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

[Greenfield]

Okay, I understand what you wrote. What I missed was how that established "targetable zones" (which aren't mentioned any place before now), or how "targetable zones" in any way answered my question.

Now, again, how does full plate make a weapon harder to sunder?

Or, if you prefer, how/why does a Barkskin spell or Amulet of Natural Armor make someone harder to grab, or trip, or disarm, or protect their weapon from being sundered? How does full plate keep a shield from being sundered? (I could see an argument for the shield protecting the armor, but not the other way around.)

I D&D 3.5, these maneuvers call for a touch attack, so things like Dodge and Deflection bonuses count. That part makes sense. But adding raw AC to the mix doesn't, in most cases.

 

[Sunseeker]

OK - then:

- why would the penalty be the same for targetting dagger or a maul? A bigger weapon should be easier to hit, shouldn't it?

Sure, but larger weapons are also more durable. And it would depend on what you're hitting. Hitting a maul with a longsword would probably have a greater chance of sundering the longsword than it would the maul. Unless we had a severely shortened list of weapons, I think attempting to divine the DC of each weapon is overkill.

- why would it be harder to disarm a dagger held by a target with an 18 DEX and wearing Plate Mail than if the same target is in a loincloth? Shouldn't the latter be harder - he can react better with his full DEX than when encumbered by that metal suit, pulling his dagger out of the way, right?

Again, the system works like it works because D&D doesn't allow specific zone targeting. It's weird because it's one(or two) number attempting to represent a whole variety of numbers(like 10 or more).

Really, it should be harder to disarm a skilled warrior than a novice - and the CMD's use of BAB makes that happen quite nicely. Replacing it with AC? Not (nearly) so much.

I wasn't advocating as such. Merely pointing out that a single number is a poor way to represent a lot of things.


Personally I'd love to see a variant "body part" breakdown where attacking the hand has it's own DC number, and thus making a disarm attempt(which is an attack on the hand but also one that is attempting to only knock out the weapon and not do significant damage to the hand) employs that number, and not some generalized "combat skill"(CMD) or whole body defense(AC) number.

 

[Greenfield]

Sunder doesn't automatically destroy the weapon, at least not in D&D. It just lets you target damage to it. After that it's hardness and hit points, just like anything else.

So the maul's greater durability is already taken into account, when compared to the dagger.

If this rule would result in automatic destruction then it's another maneuver that will never be allowed to succeed.

 

[Empirate]

A question I raised upthread hasn't been answered yet: what does any kind of "streamlining" houserule do for you? Why would you want to do that? Does tripping really bug you so much the way it stands? Is Pathfinder's streamlined system not streamlined enough? Why would you change a system that just works?
It's not as if parts of D&D couldn't use an overhaul, which is why 4E and now Next have come along, but change for the sake of change? I'm not feelin' it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I didn't streamline any of 3.XEd, nor did any of the other guys in our group who ran it. The only thing that got edited was the list of allowed sourcebooks, which varied from campaign to campaign.

 

[Manabarbs]

If you don't make the damage dealt when the creature chooses to take damage instead greater than the damage that a weapon attack does, then trying to use a maneuver with the OP's rules is strictly inferior to simply attacking, so you're essentially removing maneuvers from the game entirely. (Unless you assume that creatures will sometimes make decisions that aren't the best for them.)

If you do make the damage higher than your normal weapon damage, you significantly complicate the game, because now every single attack is a matter of trying to decide whether the less desirable of (maneuver effect, boosted damage) is better than (normal damage), after first deciding what the most desirable maneuver effect is. (You also throw another decision for the DM in there every time you do use a maneuver.)

 

[Belzbet]

Why is combat maneuvers such a big point? Most Dm's will know how to deal with most any combat maneuver (the point being that the situation will dictate your bonuses and chances within the framework of the game)... Who cares what the rules say... I know many like that kind of structure BUT it is NOT necessary... Also pathfinder isnt that great in terms of maneuvers it just simplifies maneuvers to opposed checks most of the time...

 

[Viking Bastard]

A question I raised upthread hasn't been answered yet: what does any kind of "streamlining" houserule do for you? Why would you want to do that? Does tripping really bug you so much the way it stands? Is Pathfinder's streamlined system not streamlined enough? Why would you change a system that just works?

I imagine that in most of those cases, the system doesn't work for them, for a variety of reasons.

My personal reason is most often pacing. The fiddlier the rule, the more it pauses the game, and the less often it comes up, the worse it is when it comes up. It's a lot easier to handle a fiddly rule that you memorize by repeat use and start to do instinctively, rather than something like tripping, where nobody remembers the rule exactly, so you feel forced to crack open a book during the game (gah!).*

* I know that at a lot of tables the books are always open for reference, but whenever someone cracks open a book (well, except for the equipment lists), my group lets out a collective groan.

 

[ImperatorK]

If you can't handle complicated rules, D&D isn't for you. Personally I'll take complicated but more functional over simple/streamlined rules.

 

[N'raac]

Yup. Pathfinder streamlined the manuver rules so they all run on the same basic engine. When something unusual comes up, you probably have to crack the book until you get familiar with that system. Maybe someone could have cracked a book to realize Sunder also requires doing damage to the object...

Rather than "opponent chooses result", you could always use "maneuvers are not allowed". The result will be similar.

We have Touch and Flat Footed AC already. Having Maneuver AC (which is all CMD really is) doesn't seem like that big a deal. As for stopping the game to crack a book, it happens all the time when an unfamiliar spell is cast, so why should it be the end of the world if a martial-type does something creative and out of the oridinary on occasion? If it is happening frequently, the rules should get familiar pretty quickly.

I'd hate to be in a game where players won't do anything creative because the game might slow down a bit. "We slug it out, toe to toe, in this game so we don't have to open a book" strikes me as risking monotony.