Personally, I find combat maneuvers are either never used or the character is specialized in them and therefore used all the time (and very likely to succeed) and can easily shut combat down; most notably Disarm, Trip, and Sunder (even though that last one isn't used as often as it destroys loot). My thought to fix this it to remove the "Improved / Greater [Combat Maneuver]" feats and not have Combat Maneuvers provoke attacks of opportunity. Looking at some random NPCs it looks like they'll typically be slightly more likely to hit with a regular attack. I think, since combat maneuvers impose other penalties which are quite often more detrimental to the victim than getting hit, this might encourage players to use them.
The main thought behind this is that players are more likely to try something that might fail than to try something that will provoke an AoO and if that AoO hits they're almost guaranteed to fail at the Combat Maneuver.
Thoughts? Opinions? Tell me why I'm wrong and why this is a terrible idea.
Or how to improve upon it.
This feels like a great idea, honestly.
I'm actually kind of mad at myself for not thinking of this sooner; I've been trying to make combat maneuvers like bullrush and overrun more relevant and ones like disarm and trip less all-or-nothing.
This solves all of it in the simplest, most elegant way I've seen so far.
I'd probably want to keep some feats around for those who want to specialize; a feat that gives you +2 to trip still feels decent on it's own.
Grappling should still provoke an attack of opportunity unless your unarmed strikes count as armed, though. Grappling does not need any help.
This gets rid of one of the most obnoxious issues I had with combat maneuvers before: the difference between bullrush, drag and reposition. I mean, you're just moving dudes around a little. Does it really matter exactly how, in relation to their and your starting positions, they move? Do each of those warrant a whole feat to themselves? But with this, it doesn't.
I'll have to mull this one over, but...this is exactly the kind of thing I want in low-level combats. A fight, where both sides are looking for an advantage, trying to come out on top. Not just a charge-in-and-slug-it-out-fest.
Grappling should still provoke an attack of opportunity unless your unarmed strikes count as armed, though. Grappling does not need any help.
I hadn't thought of grappling and yes, I totally agree.
Although it makes it a little more complex, what about if not provoking the AoO from the combat maneuver requires you to have the prerequisites for the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feat?
Which would mean:
Power Attack allows you to use Bull Rush, Drag, Overrun, and Sunder without provoking an AoO.
Combat Expertise allows you to use Dirty Trick, Disarm, Reposition, Steal, and Trip without provoking an AoO.
Improved Unarmed Strike allows you to Grapple without provoking an AoO.
I'd probably want to keep some feats around for those who want to specialize; a feat that gives you +2 to trip still feels decent on it's own.
My only real problem with specializing in things like trip or disarm is that with two feats (Improved and Greater [Trip or Disarm]) you can shut down a lot of enemies or give them a significant disadvantage (unless the opponent isn't affected by the combat maneuver). Tripping gives them minuses to attack and AC (or, technically, combatants have a bonus to hit them with melee) and anyone around them usually gets an AoO when the tripped person stands up, but you can't trip flying things; Disarming makes martial opponents nearly useless, but you can't disarm things with natural attacks.
I don't think you need to add anything; grappling is an unarmed maneuver, so it provokes unless you know karate or have spikey metal gloves.
Combat Reflexes is already stupidly prohibitive with that Int13 and is also a garbage feat. I just give my players that and Power Attack for free, as well as boost Expertise.
Plus, if you don't have a Str of 13...I doubt you'll be very good at bullrushing people around, anyway.
Greater Trip feels substantially better than Greater Disarm. Tripping someone is both an offensive and defensive move, and then adding in a free attack on top of it...compared to a purely defensive move that only gets more defensive-y.
Chained gauntlets, alternate weapons, ruling that standing up from prone as a full-round action doesn't provoke and ways to bump your CMD are the key, I think.
In most cases, I allow anything that boost your AC to also boost your CMD (like Dodge, fighting defensively, etc) and vise versa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble is that lowering CMB is possible only at low levels. At high levels CMD scales out of reach of all but specialists.
Maybe going back to contested rolls (CMB + 1d20 vs. CMD -10 + 1d20, not the Str checks D&D 3.x used) would make combat maneuvers more appealing to non specialists and less reliable for specialists?
avr, how do you figure it scales out of reach at higher levels?
