I'd say yes, because
An attack of opportunity is a special melee attack you can make against a target you threaten (usually an adjacent opponent), even if it is not your turn.
As a standard action, you can attempt one of the following combat maneuvers. For each maneuver, choose an opponent within your reach (including your weapon’s reach, if applicable) and then make a melee attack roll against the opponent’s KAC + 8.
The standard action argument isn't persuasive to me because Attack, with melee attack as a subheading, is listed in the same part of the rules as Combat Maneuvers - under Standard Actions you can take in combat.
A reaction is its own kind of action. The core rulebook classifies actions as follows:
1. Standard Action
2. Move Action
3. Swift Action
4. Full Action
5. Reaction
6. Other Action
An Attack of Opportunity uses your Reaction to perform "a special melee attack." A combat maneuver makes a melee attack roll. Does that mean it's also a melee attack for other purposes?
I'd have tended towards no before I found out the lead developer thinks you can grapple with dexterity by hitting someone with an operative weapon. Weird rules flex but ok.
Now I tend to think a combat maneuver = a melee attack for all purposes except the AC to hit and the damage/effects on a hit.
Attack of opportunity: Reaction that uses a special melee attack.
Combat maneuver: Standard action that uses a melee attack roll.
I don't see combat maneuvers working on attacks of opportunity - they are not regular attacks, they just use the same roll as an attack.
And if they do work, you can also make two combat maneuvers as a full attack.
Here's how I rank the likelihood/plausibility of various combat maneuver interpretations, from most plausible to most ridiculous.
1. You can full attack with combat maneuvers.
2. You can AOO with a combat maneuver.
.
.
.
18. You can use dex to hit with any and all combat maneuvers if you're holding an operative weapon when you perform your combat maneuver.
We know #18 is true, so I have to believe the others are, as well.
I would rule that you absolutely can use combat maneuver. Trip and Grapple are naturals for a foe moving through a threatened square. I mean logically if I can take a swing with a great axe as a reaction I certainly could reach out and grab a foe, try a leg sweep to trip them or even a short sharp push (bull rush) to knock them off path.
Does the original author intend that you use a combat maneuver instead in place of the melee attack granted by the AoO?
If that is the intention then I would say not at all.
A combat maneuver is far more complex than what could be accomplished as a reaction.
If the question is if a combat maneuver could provoke an AoO then certain ones certainly can. Bull rush, Reposition, and in certain cases Trip could all move an opponent out of a square you threaten (the person executing the combat manuever).
A maneuver and an attack are the same action. It’s not more complex.
A maneuver and an attack are the same action. It’s not more complex.
An ATTACK is a standard action. A Combat Maneuver is a standard action. A Standard action is an action type, of which there are 5 types. Each basically indicates how long the action takes to perform within the framework of a 6 second combat round.
An Attack of Opportunity is a reaction. It's not a standard action and therefore a standard action can't be substituted for a reaction. Reactions have very special triggers which allow you to take the specific reaction. It's a special melee attack (meaning ranged attacks don't qualify nor do spells). It has specific timing.
You are attempting to compare apples and oranges simply because they both have an 'a', 'e', and 's' in the word. If you could substitute a combat maneuver for a AoO why not a spell? Or a ranged attack? Or a Move action since you can substitute a move action for a standard action. Or Harrying Fire??
If you rule that a combat maneuver could take the place of an AoO then you really don't have any logical and consistent grounds to stand on when players request that other 'standard actions' should be allowed to replace AoO.
My friend, a melee attack and a combat maneuver both ordinarily take a standard action. A combat manuever is therefore not "far more complex" than a melee attack. A melee attack can be accomplished as a reaction if triggered by an AOO. Therefore your claim that a combat manuever is "far more complex than what can be accomplished as a reaction" is silly. If a combat maneuver can't qualify as an AOO, it has nothing to do with it's complexity.
If you continue to struggle with understanding this, this resource might be able to help you.
Or maybe not, given your weird left turn into discussing spells and ranged attacks. Combat manuevers are made at melee range and with a melee attack roll. An AOO is a special melee attack. That kind of sounds like a melee attack that just has an effect other than damage and a different AC you target.
But don't listen to me, the rules, and the dictates of logic, listen to the Starfinder Design Lead.
In Starfinder, combat maneuvers are just melee attacks with an effect other than damage to a target creature (though sunder still does damage). So everything that applies to melee attacks, including reach and properties of your weapons, applies to combat maneuver attack rolls.Do operative weapons allow you to perform any combat maneuver using Dexterity instead of Strength?
(Emphasis added.)
