D&D 3E/3.5 Good news, everyone, I found a system that replaces the combat maneuver system in 3e/Pathfinder.

This is stolen from an OSR blog, I don't remember which one, but credit is due to the author.

1. Attacker says he is going to attempt a maneuver. He then makes a melee attack (or attacks, if he's doing a full attack).
2. On a hit, the defender can choose to suffer the effects of the maneuver or damage.
3. On a critical hit, the defender suffers the effects of the maneuver and damage.
4. Optional: make this fighter only to simplify.

I don't like step number 2. The defender is always going to choose what's least disadvantageous...which is pretty much guaranteed to frustrate the attacker.

I wouldn't let the defender be able to make a choice in this regard. If the attack from step one is successful, then the maneuver is performed - in other words, eliminate step 2.

So, replace a broken part of D&D with... something broken but simpler to understand? I'd say okay, but of course it's pitted against non-magic user again. Really?

2. On a hit, the defender can choose to suffer the effects of the maneuver or damage.

Click to expand...

They couldn't possibly think that seriously. So stupid on so many levels. Maybe it's a joke? Are you joking, OP? Help me out, here.

Point is, this rule doesn't fix anything as much as it oversimplifies a complicated problem. It may speed up gameplay, but what of the actual game? Fighters get enough as it is than to let people decide what they do to them. At worst I'd allow them to roll against it, not cherry pick reality.

EDIT: Sinc!

Why does the defender have a choice in this?

What's wrong with the PF system anyway?

Ahnehnois said:

Why does the defender have a choice in this?

Click to expand...

Because hit points are abstract, and in this scenario, they are choosing whether to defend against the maneuver (taking HP damage) or not and suffering the consequences thereof.

I'll pass, and continue to use a heavily modified version of Pathfinder's combat maneuver system (without all the miscellaneous bonuses). I don't like the stuff presented here, the defender choosing to be damaged instead of disarmed or grappled (or whatever), your take on HP, etc. Maybe it'll work for others, though. Up to them. As always, play what you like

Okay, so I try to Grapple someone by swinging my sword at them? And if I hit they're grabbed? Or maybe they're bleeding? Or is this where I try to grab with my empty hands, and they get to choose between being grappled and taking a D3 + STR of non-lethal damage?

Consider the Improved trip maneuver: I Trip someone, then get a normal attack at their prone AC if I succeed. When, pray tell, will I ever successfully trip someone? Nobody will ever choose prone and damage over just damage.

Now, Bull Rush: I slam into them with my ... rapier? Or dagger? Or axe? Or is this another D3 + STR non-lethal situation? Again, when will I ever succeed at a Bull Rush?

Now it works just fine for Unarmed Strike, because they get to choose between taking damage and, well, taking damage. But that's hardly a ringing endorsement, if you know what I mean.

It's possible that someone would agree to be disarmed if they were low on hit points, but other than that it's never going to happen.

It sounds okay, in a very general, "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" sort of way, but as soon as you look at the details behind that curtain it really falls apart.

It's not a terrible idea but it needs some work.

Pros: It gets around some of the startling CMD values big, powerful opponents have in PF. It also offers a chance at doing both damage and imposing the effect on the target creature (disarm, shift around, sunder, etc) on a critical.

Cons: Target gets to negate the special attack effect the attacker wanted to inflict by diverting it to hit points.


I'm not sure this is a good overall solution, though. What exactly is the problem you want to solve with it?
If I wanted to increase the attractiveness of the combat maneuvers, I'd probably just have them all inflict some fraction of a normal attack's damage so the attacker never has to choose to do no damage just to impose an effect on the target. And I'd look more closely at CMD values, of course.

The thing is, whether I use D20/D&D3.* or Pathfinder, if I decide to build a Grapple specialist, or a Trip specialist, or any other combat maneuver, I can choose weapons and feats that stack my bonuses to "startlingly high".

And I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

I built a trip-monster once. Spiked chain, high Strength, access to Enlarge Person, and the Improved Trip feat. I also added Combat Reflexes, of course. One DM balked, seeing what his Trip bonus was (Under D&D 3.5 rules it was +6 for Strength when enlarged, +4 for Size and +4 for the Feat) for a total of +14. Improved Trip isn't BAB based, so it was as effective against higher level monsters as it was at lower levels. He let the character in (It was a pick up game at a Convention), but was worried that I'd be abusive.

As we played, though, he realized that, while the character was hell on wheels in a swarm-attack situation, he lacked certain feats that he considered common for a melee combat type. That's when it became clear that my specialty came at a price: I'd had to spend Feats for Exotic Weapon - Spiked Chain, Combat Expertise (Pre-req for Combat Reflexes), Combat Reflexes, and then Improved Trip. I'd also had to take a 1 level dip into Wizard to get access to Enlarge Person. That makes it essentially a feat tree four levels deep. And those four Feats that I'd spent on that were Feats I didn't have for things like Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Dodge, Mobility, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, etc.

Now, those weren't the only Feats he had, and he wasn't missing all of those I listed, but Cleave wasn't there, nor were any of it's children. Dodge and Mobility weren't there. Since at least part of his build was Ranger he had some archery skill, but lacked Point Blank and Precise Shot.

So I can see where characters (or monsters) that specialize in combat maneuvers might make DMs uncomfortable, if only because it's not something they see very often, but since those tricks come at a price, it's not as unbalancing as some might first think.

Now, does that mean that the 3.5 or Pathfinder rules are balanced or easy to use? Of course not. But "fixes" that have the result of eliminating the maneuvers from play aren't fixes at all. (Unless you're thinking of "taking your dog to the vet" kind of fix, that is.)

Meh, I make Maneuvers riders on attacks. Fighters get jipped enough as it is. Giving them an extra status effect on top of 1d8+3 damage isn't seriously breaking the game. Usually I just make up a feat that says "You can make a combat maneuver in addition to a normal melee attack".