I've seen this said before but in games that I've played at level 15+ the tripping monk still very nearly never missed tripping. And that's, IIRC, is only with taking two feats that provide a total of +4.
Yes, it's in the same way that the paladin would very nearly never miss with the first attack, but subtracting some (or a lot) of hit points still allowed the defender to do something other than lay on the ground, have -4 to attack, and be easier to hit.
Quixote -- Fair enough.
CombatReflexesExpertise is already stupidly prohibitive with that Int13 and is also a garbage feat.
Fixed.
Re: Prohibitive high level Combat Maneuvers: Enemies with more legs get bonuses vs trips, so that +4 isn't scaling well.
Also a lot of creatures don't have especially high BAB, they just get rediculously high STR to up their attack/damage bonuses.
Essentially Trip vs humanoid characters is always a good idea, but any large beasties will be difficult to impossible. This means it depends on the campaign whether they'll scale well, but on average it'll get less useful at high levels.
At the most extreme, CMD's for CR 20 average 52 vs ACs averaging 36, CR 1 averages 14 for both. link. It's a consequence of the main components of CMD (Str, Dex, BAB and size) scaling faster than most of the components of AC.
This is separate from flight/multiple legs making trip problematic at higher levels and applies to all combat maneuvers.
Also I really like the idea of ignoring the AoO for trying combat maneuvers. This is probably the rule I like least in this game, as it just makes combat less interesting.
I wouldn't try to get too complicated, just remove the Improved X feats and make them not provoke (with maybe an exception for grapple). The more you get into details the more changes you'l think you need, but in reality the more complicated you make this the less likely it is to solve the problem - people don't use combat maneuvers.
I'd give it a playtest just by removing the AoOs. You can make some tweaks afterward depending on any trends you see (eg. Grappling requires Improved Unarmed Strike is likely), but I doubt you'll feel like you need more than that.
Even at high levels when you're less likely to succeed you'll still probably find that combat overall is improved.
I'm gonna try it out, though I don't GM much so it'l probably be a while.
For the all-or-nothing ones, you can have lesser effects if you fail by 4 or less. For example, Trip puts the target off balance (-2 AC for 1 round); Disarm gives it at -2 attack penalty for 1 round.
You might do something similar with the other maneuvers. Amongst other things, it makes them a bit more useful at high levels.
Ah, I think I see where my bias is coming from... Most of the APs I run tend to be humanoid-based so they're not fighting large, multi-legged monstrosities so the average CMD that they're going up against is lower than the actual average based on CR.
In my experience most of the time hitting your target for a lot of damage is always better than temporarily inconveniencing them...
If your opponent relies on a weapon to deal damage, taking it from them can effectively end an encounter.
If there are multiple melee combatants on your side, giving everyone a +4 to hit someone while inflicting them with a -4 to hit anyone and severe movement restrictions is often better than one of your attacks.Grappling shuts things down, often hard.
Bullrush/drag/overrun/reposition are all weird and situational. With the rules as they stand, you probably are better off hitting them for damage than pushing them around 5-10ft. Unless there's a pit trap or a vat of acid or two TWF-rogues nearby.
If my opponent relies on a weapon and didn't invest in a locking gauntlet, that's their problem.
I'm not sure I follow. You said that, in your experience, doing damage is always better than "temporarily inconveniencing them". I outlined how disarming someone can be more significant than dealing damage. No you're saying...what, that you don't feel bad for disarming opponents? I don't see how that relates to the subject at hand. Or are you saying that everyone should just always have a locked gauntlet, thus making disarm attempts useless? Because I don't think I agree with that, either. Being able to readily switch weapons (or just use my hand for non-murdery activities) usually outweighs protecting yourself from one situation.
While giving your allies a bonus to hit is great, if you can routinely unload damage in two-three digit range, a trip attack is still a waste in my opinion...Dead enemy is better than enemy attacking at -4.
Giving a couple friendlies a +4 and your opponent a -4 is actually the least significant part of a trip.
If they provoke, it's like they wasted part of their turn AND you (and possibly allies) all get an attack--all at the cost of one of your attacks.If they don't, then they're stuck in that square with a significant penalty.
Grappling shuts down things that can't grapple back... which are usually just as quick to die once you get in grapple range. And you really don't want to grapple anything that can grapple back unless you specced heavily into it...