Standard: you can make a melee attack / you can make a combat maneuver / other stuff;
Reaction: you can make a melee attack as an attack of opportunity / you can use some class abilities / use some feats / other stuff.
I get it, combat maneuvers use all the mechanics of melee attack rolls (never even considered using weapon special properties - and how does critical hits work on combat maneuvers? Although a designer stating something on the forums is not as official as a FAQ) - yet, combat maneuvers can only be made as a standard action.
Combat maneuver entry doesn't say they can be used as a reaction, nor that they can replace a regular melee attack; Attack of Opportunity entry doesn't say you can make a combat maneuver.
By RAW, combat maneuvers can't be used in AoO and neither in Full Attacks (although I have done so in the past).
You're wrong, but that's ok. A lot of people struggle to understand only slightly ambiguous rules on these forums even when they're clearly and logically explained.
But for everyone else, I think it's worth showing how you're wrong one more time. In your particular case you're reasoning backwards, from normal rules to the specific. Instead, we have to start with the specific rule and see what qualifies for its exception to the regular rules.
1. Q: What is an attack of opportunity?
A: An attack of opportunity is "a special melee attack you make against a target you threaten." When the trigger condition occurs, you use your reaction to "make a melee attack" against the target who triggered.
2. Q: Is a combat maneuver a "melee attack"?
A: Maybe. To conduct a combat maneuver you "make a melee attack roll." Is making a melee attack roll enough to say you're making a melee attack? It could be argued both ways. We can at least say it's not clearly NOT a melee attack.
3. Q: Aha! You admit it's unclear.
A: That's not a question. But no, you're wrong, because we have more - the Starfinder Design Lead (head rules guy) specified that "combat maneuvers are just melee attacks with an effect other than damage to a target creature." This justifies not only combat maneuvers being AOOs, but weirder stuff like using dex to attack if you hold an operative weapon, or grappling with reach if you're wielding a dragonglaive in both hands.
4. Q: I refuse to acknowledge the clearly expressed opinion of the senior rules guy until it's in a FAQ.
A: Still not a question, but I would point out that while FAQs are unfortunately incredibly rare for Starfinder (seriously, I'm incredulous at how few they've done so far), Owen has made a consistent habit, quite different from the Pathfinder side of things, of explaining things on the forums that might seem slightly vague to the players but aren't so controversial or uncertain that he's reluctant to stake his credibility on telling us what the answer is.
And the answer is that melee attacks can be delivered through an attack of opportunity, and combat maneuvers are melee attacks.
[...]and combat maneuvers are melee attacks.
That can only be made as Standard Actions.
Oh my... Xenocrat wants to talk logic with a computer programmer... so let's talk logic Xeno.
Let's establish the definitions.
Since we are discussing Actions in Combat we will call them Combat Actions (CA).
Thus we have the following.
Standard Action(SA) = CA (Combat Action)
Move Action(MA) = CA (Combat Action)
Swift Action(SW) = CA (Combat Action)
Full Action(FA) = CA (Combat Action)
Reaction(RA) = CA (Combat Action)
Other Action(OA) = CA (Combat Action)
I stated the following "A combat maneuver is far more complex than what could be accomplished as a reaction". You ascribed that as a logical fallacy because you equate a melee attack and a combat maneuver, both, as standard actions, and thus you also equate a AoO (because it's a melee attack) as a Standard action.
Do you follow me?? Logically? Or am I losing you?
Keep up.. here's where it gets fun
You have asserted that since a melee attack and a combat maneuver are both standard actions, that an AoO is actually a standard action because it is a melee attack. By the logical property of substitution, then any standard action is a viable substitution for an AoO. So you should be able to cast a spell, or Feint, or take Total Defense, etc.. in the place of an AoO.
BUT WAIT!! There's more! Because you have assumed that a melee attack performed as a Reaction is the same as a melee attack performed as a Standard action you have made 2 action types under the Combat Action category the same. Thus, if they are equivalent, then all actions under the Combat Action category must be equivalent.
Thus..
Every Action Type is equivalent because according to logic
If a = b = c = d, then a = d.
Thus, SA = MA = SW = FA = RA = OA = CA. They are all equally viable as substitutions. So when I exclaimed that you might as well allow a spell to be cast or a move action or Harrying fire to replace an AoO I was indeed using logic...
Perhaps you shouldn't attempt to use logical consistency as a defense for your preference in a game system which has little logical consistency.
Lastly, If you want to malign Owen's post with your own logical fallacy, then you are free to do so. I would suggest you leave it in the context it was written as it holds no bearing on the property of substitution you are attempting to make an argument for.
