[PF] Feint and Demoralize (and why Combat Maneuvers are the devil's work)

[Keneth]

I'm planning to separate Feint and Demoralize from the usual skill-based checks, and I'm thinking of implementing them as new combat maneuvers. Before I actually get down to it, I was wondering what the Playground thinks of this idea and whether you have any advice on how to go about doing so.

Obviously there are a few concerns here. For one, both actions target mental defenses more so than physical ones (perhaps somewhat less in the case of feinting), so it doesn't make quite as much sense in terms of CMD. Secondly, since Feint is mostly used by rogues et hoc genus omne, so this would be a pretty substantial nerf for them.

On the other hand, this solves the problem of big heavy hitters not being scary because they couldn't afford the skill and Charisma investment.

I don't particularly want to affect the base checks too much, aside from adding bonuses to saves vs. fear to CMD against demoralize. I'll probably include all other amends into Improved Feint and Improved Demoralize feats.

Faint will also probably get a boost since I don't recall ever using it in Pathfinder at all.

Edit: Should I have put this in Homebrew?

[StreamOfTheSky]

CMD is completely and utterly broken; adding more things to its sphere of influence is the exact opposite thing you should be doing. Feint (while still a waste to do) and Intimidate actually work. Why on earth would you want to go and destroy a perfectly functioning subsystem?

Intimidate already includes a huge +4 bonus PER SIZE larger you are than the target. And there's already a feat to add str bonus to it on top of dex. It's plenty useful and accessible as a tactic for big brutes.

Feint makes even less sense on the CMD setup and rewarding size and str. I don't even comprehend why you could possibly think it makes sense, let alone is a good idea.

[Keneth]

CMD is completely and utterly broken;

In what way is it broken exactly? Before we get into an argument, do note that combat maneuvers do not provoke AoOs in my game, and all the feats are consolidated (and there are no repercussions for failure), so feat investment is not an issue. But I've always found the base combat maneuver system to be working just fine, so I have no clue what you're referring to.


Why on earth would you want to go and destroy a perfectly functioning subsystem?

Because I've changed social skills in a way where it no longer makes sense for feinting and demoralizing to be part of the skills. So I can either 1) remove them, 2) make them combat maneuvers, 3) make a completely new system for using these.


Intimidate already includes a huge +4 bonus PER SIZE larger you are than the target. And there's already a feat to add str bonus to it on top of dex. It's plenty useful and accessible as a tactic for big brutes.

The size bonus is only applied once, not once per category. Either you're bigger or smaller. And requiring a feat to add your Str bonus to Intimidate checks is just plain dumb. And that's on top of the skill investment which most brutish types can't afford, not to mention creatures of low-intelligence.

Demoralize basically had two settings. Either you failed most of the time because you couldn't afford the investment, so you didn't use it at all, or it always succeeded because you maxed out Intimidate and was abused with dumb feats like Enforcer.


Feint makes even less sense on the CMD setup and rewarding size and str. I don't even comprehend why you could possibly think it makes sense, let alone is a good idea.

It makes little sense in terms of size and Str, but it makes enough sense in terms of BAB and Dex. Like I said, I don't particularly like how either of these mesh with CMD, but then half the other maneuvers don't necessarily make sense in context anyway. In the end, it's just an abstraction to simplify things.

[NightbringerGGZ]

CMD scales way higher than CMB, particularly at higher levels when creatures are more likely to have increased size categories where they either become much more resistant to the checks or even immune to them. That being said, the system can still work fine if you plan on a significant percentage of the enemies being small to large sized humanoids through the entirety of your campaign.

If you have additional house rules that affect these systems it would be helpful to our feedback were you to post everything. :smallsmile:

[Keneth]

I have plenty of rules that affect combat maneuvers, but nothing is really relevant to this discussion. If you want to point out all the ways that the system is broken, that's fine by me. It'll give me more ideas on how to fix things (assuming anything needs fixing). I consider the combat maneuver system to be fine as it is, and this thread was made under that assumption.

Ok, so CMD has the potential to scale faster than CMB. Why is that an issue? AC can scale faster than attack bonus as well. I don't see anyone saying that the combat system is broken in general.

