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

[Starbuck_II]

(Note that all monster stats came from the 3.0 MM since the Bestiary is not out yet)

You should note that first because in 3.5, that same Orc Warrior has 17 Str.
And Remember Ogres had their CR's changed in 3.5.

 

[BryonD]

No need for hyperbole.

It isn't hyperbole. It is a true statement of how that plays for me personally.

Why do you hate Telekinesis?

heh...

other stuff...

Ok.
I think the PF system is cool.

 

[Stalker0]

It really isn't that hard. Let's take a 1st level Fighter w/ 18 Str vs an Orc.

The Fighter rolls 1d20 + 5 (+1 BAB, +4 Str).

The Orc's CMD, with a BAB of +1 and a +2 Str bonus and +0 Dex bonus, is 13. So an 8 or better succeeds against the Orc, unless he hits with the AoO to make it a little harder.

Now let's add the Improved Bullrush feat. Now the Fighter needs only a 6+ on his roll, and he no longer provokes an AoO, so the Orc can't increase the DC like that anymore.

Ok, so we see that against a typical Orc, the 1st level Fighter has an excellent chance of sending him flying, especially if he took the Imp. feat. How about against a bigger, tougher foe? Let's say the same 1st level Fighter was facing an Ogre.

The Ogre's CMD is +2 from BAB, +5 from Str, -1 from Dex, and +1 for being Large, for a total of 17. The 1st level Fighter still has to roll only a 12 or better without the feat, or 10+ with the feat, to succeed at bullrushing an Ogre! I'd say that's a pretty darn good chance against a larger, tougher foe!

(Note that all monster stats came from the 3.0 MM since the Bestiary is not out yet)

PS: Getting back to the thread title, the Orc's CMD in the Beta would have been 18, and the Ogre's would have been 23! So things are much easier now as long as the monster's Dex is less than 20, and it either missed the AoO or you have the Imp feat.

A good analysis. What I'm curious to know is now take a CR 10 monster vs a 10th level fighter. Does the fighter have about teh same chance, worse, or better?

 

[Samurai]

A good analysis. What I'm curious to know is now take a CR 10 monster vs a 10th level fighter. Does the fighter have about teh same chance, worse, or better?

Well, a lot depends upon the monster that you choose as the opponent. But let's stat out the 10th level Fighter first. He'll have BAB +10, and Str +5 mod due to level-increased abilities alone. Chances are he'll have at least a +2 Str boosting item by 10th level, such as a Belt of Giant Strength +2, which is probably a rather conservative estimate. But that means a total of +16, or +18 with the Improved feat, or +20 with the Greater feat, which he'd have qualified for back around 6th level.

Now the monster. If you pick a CR 10 Thoon Disciple (Mind Flayer with 4 levels of Cleric, from MM5), he only has a CMD of 21. So the Fighter will succeed on a roll of 5+/3+/1+, depending upon his feats.

Let's take a much more physical creature, the Ruin Elemental, a kind of size Large earth elemental (also MM5). It has +10 from BAB, +9 from Str, +0 Dex, and +1 from size, for a total CMD of 30. The Fighter would need to roll 14+/12+/10+ depending upon his feat. This is still a very respectable chance to pull a maneuver, especially if you assume at least the Imp feat by 10th level to negate the AoO.

Some other quick CR 10 CMDs (MM4) :
Yuan-ti Pureblood Slayer: 24
Bluespawn Godslayer (size Huge) : 32
Justice Archon Champion: 26
Githyanki Captain: 23
Craa'ghoran Giant (size Huge) : 33

As you can see, none of these reach the point of requiring a straight 20 to succeed on the move. Even the size Huge creatures can be taken down more than a quarter of the time by an ordinary 10th level fighter with the Improved feat, and for the smaller creatures it's more like a 50-75% chance of taking them down.

 

[jasin]

For the firepit example and most other combat maneuvers, I think the tactical tradeoff is that you have less of a chance to hit but will deal more damage if successful. I can either attack the orc with my longsword and deal 1d8 damage, or I can push him into the firepit, have him take fire damage, and probably have him run around burning for a couple of rounds.

That's the crux, isn't it?