As for me, I have participated in enough physical combat and spectated enough physical combat to know that combat maneuvers like a trip, bull rush, grapple, etc.. are a bit more complicated than just sticking ur leg out, running at someone, or grabbing someone. They are (and this can be argued with the idea of success as the goal as opposed to just the action itself) more complicated than a "melee" attack. Go try it sometime. There's a large difference in throwing a punch or kick at someone and grappling them.
All that being said, you can bend the rules as you wish if you are the GM, but stay away from logical consistency as your argument for allowing yourself the leeway of bending the rules.
Correlation != Causation
[...]and combat maneuvers are melee attacks.That can only be made as Standard Actions.
LOL. No, they work exactly as melee attacks except for their AC and effect. Don’t get mad at Owen, please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh my... Xenocrat wants to talk logic with a computer programmer... so let's talk logic Xeno.
Let's establish the definitions.
Since we are discussing Actions in Combat we will call them Combat Actions (CA).
Thus we have the following.
Standard Action(SA) = CA (Combat Action)
Move Action(MA) = CA (Combat Action)
Swift Action(SW) = CA (Combat Action)
Full Action(FA) = CA (Combat Action)
Reaction(RA) = CA (Combat Action)
Other Action(OA) = CA (Combat Action)I stated the following "A combat maneuver is far more complex than what could be accomplished as a reaction". You ascribed that as a logical fallacy because you equate a melee attack and a combat maneuver, both, as standard actions, and thus you also equate a AoO (because it's a melee attack) as a Standard action.
Do you follow me?? Logically? Or am I losing you?
Keep up.. here's where it gets fun
You have asserted that since a melee attack and a combat maneuver are both standard actions, that an AoO is actually a standard action because it is a melee attack. By the logical property of substitution, then any standard action is a viable substitution for an AoO. So you should be able to cast a spell, or Feint, or take Total Defense, etc.. in the place of an AoO.
BUT WAIT!! There's more! Because you have assumed that a melee attack performed as a Reaction is the same as a melee attack performed as a Standard action you have made 2 action types under the Combat Action category the same. Thus, if they are equivalent, then all actions under the Combat Action category must be equivalent.
Thus..
Every Action Type is equivalent because according to logic
If a = b = c = d, then a = d.
Thus, SA = MA = SW = FA = RA = OA = CA. They are all equally viable as substitutions. So when I exclaimed that you might as well allow a spell to be cast or a move action or Harrying fire to replace an AoO I was indeed using logic...
Perhaps you shouldn't attempt to use logical consistency as a defense for your preference in a...
I didn’t read this since the only possible refutation of my argument would be to explain why the Starfinder Lead Developer’s statement that combat maneuvers are melee attacks for all purposes is wrong, and whatever this post was about, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t about that.
You didn't read it cause you know ur logic is fallacious.
Combat manuevers use a melee attack roll. That doesn't make them a melee attack.
The quote from Owen doesn't say a thing about Combat Maneuvers BEING a melee attack. The quote you posted was about Dex modifiers being allowed if using a Operative Weapon for combat maneuvers as opposed to Str modifiers. (And within the context of the weapon ASSISTING with the combat maneuver with it's special properties).
They aren't the same. You can't substitute them. If you want to substitute them as a house rule, by all means feel free to do so but in doing so, you will have little cause to disallow OTHER standard actions as a substitute as well.
And before you bother justifying that a melee attack using a melee attack roll makes it the same as a combat maneuver using a melee attack roll, go through the rule book. You will find other things that use melee attack rolls. Like a Touch Attack. So is a touch attack for a spell the same as a melee attack which is the same as a combat maneuver?
Perhaps a melee attack roll is simply the delivery method for the attack as opposed to the ACTUAL action. That's a pretty easy delineation to make isn't it?
Combat Maneuvers are not Melee attacks. They are combat maneuvers which use the melee attack roll to determine if the maneuver was successful. Just like a melee attack roll is used to determine if a melee attack is successful. Doesn't make em the same action.
I didn’t read this since the only possible refutation of my argument would be to explain why the Starfinder Lead Developer’s statement that combat maneuvers are melee attacks for all purposes is wrong, and whatever this post was about, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t about that.
You should have, it was addressed to you. I can understand your hesitation as it deals with logic and it's easier to ignore a post exhibiting your logical fallacy than it is to actual have a discussion about your basis for your assumptions.
So, without getting into this logical pissing match...
18. You can use dex to hit with any and all combat maneuvers if you're holding an operative weapon when you perform your combat maneuver.