Grappling isn't about killing things faster, it's about taking down threats in a way that minimizes the risk they pose. Ogres, trolls, hill giants--there's a few that could wreak havoc on your squishier teammates, but now they can't move, can't use two hands, have a penalty to attack and have to spend a standard action just to get away from you to do anything else.
Really, if all a grappler does is establish a hold every turn and the opponent keeps breaking free, that's still a win in most cases.
Yeah I think Grappling is the exception.
Our party was hit by a Confusion spell, and the Gunslinger unloaded ~50 points of damage onto my Bloodrager in one round (level 6, so that's more than half my health). Then I Grappled him and problem solved.
Any time you're fighting a single enemy Grappling can end the encounter with a single roll.
(Later the same gunslinger took another Confusion to the face and started shooting me again. I managed a Disarm with an AoO. This had the same effectas the Grapple when facing a Gunslinger, and with less actions from me. Against other enemies who are less reliant on a specific weapon Grapple would definitely superior.)
A lot of discussions about combat maneuvers centre around a duel-scenario. If it's 1-on-1 then obviously damage is better, but when you have a party to help you out the equation changes.
If it's 4v1, and my Monk can disarm/grapple/trip/etc the opponent in order to deny them a fulll-attack then we're ahead. I may not deal any damage, but our team is still 75% effective, while the enemy is reduced to 50% or less (if we're lucky 0%). If you can get an enemy to 0% effectiveness then damage numbers barely even matter.
Even in a scenario where you're outnumbered, taking out key players can substantially increase your party's chances of success. An evil Bard surrounded by mooks can be devastatingly effective, but if you can take the bard out of the equation you go from boss-fight to mop-up-duty. Again, if this can be done by 1/4 of the party then you should still be ~75% effective, while your enemies may be totally incompetent without magic support.
The most obvious example of people actually using Combat Maneuvers is a reach build tripping enemies who try to attack the party. This is a common tactic precisely because it allows players to ignore the AoO associated with Combat Maneuvers. Most reach builds don't bother with Improved Trip, but people are happy to try more interestinvlg tactics than just dealing damage because they're not directly hurting themselves by trying. This is more or less what the OP is trying to achieve with all Combat Maneuvers, so it seems like a great place to start.
Then you don't rely on a weapon to be effective and being disarmed is unlikely to be any serious inconvenience.
Still not sure what you were saying earlier, but okay. In answer to this point, I would counter with: unless you've got Quick Draw, having to continually draw a weapon each turn still puts you behind the effectiveness curve. And even if you have it, I assume the weapon you started combat with was your preferred one. Switching from a greatsword to a heavy mace to your gauntlets is not a great scenario.
Trip is probably the most useful of combat maneuvers IMO... and still not as useful as having your target prone and *dead*
If it's a choice betweenthe two, yes. Absolutely. But if it's a choice between prone and having another shot at your friend, possibly escaping or being dead, prone is looking a lot safer.
Why would the opponent keep breaking free and not reverse the grapple? I bet you would love being hugged by an ogre/troll/hill giant.
Sure, maybe they would. But that would still mean only I'm taking damage and my friends are free to do as they wish without taking AoO's, boulders or small trees to the face.
Well said, MrCharisma. Precisely what I was thinking of.
Still kicking myself for not realising this sooner.
I have for the longest time removed the AoO for a successful CM. If you fail, however, then you get the AoO. If you have the Improved feat, then the AoO is obviously negated that way.
I'll allow things for the Ruler of Cool (I play with the same friends of 30 years and don't need to worry about PFS or online play with LFG people). You want to Bull Rush someone at the top of the stairs, attempting to Disarm them before they fall? Roll on, dude! I'll just increase the Defense an extra 2 or 4, as necessary or if need be.
I'd rather see my group attempt one or more other options to 'win'the battlefield before they stand in place and hack the other guy to death with full round attacks.
Although, my own caveat is, if you don't have improved unarmed attack feat, you will get an AoO attempting a grapple with an armed person right away.
Well said, MrCharisma. Precisely what I was thinking of.
Still kicking myself for not realising this sooner.
Thanks. And don't stress a lot of that occurred to me as I was writing.
I have for the longest time removed the AoO for a successful CM. If you fail, however, then you get the AoO. If you have the Improved feat, then the AoO is obviously negated that way.