Being on fire deals 1d6 fire damage per round in 3.5, and I'm assuming the same or similar in Pathfinder.

Being hit by a sword deals 1d8 + Str + magic + possible class bonuses + possible magic + ...

In the specific bull rush into fire pit vs. sword strike example, greater difficulty does not yield greater payoff.

In any case, from actual play experience I haven't noticed combat maneuvers being prohibitively difficult. It would take me actually seeing the system break down in gameplay to believe otherwise.

I would prefer to work through potential problems before my game actually breaks down.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, a lot depends upon the monster that you choose as the opponent. But let's stat out the 10th level Fighter first. He'll have BAB +10, and Str +5 mod due to level-increased abilities alone. Chances are he'll have at least a +2 Str boosting item by 10th level, such as a Belt of Giant Strength +2, which is probably a rather conservative estimate. But that means a total of +16, or +18 with the Improved feat, or +20 with the Greater feat, which he'd have qualified for back around 6th level.

Now the monster. If you pick a CR 10 Thoon Disciple (Mind Flayer with 4 levels of Cleric, from MM5), he only has a CMD of 21. So the Fighter will succeed on a roll of 5+/3+/1+, depending upon his feats.

Let's take a much more physical creature, the Ruin Elemental, a kind of size Large earth elemental (also MM5). It has +10 from BAB, +9 from Str, +0 Dex, and +1 from size, for a total CMD of 30. The Fighter would need to roll 14+/12+/10+ depending upon his feat. This is still a very respectable chance to pull a maneuver, especially if you assume at least the Imp feat by 10th level to negate the AoO.

Some other quick CR 10 CMDs (MM4) :
Yuan-ti Pureblood Slayer: 24
Bluespawn Godslayer (size Huge) : 32
Justice Archon Champion: 26
Githyanki Captain: 23
Craa'ghoran Giant (size Huge) : 33

As you can see, none of these reach the point of requiring a straight 20 to succeed on the move. Even the size Huge creatures can be taken down more than a quarter of the time by an ordinary 10th level fighter with the Improved feat, and for the smaller creatures it's more like a 50-75% chance of taking them down.

These numbers sure are helpful. So, at least till 10th level it seems the numbers don't get outrageous.

I notice a size bonus of +1? Those numbers changed as well in Pathfinder (they used to be +4 per size step on maneuvers)? I didn't catch that.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

See, for me having to roll a 14+? Yeah, that means it's not worth it; failure means absolutely nothing happens. I'll take the safe route every time and inflict damage, since at least that way _something_ is happening.

I realize I'm apparently alone in thinking this, but... *shrug* ... I don't consider 14+ a "respectable" chance.

 

[BryonD]

In the specific bull rush into fire pit vs. sword strike example, greater difficulty does not yield greater payoff.

I still disagree with this basis.
It should not be easier or harder because it provides more or less payoff. It should be easier or harder because it is easier or harder.
You may bull rush a target just move him elsewhere, or to push him into a fire pit, or to push him over a cliff, or to push him into a sphere of annihilation. Vastly different outcomes, but the same character bullrushing the same target under otherwise same conditions has the same chance.

It isn't about micromanaging the the tactical equity of a combat mini-game. It is about modeling a system that works in a predictable manner.

 

[BryonD]

See, for me having to roll a 14+? Yeah, that means it's not worth it; failure means absolutely nothing happens. I'll take the safe route every time and inflict damage, since at least that way _something_ is happening.

I realize I'm apparently alone in thinking this, but... *shrug* ... I don't consider 14+ a "respectable" chance.

And that is fine.
Different people interacting with the same model and finding their own way through the challenges is a good thing. It isn't a question of optimization or playing the game "right".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I still disagree with this basis.
It should not be easier or harder because it provides more or less payoff. It should be easier or harder because it is easier or harder.
You may bull rush a target just move him elsewhere, or to push him into a fire pit, or to push him over a cliff, or to push him into a sphere of annihilation. Vastly different outcomes, but the same character bullrushing the same target under otherwise same conditions has the same chance.

It isn't about micromanaging the the tactical equity of a combat mini-game. It is about modeling a system that works in a predictable manner.

But is it harder to knock someone prone then it is to hurt or kill him?