Can someone link me to that thread or whatever? I haven't seen that and am interested to learn a little more
Kvetchus I believe the post by Owen deals with the idea that using a operative melee weapon which has a special property (see the Garrote, nanofiber on pg 9 of the Armory) which gives a bonus to your combat maneuver attack roll, should allow you to use your Dex modifier on the combat maneuver attack roll as opposed to the Str modifier.
I personally don't see this as a issue as it makes sense Strength shouldn't be more advantageous than Dexterity for these combat maneuvers. As a former wrestler I can tell you that weight and strength DO matter but agility matters just as much. I've lost many a match to someone who was just quicker and more nimble than I was.
As far as Operative weapons I don't see the problem using Dex modifiers in the place of Str modifiers for the melee attack roll if they are equipped. As a matter of fact, it's almost a penalty to the player in that in order to use the superior stat (Dex) that they possess they must also possess an Operative weapon for the maneuver. Meaning if they lose the operative weapon for any reason they lose the ability to use Dex modifiers over Str modifiers. A Str based character would keep this bonus regardless of what weapon they are using.
So, without getting into this logical pissing match...
18. You can use dex to hit with any and all combat maneuvers if you're holding an operative weapon when you perform your combat maneuver.
Can someone link me to that thread or whatever? I haven't seen that and am interested to learn a little more
Unless you meant this one.
LOL. No, they work exactly as melee attacks except for their AC and effect. Don’t get mad at Owen, please.
CRB 246: "As a standard action, you can attempt one of the following combat maneuvers."
That's all there is to it - nowhere this is contradicted, not even by the AoO entry or Reaction entry.
CRB 244: "Attack
Making a single attack is a standard action."
CRB 248: "An attack of opportunity is a special melee attack you can make against a target you threaten (usually an adjacent opponent),
even if it is not your turn."
Without an exception such as the one in page 248, combat maneuvers can't be used in AoOs.
I'll take a FAQ or a statement from Paizo staff such as: "Combat maneuvers can be used in AoO".
Anything else is just RAI interpretation.
CRB 248: "An attack of opportunity is a special melee attack you can make against a target you threaten (usually an adjacent opponent),
even if it is not your turn."Without an exception such as the one in page 248, combat maneuvers can't be used in AoOs.
I'll take a FAQ or a statement from Paizo staff
You're welcome!
In Starfinder, combat maneuvers are just melee attacks with an effect other than damage to a target creature
...you guys know this was the PF1 rule, too, right?
Creative Director, Starfinder
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot make a combat maneuver as an attack of opportunity.
An attack of opportunity (defined on page 248 of the Core Rulebook) is a reaction that is also a special melee attack.
An attack (including a melee attack) is normally a standard action (CRB 244). The "special melee attack" portion of an attack of opportunity refers to the fact that you can make this attack as a reaction rather than a standard action.
A combat maneuver (defined on CRB 246) is a standard action. When you attempt a combat maneuver, you make a melee attack roll.
An attack roll (defined on CRB 240) is a d20 plus your attack bonus. For a melee attack, your attack bonus is equal to your base attack bonus plus your Strength modifier. Attack rolls, melee or otherwise, do not have a defined action.
Every action is one of five types (CRB 244).
An attack (such as a melee attack) is a standard action (CRB 244).
A combat maneuver is a standard action (CRB 246). Although it uses an attack roll, it is not the attack action; it is its own action (see the Actions in Combat table on CRB 244).
An attack of opportunity is a reaction (CRB 248). Although it is also a special melee attack, an attack of opportunity is not the attack action; it is its own action (see the Actions in Combat table on CRB 244) When making an attack of opportunity, your melee attack only uses a reaction, not a standard action. This is a specific exception to the attack=standard action general rule.
No exceptions exist for making combat maneuvers as anything other than a standard action, and no exceptions exist for making an attack of opportunity with anything other than a melee attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truly we have learned nothing form the early days of the Pathfinder forums. Looking forward to the inevitable Starfinder Development Team account that exclusively posts on these things.
Rob, in your opinion was Owen's post entirely wrong (i.e. combat maneuvers can't be made at reach or with dex if using a weapon that bestows those qualities on a normal melee attack) or just guilty of overinclusive language in making what he intended to be a more specific point?
And any chance this incident accelerates the process of issuing regular FAQs rather than a total withdrawal of developer input and an even greater void of rules support?
You cannot make a combat maneuver as an attack of opportunity.
As expected.
Thanks for the clarification!
You cannot make a combat maneuver as an attack of opportunity.As expected.