That's an interesting take. There's still a potential penalty, but not nearly as likely (only if you fail AND they succeed at an attack roll). I'd definitely prefer that over the current rules.
Right. I don't think that's so much a rule that is unique to grappling as it is the rule applied to unarmed attacks. Unless you can find a way to effectively grapple someone with a weapon, you better find a way to make your unarmed attacks armed.
The same thing would happen if you tried to disarm someone with your bare hands.
Provoking an attack of opportunity on a failure is interesting, but I'm not sure if it's necessary. It certainly makes the feats more appealing, but isn't a wasted attack enough of a penalty? Plus, then you sort of end up back in the old camp of combat maneuvers being riskier and people attempting them less often unless they're specifically built for it, just to less of an extreme then originally.
Yeah I could see it done either way.
One of the biggest problems with Combat Maneuvers is that the AoO they provoke turns into a penalty to your CMB check.
If my Half-Orc Barbarian grapples a Halfling Bard, and the bard hits me for 8 damage I take a -8 on my grapple check. I don't care at all about 8 damage but -8CMB is a huge penalty.
Having it only provoke if you miss negates that part of the rules entirely.
I think in terms of encouraging more diverse actions you'd definitely be better off just negating the AoO entirely, but if people think that's OP then this would be a compromise.
I have for the longest time removed the AoO for a successful CM. If you fail, however, then you get the AoO. If you have the Improved feat, then the AoO is obviously negated that way.That's an interesting take. There's still a potential penalty, but not nearly as likely (only if you fail AND they succeed at an attack roll). I'd definitely prefer that over the current rules.
I do like to try and goad them into trying. :-D
Usually once everyone hits 8th level or higher, then they are into their feat trees and moving into the build they want to play. So the 'zany' actions of lower level play of trying to tackle people down stairs, or rush them off a building top, or disarm the leader to demoralize the troops is done.
Provoking an attack of opportunity on a failure is interesting, but I'm not sure if it's necessary. It certainly makes the feats more appealing, but isn't a wasted attack enough of a penalty? Plus, then you sort of end up back in the old camp of combat maneuvers being riskier and people attempting them less often unless they're specifically built for it, just to less of an extreme then originally.
I'm nearly of that mindset already. Why are the CM such specialized moves that the drawback to them is an attack and damage?
Probably because if we only think of combat as fighter v fighter, then this doesn't even register as a big deal. Get rid of the AoO! But, make it fighter v anyone else not a strength based martial, then fighter just rules!
Also I didn't want to initially or drastically change the rules too far. My group hasn't complained of it, and I've had more occurrences of actually trying the moves, so I feel in my limited scope it's been a success.
Then again, a day may come when I just say "naw, no AoO. Just roll."
What are the starfinder rules?
Starfinder says basically you have to hit AC+8, or AC+4 with a single feat for each maneuver (no CMD in that system), and reduces the payoff from the combat maneuvers significantly. No AoOs.
With the feedback people have given on this thread I'm totally going to try my idea. (Remove the feats completely, but might add them back in later, remove the AoO unless it's a grapple, see how it goes.)
I have for the longest time removed the AoO for a successful CM. If you fail, however, then you get the AoO. If you have the Improved feat, then the AoO is obviously negated that way.
...
Although, my own caveat is, if you don't have improved unarmed attack feat, you will get an AoO attempting a grapple with an armed person right away....
My group hasn't complained of it, and I've had more occurrences of actually trying the moves, so I feel in my limited scope it's been a success.
This is wonderful to hear, Erpa!
Elephant in the room rules does a good job at handling this.
But that still requires the PC to take a feat to do a handful of the Combat Maneuvers. It's a good solution, yes, but I think I want to completely get rid of them requiring a feat.
Also I believe Starfinder system also addresses it.
That's a tempting one to try, but at lower levels it looks like pulling CMs off would be nearly impossible. But that being said, as AVR said earlier, pulling CMs off at higher levels is almost impossible.
I don't know if people just haven't crunched the numbers or what, but which situation sounds worse to you?
You're a lvl6 fighter. You could either:
-take 15 damage and attack back (+11/+6, 2d6+16)
-be disarmed, pick your weapon back up, take 15 damage from an attack of opportinity and attack (+11, 2d6+16)
-be disarmed, draw your secondary weapon and attack (+9, 1d8+12)
How about a wizard? Would you rather take some damage and then retaliate, or would you rather be knocked prone so your movement and casting options are limited, and your AC takes a hit?
