Are special manuevers even harder than they were in the Beta?

[BryonD]

Should it be more difficult to disarm a Balor's Vorpal sword than to simply strike the Balor?
Is that not a more challenging task?

When is it *NOT* the right time to disarm the Balor's Vorpal sword? If the only choice is what would I prefer, I'll disarm him first every time. Again, it becomes a boring, anti-climatic no-brainer.

And if there is a firepit behind the orc, then that also becomes a no-brainer if there is no less chance of success.

There is nothing "smart" about these options if the actual challenge they very rationally present is discarded as a form of PC charity.

If it is purely a question of on Round 1 do you strike or do you disarm the balor, and you have a 30% chance of disarm and a 60% charm of striking, then it just comes down to your assessment of the pot odds and, sure, luck comes in to play. But at least it is a tactical choice with some consideration. If the odds are the same there is nothing tactical whatsoever. You disarm. Thinking ends before it begins. "Beating him up" will comes vastly easier without that sword.

What *I* want is for the player's to truly think "smart". Create circumstances where the sword does not come into play. Or team up and aid another to stack the odds in favor of getting rid of (disarm with lots of pluses) that nasty threat. Or use the terrain to avoid it. Or come up with something else.

There is no victory in a game mechanical giveaway.

And every bit of that aside, doesn't it just make obvious sense that it doing something more challenging should have a lower chance of success?

 

[Stalker0]

I'm not suggesting special manuevers should be as easy as regular attacks...especially without training. But on the other hand, you have to have a decent chance of succeeding or else what's the point in having them at all?

In fairness, I'm really making some opinions without much evidence. I should run some numbers and found out how tough it actually is to perform combat manuevers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Should it be more difficult to disarm a Balor's Vorpal sword than to simply strike the Balor?
Is that not a more challenging task?

Isn't it more difficult because the Balor is one tough enemy? You only got your shot because you are tough enough to engage him in the first place.
Why should it be harder to disarm him then to kill him? Wouldn't the Balor want (and be able) to avoid the latter far more then the former?

 

[BryonD]

Isn't it more difficult because the Balor is one tough enemy? You only got your shot because you are tough enough to engage him in the first place.
Why should it be harder to disarm him then to kill him? Wouldn't the Balor want (and be able) to avoid the latter far more then the former?

We are not talking about killing him. We are comparing one action to another action.
The first action is landing a single blow. One attack roll vs AC.
The second action is disarming him. One CMB roll vs CMD.

And "want" has nothing to do with it.

Are you claiming that specifically removing the weapon from the Balor's hand (or anyone else) is no more difficult then landing one blow? That is the distinction that exists.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not suggesting special manuevers should be as easy as regular attacks...especially without training. But on the other hand, you have to have a decent chance of succeeding or else what's the point in having them at all?

In fairness, I'm really making some opinions without much evidence. I should run some numbers and found out how tough it actually is to perform combat manuevers.

sorry, I didn't see you had two replies.

So we do agree it should be harder.

Who says you don't have a decent chance in PF? I think you will find out it is a good approach. A few months from now I also may very well decide that the pure numbers are off (though they could be too easy as well as too hard). But so far it seems good to me.

As I said at the beginning :
"I think the design goal is that harder things to do should be harder to do."
If we agree there then we agree.
If the math is off a little, ok. But we have not been debating the math, but the idea it self.

 

[an_idol_mind]

My experience with the system so far is admittedly small (levels 1-4 of a low-magic campaign), but I haven't seen an issue with combat maneuvers yet. I've had hobgoblins bull rush characters, wolfs perform trips, and a constrictor snake grapple. The rate of success feels about where it should be to me, and the maneuvers have run more smoothly now that the number of rolls is reduced to just one (plus an attack of opportunity in some cases). Things might get tougher when magic items get added to the mix, but then feats and magic weapons will also be adding to CMB rolls as well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As I said at the beginning :
"I think the design goal is that harder things to do should be harder to do."
If we agree there then we agree.
If the math is off a little, ok. But we have not been debating the math, but the idea it self.

The question is more a little in the detail of the implementation.
What does "hard" mean? Is a high DC all that we can use to model it?
Is there a way to model a "state" where an NPC is suspectible to a maneuver and where he is not?

A simple example would be something like a "fumble" rule. If the enemy rolled a 1 on his last turn, cast a spell or made a ranged attack, a character can attempt a bullrush, disarm, sunder or trip against him. The chances for that are roughly the same chance as hitting the enemy then. If you are specialized on the maneuver, it's easier easier than hitting the enemy, or more situation allow you to doit.

This way, the maneuvers are still hard to do, because the opportunities for it crop up seldom. But you create a feeling of a dynamic battlefield - "The balor slipped, now is the time to strike!"

 

[BryonD]

The question is more a little in the detail of the implementation.
What does "hard" mean? Is a high DC all that we can use to model it?

I tried to get you into this conversation before and presented a different position.

You said

The problem with making maneuvers more difficult is that you quickly achieve a situation where no one attempts it anymore.

And the back and forth supported my understanding that you meant exactly this. You were not challenging whether or not the difference in difficulty was too high, you were challenging that there should be no difference at all. You did not get into the detail of the implementation. You seemed to rather clearly reject the concept.

If you now want to revise your statement then cool.
If you agree that harder things should be harder, then we agree.
You may want a smaller gap in DCs and I may want a larger one.
Or we may agree completely.
That does not matter either way because we are free to tweak the DCs in our own games however we see fit.

But in regard to the core concept of whether or not there should be a difference, I still completely disagree with the statements you made upthread.

If you want to change that now and say that there CAN be a difference without "quickly achieving a situation where no one attempts" options, then that debate is done.

If you want to present an actual assessment of the DC differences in PF, go for it. Hell, I might agree with you in regard to the specific magnitudes. Right now I think I'm happy with the numbers as they are.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I tried to get you into this conversation before and presented a different position.

You said
And the back and forth supported my understanding that you meant exactly this. You were not challenging whether or not the difference in difficulty was too high, you were challenging that there should be no difference at all. You did not get into the detail of the implementation. You seemed to rather clearly reject the concept.

Well, then you got me wrong or I didn't express myself sufficiently enough, or focused on the less important parts.

I don't think maneuvers should happen all the time. But I think they should be "controllable". E.g. the moment you use it, you feel you have a reasonable chance to succeed with it. That doesn't have to mean you can use it all the time.

 

[Starbuck_II]

If it is purely a question of on Round 1 do you strike or do you disarm the balor, and you have a 30% chance of disarm and a 60% charm of striking, then it just comes down to your assessment of the pot odds and, sure, luck comes in to play. But at least it is a tactical choice with some consideration. If the odds are the same there is nothing tactical whatsoever. You disarm. Thinking ends before it begins. "Beating him up" will comes vastly easier without that sword.

I don't think a Balor is a good example because he has a whip and magic to fall back on if he drops his sword.
It can grapple to deal +6d6 fire damage (addition to unarmed/light weapon damage).
It can fly up and blast the PCs with dominate, implosion, or blasphemy.
Remember Blashemy has partial save. Even if make save vs Paralyzed, still that round (making you disarmed as well).