Thanks for the clarification!
Alas, it's not a clarification, we now have dueling opinions from Starfinder employees. This is why James Jacobs is banned from rules discussions in his ask me anything thread and eventually none of the Pathfinder designers with actual rules jobs would discuss that stuff in their individual capacities, either. They had to create the Pathfinder Development Team official account and only speak through FAQs when they could achieve unanimity, and refuse to comment when they couldn't.
In that Pathfinder historical context Rob's opinion would be easy to dismiss, but I gather because of the history of Starfinder's creation and the title originally belonging to James Sutter that Creative Director might be the senior title over there, and I definitely get the idea he's directly involved in core rules development, unlike the Pathfinder Creative Director.
It'll be interesting to see how this evolves on the Starfinder side. Chaotic contradictory forum comments, (exceedingly) rare official FAQs, or total silence and no rules corrections/clarifications ever all seem plausible for the near future.
The confusion of several rules in the core rulebook and failure to address them in the last 18 months suggests that there wasn't any consensus opinion on those rules when they were published, and still isn't. This is potentially a similar situation, with differing views of what the rules published mean, and maybe some not even having been aware that it was always the PF1 rule that it worked that way. And of course there's the issue that overturning this reasonable interpretation makes Owen's assertion that operative and reach weapons effect combat maneuvers harder to justify, which will blow up a lot of assumptions of the Vanguard draft, which has a strong reason to favor dex but also use combat maneuvers.
Truly we have learned nothing form the early days of the Pathfinder forums. Looking forward to the inevitable Starfinder Development Team account that exclusively posts on these things.
Rob, in your opinion was Owen's post entirely wrong (i.e. combat maneuvers can't be made at reach or with dex if using a weapon that bestows those qualities on a normal melee attack) or just guilty of overinclusive language in making what he intended to be a more specific point?
And any chance this incident accelerates the process of issuing regular FAQs rather than a total withdrawal of developer input and an even greater void of rules support?
Xeno, I think Owen's post was a case of oversimplification. Further I think his post was taken and word-smithed to make an exception to a rather obvious ruling.
Combat maneuvers are performed within melee combat range. Tools (ie.. weapons) can assist in extending your range for the purpose of making this combat maneuver.
Here's an example. A tactical pike has reach, and could be used to sweep the legs (Trip Combat maneuver) of an enemy within that reach. It could also be reversed and used to make a Bull Rush by pushing the combatant at reach with the non-pointy end of the pike (that's technical terms).
I don't see Owen's post as being wrong. I just think that it was left open to misinterpretation by folks willing to game the system. Further I don't see that a melee weapon that is an operative weapon and gives you a bonus on a combat maneuver shouldn't use the Dex modifier as the text for Operative reads as follows:
"Any character can add her Dexterity modifier rather than her Strength modifier on melee attack rolls with weapons with this special property" (CRB pg 181).
If that melee attack roll happens to be for a combat maneuver then it seems clear to me that Dexterity modifiers can be used as opposed to Strength.
You cannot make a combat maneuver as an attack of opportunity.As expected.
Thanks for the clarification!
Alas, it's not a clarification, we now have dueling opinions from Starfinder employees. This is why James Jacobs is banned from rules discussions in his ask me anything thread and eventually none of the Pathfinder designers with actual rules jobs would discuss that stuff in their individual capacities, either. They had to create the Pathfinder Development Team official account and only speak through FAQs when they could achieve unanimity, and refuse to comment when they couldn't.
In that Pathfinder historical context Rob's opinion would be easy to dismiss, but I gather because of the history of Starfinder's creation and the title originally belonging to James Sutter that Creative Director might be the senior title over there, and I definitely get the idea he's directly involved in core rules development, unlike the Pathfinder Creative Director.
It'll be interesting to see how this evolves on the Starfinder side. Chaotic contradictory forum comments, (exceedingly) rare official FAQs, or total silence and no rules corrections/clarifications ever all seem plausible for the near future.
The confusion of several rules in the core rulebook and failure to address them in the last 18 months suggests that there wasn't any consensus opinion on those rules when they were published, and still isn't. This is potentially a similar situation, with differing views of what the rules published mean, and maybe some not even having been aware that it was always the PF1 rule that it worked that way. And of course there's the issue that overturning this reasonable interpretation makes Owen's assertion that operative and reach weapons effect combat maneuvers harder to justify, which will blow up a lot of assumptions of the Vanguard draft, which has a strong reason to favor dex but also use combat maneuvers.
It's not dueling opinions. Owens post has nothing to do with Attacks of Opportunity. Roberts post explicitly states that you can't use Combat Maneuvers as Attacks of Opportunity.