If the only sorts of opponents you face are single, extremely powerful monsters or hordes of individually week minions, then combat maneuvers will either not succeed very often or be largely meaningless when they do. But if you're facing opponents that cannot be defeated in one hit/aren't insanely strong compared to yourself, combat maneuvers are the best non-magical way to control the battle.
I'm struggling to understand where the confusion is. No one thinks that scorching ray and fireball are "the fastest way to victory" and that bull's strength and haste are a "waste of time".
I will absolutely agree that bulrush, drag and reposition are highly situational and absolutely not worth investing feats into. They should all be grouped into one type of maneuver at the very least.
But Warped Savant's suggestion and Erpa's houserule solve the problem simply, elegantly and completely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People seem under the impression that using combat maneuvers means that you never attack rather than the fact that SOMETIMES it's nice to have the option and having that option shouldn't depend on taking a feat.
If you take one feat for a CM you're probably going to take the better version as well, and now that you've taken two feats to do a thing you'll likely do it as often as possible, which can make combat really boring. "I trip the enemy again. Oh? He gets up? Everyone take an AoO! And then I trip him again on my turn."
That's not the case.
Sometimes it's beneficial (and FUN!) to tackle the enemy out the window.
Sometimes it's useful to use one of your attacks to trip someone.
Sometimes you want to steal something from an enemy so that they can't use it against you/for their benefit.
Yes, people will still attack more often than using a combat maneuver. But maybe sometimes they'll use them and make combat more exciting than two groups of people standing still/moving 5' a turn and swinging their weapons at each other.
Mark Hoover,...I always appreciate a good rant. Speak on, sir! :)
I, too, would plan to go into that crypt room, lob some fireballs and chain lightnings, and call myself victor. I, too, would be working to get the initiative drop to lay into the enemies with full attacks to drop. I, too, love slowing the enemy, clumping the enemy, denying them full round actions, and overall take away their battlefield control.
Of course I want to do that!
But I also want all actions available to a player to be fun. I want all facets of the game to be something anyone can use towards how they want to play.
Of course I’m not going to try and Trip a wyvern. Of course I’m not going to try and Disarm a giant. Of course I’d rather use all my class’s options and progressive build to the point I have in mind for my character’s usefulness.
But in all things, like all plans, all that falls apart after the first engagement if you haven’t fully decimated the field. So, when the battle changes, wouldn’t it be fun to have other, and I’ll say it, and perhaps have others scoff at me, more thematic things available to you?
That’s all I speak to. In being honest, when combats come down to the last 3 rounds, where the PCs have ‘won’ but there are still the ephemeral enemy hit point counters hanging in the air to drop to 0, and all we do is roll dice until those hp counters all ring 0, I’ll stop combat before that and just say you’ve won. They’re dead. It’s utterly pointless, and boring, to keep those combat rounds running. This is NOT me saying that the group should then engage in CM and make things fun for me, the DM.
But CM can liven up play, can take action economy away on the real cheap, remove an enemy from the board, and decrease a full round threat to the PCs for a round when they can’t outright remove them dead. (as long as I use my CM home rules so that way they aren’t such a penalty to try).
I even spoke to the fact that after level ..8 or so, no one really uses CM anyways, unless they have some build, like my PC’s brawler that wants to DDT everyone with a Grapple. And I’m fine with that too. I just like the thought of making it available to be the ultimate reason I change rules for it.
Why would this group tempt fate tossing a foe out a window when, based on the law of averages, the player can calculate that they likely have about a 70% chance of hitting with a ranged attack that deals 4d6 Fire damage, avg 14, to a foe that might not DIE from that one hit, but will be severely wounded...
Well, if we use the rule Warped Savant put forth...because an attempted Bullrush may well be more effective? Lvl5 fighter CMB...+11? Versus whatever the CMD of his small opponents is (let's assume they're lvl5 rogues), so maybe...15? So he needs a 4 or better to successfully shove one of them off a ledge, meaning he has an 85% chance of dealing 10d6 or whatever.
