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

[Jackinthegreen]

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".

Come to think of it, Knockdown, Knockback, and the various ways to effectively get Improved Grab (like Scorpion's Grasp) do tend to be a bit annoying to get due to either feat investment or specific ACFs that might be thought of as a hindrance, especially if multiclass XP penalties are in play.

 

[Empirate]

Oh man, game mechanics nowadays! In so many of those 'new school' RPGs, people get to decide stuff that happens to their characters... how can that possibly work? I'll never really get it, I guess.

This houserule simply doesn't reflect what I expect from my D&D game. I happen to like mechanics that don't give people the choice whether they want to be tripped after whoever did the tripping succeeded on their roll! If I want to play FATE, I will do that instead, it's much better at this kind of thing. I've been there, though, and didn't much like it after overcoming an initial enthusiastic craze.

How about some good old simulationist gaming? Helps immersion, you know. However abstract the rules are, having them be a vehicle for a simulated in-game reality strikes me as much, much more desirable than having them be a vehicle for fulfilling somebody's metagame fantasies.



Another thing:
I simply can't state it often enough, but D&D 3.5 combat maneuvers were actually fine. There's no call for changing them around. Sure, they're a bit complicated (but not really complex). But they're nowhere near as complicated as other subsystems I could name (*cough*spellcasting*cough*). I didn't much care either way about the changes PF brought, but I think they're fine, too. Streamlining combat maneuvers didn't strike me as exactly necessary - but it doesn't detract from the game and speeds up the rolling, so why not?

But this houserule? "Make an attack, and if you want stuff to happen, that stuff will indeed happen, but only by consensus with your target." No. Just no.

 

[B.T.]

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?

You swing your sword at the monster, advancing steadily and grabbing at him with your free hand. He ducks under your sword, but you seize him with your free hand. Is that so unbelievable? Regardless, if you don't like that, just say you need to be punching a monster to grab him. Simple enough.

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.

This is obviously supposed to replace maneuver feats.

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?

You rush at your enemy, swinging wildly. He manages to shop your axe with his shield, but the force of your assault pushes him back.

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.

Or if he had a backup weapon, or if he was dual-wielding, or if he had a shield, or if your weapon was poisoned, or if your weapon had a nasty spell trigger, or if your attack was going to force him to make a save-or-die. But let's be honest, disarming isn't a very good option in 3e anyway, since the really big critters you're fighting don't rely on physical weapons.

But look at some of the expanded options for combat maneuvers in Pathfinder: drag, dirty trick, reposition, steal. All those provide more utility to such a rule.

 

[Greenfield]

You swing your sword at the monster, advancing steadily and grabbing at him with your free hand. He ducks under your sword, but you seize him with your free hand. Is that so unbelievable? Regardless, if you don't like that, just say you need to be punching a monster to grab him. Simple enough.

Which free hand was that? The one holding my shield, the one swinging the sword, or the third one I don't have?

And if the option says I need to be punching him, then he gets to choose between being grappled and taking a D3 + STR of non lethal damage? Which he'll take, at a minimum if the grapple succeeds?

You rush at your enemy, swinging wildly. He manages to shop your axe with his shield, but the force of your assault pushes him back.

Out of the doorway he was trying to guard and into the Blade Barrier, or whatever else I was trying to move him into?

Like I said, the only D&D option where this works is Unarmed Strike. Otherwise, it's useless.

 

[N'raac]

Or if he had a backup weapon, or if he was dual-wielding, or if he had a shield, or if your weapon was poisoned, or if your weapon had a nasty spell trigger, or if your attack was going to force him to make a save-or-die. But let's be honest, disarming isn't a very good option in 3e anyway, since the really big critters you're fighting don't rely on physical weapons.

But he gets the same choice to avoid any of the other CM's you describe as well. If my weapon was poisoned, or had a nasty spell trigger, or attack was going to force him to make a save-or-die, why would I give him an option to avoid that result by accepting some less painful result? To me, the "defender chooses" aspect makes this system 100% useless. The attacker will not choose to use a combat maneuver unless the result of success is preferable to doing damage. The defender will not choose to let the combat maneuver work if the result of success is worse than taking damage. Thus, a combat maneuver check will either not be attempted by the attacker, or will be overridden by the defender, with the result being success only if the attacker or defender makes a sub-optimal choice, or the attacker is lucky enough to roll a critical hit.

This removed combat maneuvers as viable combat choices - if, to you, that is a desirable result, then it is a good change for you. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[Empirate]

As I said, if the defender gets to choose, performing a combat maneuver actually makes your assault less threatening, and that's true regardless of the outcome.

 

[B.T.]

Which free hand was that? The one holding my shield, the one swinging the sword, or the third one I don't have?

Are you trying to be difficult? You couldn't grapple him if you were using a sword and shield in the first place.

And if the option says I need to be punching him, then he gets to choose between being grappled and taking a D3 + STR of non lethal damage? Which he'll take, at a minimum if the grapple succeeds?

Grab dat spiked gauntlet and/or a level in monk.

 

[Greenfield]

Are you trying to be difficult? You couldn't grapple him if you were using a sword and shield in the first place.

To answer your question: Yes. But not simply for the sake of difficulty. It should be difficult to sell a bad idea, I'm just doing my job.

I can't grapple with a sword and shield? Agreed. But then, I can't grapple someone bare handed under this system. So if I'm going to have a guaranteed failure on a special maneuver, I'll at least choose the failure that does some actual damage.

Grab dat spiked gauntlet and/or a level in monk.

Yeah, turn my insignificant non-lethal damage into insignificant normal damage. That will fix everything.

The target will still choose not to be grappled, since I'll do the exact same damage either way, whether it's the D3+STR, the D8 + Str of the Monk or the Claw/Claw/Bite/Rake of a Tiger with Improved Grab. The choice is: Take the damage once, now, or take it every round with no hit roll required.

A cheeseburger is smart enough to get that decision right. So... I just need to fight opponents that are dumber than a cheeseburger. That's the ticket...

Sorry if my sarcasm offends. Playing it straight: I laid out the failures for the various D&D combat maneuvers, and you weren't persuaded. Looking at the broader picture, the proposed rules lets the opponent decide whether or not to be put at a tactical disadvantage when someone tries a special maneuver. Clearly, no one will ever accept that option unless the alternative is immediate defeat. And if I can deliver immediate defeat to an opponent, why would I waste time and effort on a special maneuver?

What it boils down to is that the only time when a special combat maneuver will work is when it's a mistake to even attempt one.

Logically then, I should never attempt one.

Slipping back into sarcasm (with apologies), the rule achieves its goal of simplifying the combat maneuvers, in that nothing could be simpler than a rule that never gets used.

 

[Herobizkit]

Not to edition war, but I feel that 4e _mostly_ solved the combat manoeuvre issue with their "damage AND effect" attack powers/routines.

Suggested solution: An Improved [combat manoeuvre] feat allows the character to perform the manoeuvre's attack as a free action on a successful hit provided they meet the manoeuvre's prerequisites (having a free hand, having a weapon with trip ability, etc).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not to edition war, but I feel that 4e _mostly_ solved the combat manoeuvre issue with their "damage AND effect" attack powers/routines.

And before that, Champions/HERO martial arts maneuvers worked that way...and were usable with weapons if you built your PC to do so.