. Taking away iteratives form a melee brute situationally ok. But in PF2, it takes away the foe's 3rd attack. You know, the one at -10. And on top of that, it no longer creates extra attacks because not everybody has AoO's.
I can understand that the devs are reluctant to let fights devolve into 'stooge fights', where weapons and opponents fall down all the damn time, but not at the price of neutering a combat maneuver into total uselessness!
That it is also mechanically broken is just the insult to the injury at this point.
As far as finicky goes... you sound like you don't want melee to have interesting things to do. Because any kind of 'martial debuffing' will have to be 'finicky' by its very nature. After all, PF2 wants to move away from binary results, which is a laudable goal. But that means you have to deal with 3* potential outcomes on every roll instead of 2. Is that really too much?
*Technically 4, but the extreme end (crit fail or success depending) will only come up 5% of the time.
The difference is spells work in a vacuum-- the degree of success a spell has doesn't usually impact the rules for you next action. A better example would be the fighter feat Furious Focus, which causes a missed attack to not count towards your MAP. It itself is already more finicky than I'd like, owing mostly to being a press which means it only works when you are doing 3 or more attacks in the round.
The difference...
Are you sure about that?
Because this is what you're saying spells do:
You cast Fear!
The creature fails its save!
Effects: The next time you cast Fear, the target takes a -2 to its saveCheck it out: Pre-errata, Fear DID impose a penalty on saving throws. So yeah.
Blindness also differentiates between affecting the target for a round, a minute, or forever. Although at least the last two might easily mean 'until the end of its life'.
I think you are missing the point that myself and Draco made. Fear impacts ALL saving throws. Your suggestion would be more like giving it a failure condition that the creature gets a bonus to its next saving throw against a fear effect, or that it takes a penalty on the next casting of fear. That's fiddly. (Which I should have said instead of finicky TBH.)
As another example, the flank footed condition is fine. Having flat footed apply when a creature is flanked is fine. Having the creature only be flat-footed to the flankers and not a third attacker is fiddly. (There's a case to be made it is an acceptable amount of fiddly, but it is still fiddly.)
As far as finicky goes... you sound like you don't want melee to have interesting things to do. Because any kind of 'martial debuffing' will have to be 'finicky' by its very nature. After all, PF2 wants to move away from binary results, which is a laudable goal. But that means you have to deal with 3* potential outcomes on every roll instead of 2. Is that really too much?
I made a thread calling to give a huge buff to combat maneuvers. Clearly I want martials to have interesting things to do. I would just like those things to run smoothly at the table. They are not mutual exclusive.
Making MAP not apply to combat maneuvers not only buffs them, it makes them easier to run and less fiddly.
Making MAP selectively apply based on the degree of success is not only a weaker buff to combat maneuvers than what I proposed, it makes them harder to run. Therefore, I don't endorse it as a solution.
I made a thread calling to give a huge buff to combat maneuvers. Clearly I want martials to have interesting things to do. I would just like those things to run smoothly at the table. They are not mutual exclusive.
Making MAP not apply to combat maneuvers not only buffs them, it makes them easier to run and less fiddly.
Making MAP selectively apply based on the degree of success is not only a weaker buff to combat maneuvers than what I proposed, it makes them harder to run. Therefore, I don't endorse it as a solution.
Ohhh, okay, now I get it. Yes, that would indeed be better. I was just thinking that it might be asking for too much. In essence, combat maneuvers still are attacks after all. So having damage dealing attacks take MAPs and asking for maneuvers not to may be a bit disingenuous.
The problem is, you do not want to make success too easy. But right now there is a roughly 55% chance to success, and there is only another step 10 numbers further out.
Maybe the problem is that we are dealing with 4 things that can happen on a 20 point scale, that are supposed to be 10 numbers apart each. So, if there is an appreciable for either extreme to happen, the other falls off the range (or rather gets stuck at 5%).
I am wondering if we should not have a system with a DC 6 = marginal success, DC 16 full success and 1-5 a simple failure, giving a 'window of success' of 10 numbers. So 25% base chance of failure, 50% chance of doing something and 25% chance to do well. That would be easier to aim for.*
I mean, in 'modern' games, PCs are supposed to succeed (eventually), so why not make 'brass tacks' and build the system accordingly?
*Before mods. If a competent PC is supposed to have a +5 bonus on his core competency, the DCs would be 11 and 21 accordingly. Allow for a deviation of +/-3 in either direction.
**Or maybe make the 'window of success' 5/6 numbers wide maybe.
Ohhh, okay, now I get it. Yes, that would indeed be better. I was just thinking that it might be asking for too much. In essence, combat maneuvers still are attacks after all. So having damage dealing attacks take MAPs and asking for maneuvers not to may be a bit disingenuous.
Combat maneuvers are only really attacks in the sense that they involve physically overpowering someone. In terms of their function, what they actually accomplish to change a fight, they have less in common with Strikes than they do Demoralize, Feint, Hide, Sneak, or Create a Diversion. Strikes do damage. The rest of those things change the tactics, usually by debuffing the enemy in some way, and often by making them flat-footed against you. Heck, maneuvers even use a closer rolling mechanism to these things-- you roll a skill, not a weapon.
I like where we are with Demoralize right now, and would it if maneuvers were about as good in combat. But right now they are worse than Demoralize because of MAP, and in some cases like Disarm feel tragically worse.
Edit: This is one of those cases where "realism" should give way to game balance and fun. It is realistic that maneuvers suffer MAP, because they are physical exertions in the same vein as strikes, but I don't think the game is improved by this.
Weeelll... I suppose THAT is something that could be solved 2 ways:
1) Have a feat for that. Everybody can try to disarm, but you need a feat to not suck at it. Same ol', same ol'...