...my players optimize their characters for the infliction of damage and Conditions on their enemies, usually with both flowing simultaneously from a single attack. My players spend as much time as they can either attacking from range or using Reach to keep foes at bay and wear them down; they tactically plan scrolls or wands with battlefield control effects to force enemies to attack them singly, and once they get into melee the idea is to put the enemy down as quickly as possible.
So...if combat maneuvers took less investment to use effectively, your group would use them more often. Your players obviously understand the value of control over damage, with their focus on conditions, range and reach.
If Disarm is already a "sometimes treat" based on the difficulty of the foe, then you add in that many foes are using Slam attacks, claws, breath weapons, acidic pseudopods and other natural weapons, that means that you might take two feats for something you barely get the chance to use. Yes, the one time you GET to use it, the fight against that foe is over in a single, successful use of the maneuver...
...right. Which is the point of this thread. So...do you actually agree or what?
Also, "many foes" is entirely dependent on the GM. If one of my players wanted to specialize in disarming their opponents, I would either make an effort to present them with a fair number of opponents that can be disarmed or warn them that such a character will struggle to be useful in the type of game that I have planned.But if all four PCs took traits and feats, along with a high dex, they could beat the enemy's initiative and get 4 attacks on the foe's flat footed - deal enough damage and the fight's over...
Sure, but for every time that group succeeds, a group that focuses on control will succeed in another situation. Probably more, honestly.
If my players tried to approach every combat the same way, I'd be sure to mix it up and foil them a bit. Throw some super defensive, tactical opponents at the hack n' slash blender group. Throw some lightning fast, aggressive monsters at the control freaks. No one approach should always work.
There's LOTS of ways to end the fight quickly and with minimal risk to the PCs. Even if you use the OP's solution, which I do agree is fairly elegant, and remove some of the risk of attempting maneuvers, why use an attack that you need to be really good at to succeed in...
I really don't understand your point. Conditions like blind amd entangle are great...along with prone and grappled. Sometimes, raw damage is better (though not often; hence why blaster wizards are almost always inferior to the batman-variety).
To answer your last question: because you DON'T need to be "really good" at it. At least, no better than your normal attacks.If all of your high level encounters are against lone, high-CR monsters or hordes of minions, then yeah. Most combat maneuvers will not be that useful.
But if you include rival adventurers, assassin's guilds, priests of forgotten gods and other opponents that (1) aren't taken down in one hit or (2) have an insane CMD, there will be a place for them.
If you're a lvl9 barbarian fighting a storm giant cleric, maybe don't go for the trip or the grapple. If you're facing 45 lvl 1 orc warriors, disarming one of them seems like a poor choice.
But if you're looking at a Lvl8 fighter, a successful disarm or trip will probably be more significant than dealing damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, other than some people apparently thinking that Combat Maneuvers are always inferior to attacking no one is saying that there's any real problem with what I'm going to be trying, right?
(Except for removing the feats will remove the total +4 bonus that characters could get to a pull off a Combat Maneuver.)
I don't care if a group never uses them because they decide to use a different tactic. "I'm not using a CM because I have better tactics" is different than "I'm not using a CM because I don't want to risk the AoO, especially since if the AoO hits I'm almost guaranteed to fail."
Quixote covered everything I was going to say in response to Mark Hoover 330. Yeah, you can't disarm everyone, yeah, some monsters will be (and should be) nearly impossible to trip... But when a group of medium-sized humanoids are fighting another group of medium-sized humanoids they typically have an okay chance of succeeding on a CM.
And having the option to decide to attempt one is what I want to achieve. I don't want to change them, I don't want to make them always better than a regular attack. I simply want them to be an option without having to take feats.
Sounds good.
I think it's a simple elegant solution to a fairly ubiquitous problem.
In being honest, when combats come down to the last 3 rounds, where the PCs have ‘won’ but there are still the ephemeral enemy hit point counters hanging in the air to drop to 0, and all we do is roll dice until those hp counters all ring 0, I’ll stop combat before that and just say you’ve won. They’re dead. It’s utterly pointless, and boring, to keep those combat rounds running.
The sign of a GM who knows what an encounter actually is, and thus when it is over.
It heartens me to see such.
. I simply want them to be an option without having to take feats.
Agreed! :-D
You ARE rambling, you could have said that in about 100 words. It was very poetic how you broke up your paragraphs with variations of "but damage works all the time".
But damage isn't always the answer.