Owens post states that Combat Maneuvers are melee attacks. Nothing there has anything to do with Attacks of Opportunity. If you are trying to say that since a Combat Maneuver is a melee attack and therefore a combat maneuver as a melee attack qualifies as an AoO, that's your own misinterpretation of what Owen is saying.
Truly we have learned nothing form the early days of the Pathfinder forums. Looking forward to the inevitable Starfinder Development Team account that exclusively posts on these things.
Rob, in your opinion was Owen's post entirely wrong (i.e. combat maneuvers can't be made at reach or with dex if using a weapon that bestows those qualities on a normal melee attack) or just guilty of overinclusive language in making what he intended to be a more specific point?
And any chance this incident accelerates the process of issuing regular FAQs rather than a total withdrawal of developer input and an even greater void of rules support?
Xeno, I think Owen's post was a case of oversimplification. Further I think his post was taken and word-smithed to make an exception to a rather obvious ruling.
Combat maneuvers are performed within melee combat range. Tools (ie.. weapons) can assist in extending your range for the purpose of making this combat maneuver.
Here's an example. A tactical pike has reach, and could be used to sweep the legs (Trip Combat maneuver) of an enemy within that reach. It could also be reversed and used to make a Bull Rush by pushing the combatant at reach with the non-pointy end of the pike (that's technical terms).
I don't see Owen's post as being wrong. I just think that it was left open to misinterpretation by folks willing to game the system. Further I don't see that a melee weapon that is an operative weapon and gives you a bonus on a combat maneuver shouldn't use the Dex modifier as the text for Operative reads as follows:
"Any character can add her Dexterity modifier rather than her Strength modifier on melee attack rolls with weapons with this special property" (CRB pg 181).
If that melee attack roll happens to be for a combat maneuver then it seems clear to me that Dexterity modifiers can be used as opposed to Strength.
I think the core rulebook rules are open (but certainly not compelled) to the AOO and full attacks can be made with combat maneuvers interpretation even without Owen's comment. It was the PF1 rule, after all.
I'd be happy to see the reach/operative "rulings" on combat maneuvers go away, or at least get clarified in the case of grapple, which requires a hand to be empty, but apparently can somehow be done at weapon reach with a one handed weapon lacking any grapple related qualities. But if we're doing weird stuff like that, it's odd that we're abandoning the PF1 way of substituting combat maneuvers for melee attacks in AOOs. Tripping someone trying to move out of or through your reach is pretty fundamental as a tactic. Tripping certainly has very little other reason to even exist in Starfinder.
It's not dueling opinions. Owens post has nothing to do with Attacks of Opportunity. Roberts post explicitly states that you can't use Combat Maneuvers as Attacks of Opportunity.
Owens post states that Combat Maneuvers are melee attacks. Nothing there has anything to do with Attacks of Opportunity. If you are trying to say that since a Combat Maneuver is a melee attack and therefore a combat maneuver as a melee attack qualifies as an AoO, that's your own misinterpretation of what Owen is saying.
If combat maneuvers are melee attacks, as Owen contended, then they can be used for Attack of Opportunity, because AOOs are made with melee attacks. The only thing that can save this is if you limit combat maneuvers to being not melee attacks that are simply made with a melee attack "roll" but without actually being melee attacks in of themselves. Which is contrary to Owen's statement. It's exactly Rob's statement.
Rob's statement is a defensible, but not compelled, interpretation of the rules in the core rulebook. But it's not consistent with Owen's opinion that combat maneuver = melee attack. I'm fine with Rob's ruling if that's what he wants, but it blows up the basis for applying melee weapon qualities to combat maneuvers if they aren't melee attacks, just melee attack rolls, and therefore have no reason to borrow reach or the operative quality from a wielded weapon. Which blows up dex maneuver builds for Vanguards. Which can be fine in of itself (it gives strength builds more of a reason to exist, and makes you pay a price of ignoring your maneuver features if you take the easy dex path), or they can modify the final Vanguard rules to have a special method to make maneuvers with dex. Vanguards already have methods to add reach without relying on weapon qualities.
|
Creative Director, Starfinder
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't consider them dueling opinions. Owen's post was about using operative weapons to make combat maneuvers using your Dexterity modifier. His post in no way addresses attacks of opportunity, and the only way I can see it being read that way is by totally ignoring the context of the post. In context, the statement "everything that applies to melee attacks, including reach and properties of your weapons, applies to combat maneuver attack rolls" is talking about bonuses and other effects from your weapons that are applied to your rolls.