2) Have the ability scale with your weapon proficiency. Weapon experts/ masters/ legends are just better, not because their to-hit is so high, but because they, like, don't suffer MAPs, get a bonus on their next attempt if they merely 'succeed' etc... But that would make the skill use 'too fiddly/finicky' I suppose?
Of course, having feat support means the classes that never get past 'trained' can try to do that too. Or maybe make the FEAT scale with proficiency instead. Feats are allowed to be finicky, right?
Weeelll... I suppose THAT is something that could be solved 2 ways:
1) Have a feat for that. Everybody can try to disarm, but you need a feat to not suck at it. Same ol', same ol'...
2) Have the ability scale with your weapon proficiency. Weapon experts/ masters/ legends are just better, not because their to-hit is so high, but because they, like, don't suffer MAPs, get a bonus on their next attempt if they merely 'succeed' etc... But that would make the skill use 'too fiddly/finicky' I suppose?
Of course, having feat support means the classes that never get past 'trained' can try to do that too. Or maybe make the FEAT scale with proficiency instead. Feats are allowed to be finicky, right?
1) Yeah, this would take us back to PF1 combat maneuvers. I don't want to go back there.
2) Combat maneuvers shouldn't scale with weapon proficiency; the only time they involve weapons is if the weapon has a trait like trip or disarm. Otherwise you very specifically can't use a weapon for them and need a free hand.
As such, if reducing MAP is going to be linked to proficiency, (which I'm not currently advocating for, to be clear) it should be linked to the thing you roll for it, Athletics. That also means any class could achieve it.
They COULD add feats to improve maneuvers I guess. We have feats to improve Demoralize and Create a Diversion, for example, so skill feats that make you better at combat are already here. But I'd rather have the maneuver equivalent of intimidating glare that lets you use the skill more often rather than increase your effective bonus to it. IE, let you shove/trip/disarm while both hands are occupied
I think you are missing the point that myself and Draco made. Fear impacts ALL saving throws. Your suggestion would be more like giving it a failure condition that the creature gets a bonus to its next saving throw against a fear effect, or that it takes a penalty on the next casting of fear. That's fiddly. (Which I should have said instead of finicky TBH.)Check it out: Pre-errata, Fear DID impose a penalty on saving throws. So yeah.
Blindness also differentiates between affecting the target for a round, a minute, or forever. Although at least the last two might easily mean 'until the end of its life'.
Bingo. The sample text in my post was Fear-as-Disarm where the only penalty you get on a failed save is a -2 penalty to your next save against the Fear spell (not the Fear Trait, not the Frightened Condition, the Fear spell).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are missing the point that myself and Draco made. Fear impacts ALL saving throws. Your suggestion would be more like giving it a failure condition that the creature gets a bonus to its next saving throw against a fear effect, or that it takes a penalty on the next casting of fear. That's fiddly. (Which I should have said instead of finicky TBH.)
My suggestion is that Disarm is currently broken as in that the +2 on a 'success' is actually a -3 on the next attempt and that needs fixing. I do not actually have a problem with a 'fiddly' solution, at least not as long as it is consistent and working. After all, intimidation is also being discussed as problematic...
I'm all for spicing up the options in combat other than "how can I do the most damage" and this sounds like a cool way to do that. I wonder if it could be reined in a little bit maybe by requiring a previous attack to successfully hit (like how monster abilities work.) So you could attack, then next action use a maneuver with no MAP if your previous attack hit, or full MAP if it missed. I'm not sure if an armor check penalty type thing is even necessary without testing first how busted it would be to enable this.
So, basically make it a press maneauver? Heh, I suppose if you make a two action 'combat maneuver' feat that addresses the problems... It would make sure that you only have 1 attempt per combat round, so it could be allowed to have a better chance to succeed. You pay for it with your action economy after all.
So: First make a successful strike, 1 action. Then, use the Combat Maneauver Feat, for 2 actions. In case of Disarm, we can use the PF1 matrix: Success, enemy drops weapon; Success +10, enemy drops everything held in both hands; fail by 10, drop your own weapon.
That... looks like a viable alternative. Nice one.
I wanted to use Disarm in my last play session and I agree with the posters above that's it's too weak. We were fighting a high-AC cleric and had trouble hitting it so I thought I could use Disarm its shield with my Str-based Monk. 60% success chance looked good at first but then I realized I need a crit success to disarm and it meant the overall chance of disarming it in 3 attempts was only about 25% at best! And it would only debuff it with -2 AC until it takes one action to pick the shield back up.
So instead, just hitting it with a flurry of misses with 40% base hit chance round after round, hoping for a lucky string of high rolls, seemed like a better option - and eventually it went down after 3 rounds of full attacking.
Looks like the only use case for Disarm now is for low-Ref monsters with a single powerful manufactured weapon. Of which I found in the Bestiary pretty much only the Cyclops, Hobgoblin Soldier, Minotaur, Mummy Pharaoh, Ogre, Water Yai, Orcs and Valkyrie (and oddly, a Titan). All the rest either have natural attacks/abilities that are comparable to the weapon, or Reflex DC comparable to their full AC.
I think Combat Maneuvers should be worthwhile options that do not preclude doing damage or moving, competing for the 2nd/3rd attack spot in the turn cycle. For example, it could disarm on success and push the object 10 feet away on a critical success, forcing the enemy to spend two actions to retake it. It feels more fun than rolling 3 times, forgoing all damage for this round, to achieve even a small success chance. It seems that the current version is tuned to not be frustrating when monsters use it on the players - which is actually a side effect of monster skills being too high.