The average fight is against enemies who's goal is to kill the PCs, be they Orcs who like violence, Animals looking for food or Assassins who have a job to do. Sometimes - however - you may face someone you don't want to kill. Sure you can throw some fireballs and then be a survivor reviver, but what happens when there ARE no survivers? What happens when you accidently crit when trying to subdue your enemy?
Sometimes damage isn't the answer.
In an AP I'm playing there was unrest in the town. The peasant mob had come out and was angry. Angry enough to kill. Lives were at stake, but the combatants were just simple folk who were scared. Many manipulated by a few to become a weapon. Ending this encounter without dealing damage wasn't "necessary", but it did have it's rewards.
Sometimes damage isn't the best answer.
Terrain can be an important factor in combat. From a cliffside ambush to a brawl in a tavern, whether fighting on the deck of a pirate ship or dueling on a catwalk inside a space station, terrain sets the parameters of the encounter. Often I see terrain ignored, but if you pay attention you can use it. A golem might be difficult to bull-rush, but if it's next to a ledge you can get past it without worrying about damage reduction. If there's a pit of acid (or lava/etc) you might find that the best way to deal damage is to deal acid(/lava) damage.
Sometimes direct damage isn't the answer.
Sometimes you might find yourselves without weapons. Dealing damage works, but disarming an enemy lowers their damage while increasing yours. Sometimes you might encounter enemies who rely on specific weapons to be useful. Dealing damage might end the encounter, but in the meantime you and yours are taking high damage. Taking out their weapons (disarm/sunder/maybe-grapple) might take longer, but it'll likely save you resources, so you can go longer between rests. Once the threat is neutralized you can go back to dealing damage.
Sometimes damage isn't the only answer.
Hopefully you've enjoyed my rebuttal =P
I've played enough that I know speccing for damage is generally the most reliable way to build a character, but that doesn't mean I don't use combat maneuvers. My Bloodrager in Iron Gods deals huge damage with his Chainsaw, but he's had to use disarms/grapples when the party gunslinger got hit by a confusion spell. He's used trips to stop enemies getting to his squishier allies if he thinks his damage won't one-shot the enemy. He's bull-rushed enemies off cliffs and repositioned his allies to move them out of danger.
Combat is usually about ending the encounter with minimal losses. If you can kill the enemiss fast enough then job done, but sometimes you need to neutralize a threat first, and deal damage once that's done. Encouraging variation in tactics among your players can help them improve their game mechanically, but also in terms of fun.
Mark Hoover 330 -- You're giving examples where doing damage is likely the best option or combat maneuvers aren't likely to work.
What about the times where, like MrCharisma said, there's a crowd of commoners that are being manipulated and you want to neutralize them rather than risk killing them? I've put my players in a situation where even a regular hit, changed to non-lethal damage would likely kill the person they were trying to stop. Grappling, tripping, or disarming the antagonist was the best option. Yes, some spells could've achieved the same thing but a combat maneuver didn't cost them any resources.
(For the record, one PC had improved trip, another is good at avoiding AoO so took the risk to disarm once the opponent was prone, and the third grappled the prone enemy. The players knew it was going to be a long time before they could rest so they were glad that they didn't have to use a spell to put the target to sleep or some other such thing.)
So, yes, damage would work, but it is not always the best answer.
Damage does not work 100% of the time.
Why doesn't everyone have Agile Tongue? Because not everyone wants to play a grippli all the time. Because you can't disarm every opponent. Because disarming isn't usually the best option.
But sometimes it IS the best option. Not always. not even often.... but sometimes. And a player taking a feat for a sometimes option doesn't usually happen, especially if that sometimes option doesn't come up or isn't the best option very often. But without requiring a feat to avoid the attack of opportunity I think my players will sometimes try to disarm an enemy.
Yeah, I think I got seriously side-tracked by Lady Asharah and Mark Hoover 330.
This thread is about making combat maneuvers more viable and less central to a character's build.
Discussions about the validity of combat maneuvers in general have their place in regards to this houserule, but the fact remains: combat maneuvers will become *MORE* viable with this ruling, with little to no drawback that anyone here can see.
Now, whether *more* means an increase of 2% or 200% will vary. But it will be more. That's the main point here.