The Starfinder team is organized differently than the Pathfinder team, and things that have been "historically" true for Pathfinder are not necessarily true for Starfinder. They are different games, with different teams. As was pointed out, I am directly involved in core rules development, as are all of the Starfinder developers, and if you check your Starfinder Core Rulebook, you'll see that both Owen and I were Starfinder Design Leads. The fact that I am now Creative Director for Starfinder does not change that.
I was attempting to keep this thread from pointlessly going in circles by posting a clarification. Everyone is free to play the game they want, and interpret rules their own way in their games, but please do not try to pit one developer against another to get the most "official" answer.
I don't consider them dueling opinions.
That might explain a few things.
Owen's post was about using operative weapons to make combat maneuvers using your Dexterity modifier. His post in no way addresses attacks of opportunity, and the only way I can see it being read that way is by totally ignoring the context of the post.
Owen's post was broader than that, and the only way I can see it being read so narrowly is by failing to read it very carefully. He stated that combat maneuvers = melee attacks, which is indeed the only nonarbitrary way to justify applying melee weapon qualities to combat maneuvers that don't ordinarily require a weapon to carry out. If you're going to make the melee attack "roll" distinction, why does a reach weapon suddenly let me grapple someone 10' away when I have to have an open hand that can only reach 5' away?
I don't consider them dueling opinions.That might explain a few things.
Owen's post was about using operative weapons to make combat maneuvers using your Dexterity modifier. His post in no way addresses attacks of opportunity, and the only way I can see it being read that way is by totally ignoring the context of the post.Owen's post was broader than that, and the only way I can see it being read so narrowly is by failing to read it very carefully. He stated that combat maneuvers = melee attacks, which is indeed the only nonarbitrary way to justify applying melee weapon qualities to combat maneuvers that don't ordinarily require a weapon to carry out. If you're going to make the melee attack "roll" distinction, why does a reach weapon suddenly let me grapple someone 10' away when I have to have an open hand that can only reach 5' away?
You wrap your taclash around their arm and yank.
You wrap your taclash around their arm and yank.I don't consider them dueling opinions.That might explain a few things.
Owen's post was about using operative weapons to make combat maneuvers using your Dexterity modifier. His post in no way addresses attacks of opportunity, and the only way I can see it being read that way is by totally ignoring the context of the post.Owen's post was broader than that, and the only way I can see it being read so narrowly is by failing to read it very carefully. He stated that combat maneuvers = melee attacks, which is indeed the only nonarbitrary way to justify applying melee weapon qualities to combat maneuvers that don't ordinarily require a weapon to carry out. If you're going to make the melee attack "roll" distinction, why does a reach weapon suddenly let me grapple someone 10' away when I have to have an open hand that can only reach 5' away?
Why do I need a hand free for that? I can't move them in range of my hand, a grapple freezes them in their square, so my hand can never touch them or matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't consider them dueling opinions.That might explain a few things.
Owen's post was about using operative weapons to make combat maneuvers using your Dexterity modifier. His post in no way addresses attacks of opportunity, and the only way I can see it being read that way is by totally ignoring the context of the post.Owen's post was broader than that, and the only way I can see it being read so narrowly is by failing to read it very carefully. He stated that combat maneuvers = melee attacks, which is indeed the only nonarbitrary way to justify applying melee weapon qualities to combat maneuvers that don't ordinarily require a weapon to carry out. If you're going to make the melee attack "roll" distinction, why does a reach weapon suddenly let me grapple someone 10' away when I have to have an open hand that can only reach 5' away?
Having read the entirety of the post from the link you sent, it's a stretch to say that Owen's post was 'broader than that.'
First of all the posts main focus is on the Vanguard questions and clarifications. This means that while reading the post Owen is attempting to gain feedback and information about player interaction with this new test class. Not to clarify rules.
The post then goes in to a nice series of questions and responses about the Vanguard's entropic strike.
Ascalaphus then asks about operative weapons using the Dex bonus as opposed to the Str bonus for Combat Maneuvers. Owen gives a response.. and that's it. There's no more discussion about this until much later down the road when BigNorseWolf re-opened the question. Owen never followed up or elaborated. It's also important to note that Owen explicitly states the "combat maneuvers attack roll" in his post. At no time does he ever state that you can substitute a combat maneuver for a melee attack of any other action.
So when you say "broader" I am not sure what you mean. If you mean the post dealt with questions about the Vanguard and covered a broader range of questions, then yes it did. If you meant that the single post Owen made about combat maneuvers being melee attacks have a broader implication... well.. that's an untenable position to take. You would have to know what Owen was thinking when he made the post and that's a tough assumption to make.
Starfinder Design Lead
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, Rob McCreary is one of the two Starfinder Design Leads listed in the Core Rulebook. I'm the other one. He's actually worked on the game longer than I have. Longer than anyone else, in fact, at this point.
Second, as Starfinder Creative Director, he can absolutely make any rules statements he wants. So, for that matter, can Starfinder Managing Developer Amanda Hamon Kunz (my direct boss), any member of the Starfinder team, our publisher, and the company owners.
Third, Rob is exactly right that you cannot make a combat maneuver as an attack of opportunity, unless some ability states otherwise. Combat maneuvers have specific rules, which specify you can make a combat maneuver as a standard action. Those rules also say they use melee attack rolls. They ALSO say they can target a creature within your reach, or your weapon's reach. They do not say that everything that allows you to make a melee attack allows you to make a combat maneuver, because the rules for combat maneuvers already specify under what conditions you can make them.
All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.
All combat maneuvers are melee attacks (barring a special ability that allows you to use them at range). Not all melee attacks can be combat maneuvers.
If Rob, or any member of the Starfinder team, says their interpretation of a rule clarification I made is correct and does not contradict my clarification, believe them.
And remember that while forum posts are always as correct as we can make them, none of them (including mine) have the weight of an official FAQ or errata, which go through a different (and much more time consuming) process.
Thanks.
Can we get some video to make sure you're not trying to blink in Morse code?
Rob and Owen - thanks for the clarification!
Question though: Why not? In game terms, I don't see how, for example, hitting someone with my weapon as he tries to dodge away from me is that much different than, say, trying to grab the back of his armor and tackling him. Yes, the grapple is harder to do, hence the (effective) -8 to hit due to it being a combat maneuver rather than a typical melee attack.. but I'm curious as to the thought process behind why it's not allowed?
Combat maneuvers are (in my opinion) very situational at best, I think in my group after over a year of playing Starfinder, I could count on one hand the number of CM attempts anyone has even made because, let's face it, unless the story REQUIRES it (for example: "to succeed in this mission, you have to tackle target X into the ditch while the cameras are rolling"), why take a -8 to hit on purpose when there's so many other options available? Why further limit their utility when they are already B-side options anyway?
Yea, I must agree. The CM is a rather niche attack option. I think it's one of those things that gives greater options to a combat system that could grow rather stale quite quickly. The KAC + 8 pretty much limits the field of players who can hope to achieve a positive result with the current closed scalability within this gaming system.
It reminds me of spellcasting in this game. Is it better to have cool spells that have spectacular effects or is it better to have spells that have effects regardless of the target saving? I am of the latter camp as the saving throw bonuses of enemies in this game is OFF THE CHAIN good. Here's a good example from our current game. A CR 11 Drow Nobelarms dealer has saves of Fort +10, Ref +12 Will +14. The MOST.. absolute MOST you can field with a Mystic or Technomancer is a DC of 23 at level 11 (if you totally optimize and buy the personal Mk 2 upgrade and take Spell Focus). That means you have a 65% chance of success for attacking his Fort, 55% for his Reflex, and 45% chance for his Will. Those are TERRIBLE odds for a spellcaster if the spell has no secondary effect on a save. You will waste an entire turn AND a spell slot if the enemy saves. That's a HARD bargain to bet those odds on. I have talked with my fellow players who are casters and they agree. They've exchanged all their save or die spells for save and at least SOMETHING happens.
Rob and Owen - thanks for the clarification!
Question though: Why not? In game terms, I don't see how, for example, hitting someone with my weapon as he tries to dodge away from me is that much different than, say, trying to grab the back of his armor and tackling him. Yes, the grapple is harder to do, hence the (effective) -8 to hit due to it being a combat maneuver rather than a typical melee attack.. but I'm curious as to the thought process behind why it's not allowed?
Combat maneuvers are (in my opinion) very situational at best, I think in my group after over a year of playing Starfinder, I could count on one hand the number of CM attempts anyone has even made because, let's face it, unless the story REQUIRES it (for example: "to succeed in this mission, you have to tackle target X into the ditch while the cameras are rolling"), why take a -8 to hit on purpose when there's so many other options available? Why further limit their utility when they are already B-side options anyway?
I agree, why not? It's just lame that you can't, to be honest.
Fortunately, as GMs we make our own rules and I will always houserule that you can use a maneuver as an AoO, and that you can full action two maneuver attemps, with the -4. I believe this makes the game more fun!:)