With all this talk about damage, though...I'm honestly kind of blown away. I remember thinking that spells like fireball and lightning bolt were the be-all, end-all when I first started playing. Then I realized that spells like major image and haste were so much more potent in a wider variety of situations.
It doesn't matter how much damage you deal if your opponent never sees you, is unconsciousness, can't move, or doesn't realize they're your opponent.
Sure, you need damage in combat. Usually. But a truly well-balanced, well-run encounter will reward the players who are creative, tactical and versatile.
Sometimes, wading into combat and hewing the enemy to bits is the most viable approach. Probably most times. But if that's all every encounter requires of your players, you're taking it easy on them, and missing out on the more nuanced and dynamic aspects of the game.
I didn't read through the entire thread, so sorry if anyone has gone over something similar, but I'll mention how I do Combat Maneuvers for my group as they seem to like it.
When attempting a combat maneuver against an enemy, two things will provoke an AOO; failing to hit the CMD of the target by 5 or more, or if the enemy has the Improved Feat of the maneuver you are trying against them. (If both the attacker and the defender have the feat, it acts as normal.)
My reasoning is I don't want my players to feel like they are locked into just attacking if they don't have the feats. I want them to do what is cool and what drives the story... but I also want those who specialize in those feats to feel like they get more out of it than just a +4.
That's my two cents at least!
DeviantDesign -- That's a nice alternative! It gives them the option to attempt them while having an effect (similar to things like Disable Device and Climbing) if they fail by 5+.
How long have you been using this rule for? I assume it's worked well and people enjoy it, yea? Do you find that the AoO rarely happens or happens surprisingly often?
AoO when you fail or fail by 5 or more are decent takes. I'm not sure if the extra layer of risk/complication is worth it, but it could be a nice balance or way to ease into it.
What I like is the idea that the feats give you an AoO when someone tries to use a combat maneuver on you.
Another option would be to do away with the penalty to the CMB from the AoO, either on it's own or in conjunction with some of these other options.
Another option would be to do away with the penalty to the CMB from the AoO, either on it's own or in conjunction with some of these other options.
That was something I had considered too, Quitoxe, but I feel like the AoO is the main thing that prevents people from trying CMs. Maybe not a trip or grapple, but bullrush is so situationally useful and even less often can it cause damage that a character possibly taking damage in order to bullrush doesn't seem likely.
And I didn't want to start having some provoke and others not.
I feel like the AoO is the main thing that prevents people from trying CMs.
Really? I feel like, if a situation arises in which a combat maneuver seems like a good idea, taking some damage would still be worth it. At least, compared to taking a massive penalty to the combat maneuver.
If taking a given action leads to loss of hit points, it just makes me weigh the benefits of that action against the loss.But if taking that action leads to a loss of hit points AND the almost guaranteed failure of the action...why would I bother trying to do something that will most likely leave me worse off than if I had literally just skipped my turn?
I think finding a way to negate the attack of opportunity entirely is the most elegant solution. But I think it's the penalty, rather than the damage from the attack, that currently makes combat maneuvers so disfavorable. Paying a price for an action is fine; that's the game. As long as the price doesn't completely negate the action.
Getting rid of the attacks of opportunity and the feats is one option.
The attack of opportunity only occurring on a failed attempt is another.
Getting rid of the attacks of opportunity except against people who possess the feats is another.
Removing the penalty inflicted by the damage from the attack of opportunity is another.
After reading through everything, off the hip I would say...combat maneuvers do not provoke an attack of opportunity unless your target has the Improved feat related that combat maneuver.
The greater version of that feet inflicts a penalty to the combat maneuver based on the damage of the attack of opportunity.
It would require a little reworking of the existing feats and isn't quite as elegant as the original proposition, but it both allows characters to focus on combat maneuvers if they so wish and prevents such characters from always succeeding at said combat maneuvers.
I agree woth all those solutions as potential fixes, but ...
As a house rule, I think the simpler the rule is the more likely you'll see it used. The different versionsm probably depend on what you're trying to achieve:
If Senko's group simply never use combat maneuvers then giving a blanket rule of "ok they don't provoke ever now" and removing the "improved X" feats is probably the best method.
If Senko's group never use combat maneuvers - except the Fighter who has Improved/Greater-Trip and Vicious Stomp - then a more complex solution may be needed. You don't want that player to feel like his concept has just been thrown out the window.