[Fax Celestis]

AC can scale faster than attack bonus as well.

No it doesn't.

[Keneth]

No, it doesn't naturally, but it can. Most high-CR monsters have pretty much the same AC value as CMD when fully buffed. And since most attack bonuses translate directly into CMB, it boils down to more or less the same thing.

[TuggyNE]

Ok, so CMD has the potential to scale faster than CMB. Why is that an issue? AC can scale faster than attack bonus as well. I don't see anyone saying that the combat system is broken in general.

AC only scales faster by investing into it (contrast the size penalty to AC of larger sizes with the size bonus to CMD); CMD, CMB, and attack increase automatically, and also increase with buffs, but CMB has fewer ways to increase it than attack does. The upshot is that usually, higher AC is found in the same games as higher attack, and with roughly similar scaling in many cases, but CMB for many characters (Rogues, for example) is extremely difficult to make catch up to CMD.

[Keneth]

CMB has fewer ways to increase it than attack does.

All bonuses that apply to normal attacks also apply to combat maneuver attacks. The only difference is weapon-based bonuses for maneuvers not performed with a weapon, which for the most part are Weapon Focus and weapon Enhancement bonus for a whopping total of +7 with GWF and a +5 weapon. But then there are also bonuses that only apply to maneuvers, so there's virtually no difference.

Yes, AC requires an investment. For most PCs, that's generally a waste because they need MORE DAKKA or a bigger sword, but for anyone going against them, it's just the opposite. So yes, CMD scales naturally and there's some disparity between it and AC, but throw in armor bonus, shield bonus, natural armor bonus, and the difference between the two is hardly as great as some would make it out to be.

So, anyway, after thinking it over, it would appear that adding demoralize as a combat maneuver is kind of redundant since dirty trick can already make an opponent shaken amongst other things. And feint doesn't quite feel right considering it's going against Dex bonus in order to deny that Dex bonus.

I'll need to think this through a bit more.

[navar100]

CMD won't work because it is a physical defense where as you are working with a mental attack. Even substituting Int and Wis for Str and Dex doesn't work because warriors would become more vulnerable and BAB is still a factor which doesn't fit logically.

If the feat cost for feinting and demoralizing is too high for you then just get rid of them. Incorporate those abilities as part of the Bluff and Intimidate skills themselves. Players who want them will invest in the skills.

[StreamOfTheSky]

In what way is it broken exactly? Before we get into an argument, do note that combat maneuvers do not provoke AoOs in my game, and all the feats are consolidated (and there are no repercussions for failure), so feat investment is not an issue. But I've always found the base combat maneuver system to be working just fine, so I have no clue what you're referring to.

What others have said. CMD goes up way too fast compared to CMB. It happens with every single PC I've ever played in PF, across all classes. With monsters, their CMD goes into the insano-sphere every bit as much as their grapple mods did in 3E. At least in 3E, only grapple become unworkable, in PF it's every combat maneuver plus tumble, and you're looking to expand the hit list to kill off even more mechanics.



Because I've changed social skills in a way where it no longer makes sense for feinting and demoralizing to be part of the skills. So I can either 1) remove them, 2) make them combat maneuvers, 3) make a completely new system for using these.

That sounds...ominous... :smalleek:
As it is, far far FAR too often DMs have social skills determined by the *player's* skill as much as if not more than his character's modifiers. It's purely a charisma thing. I've never seen a DM demand a fighter's player to bench press 300 pounds or a wizard's player to solve a Rubiks cube in under a minute.
I really hope "I made it based more heavily upon the player's own social adeptness!" is not what you meant there...


The size bonus is only applied once, not once per category. Either you're bigger or smaller. And requiring a feat to add your Str bonus to Intimidate checks is just plain dumb. And that's on top of the skill investment which most brutish types can't afford, not to mention creatures of low-intelligence..

Huh. I did not realize paizo nerfed Intimidate in that way. So many small little changes... +4 is still a decent boost, at least. And the feat isn't just to add str to it, it's to add it on top of Cha. Two abilities to a skill check is totally worthy of a feat. Now, if you just wanted to replace Cha w/ str, then maybe it could be houseruled. But intimidate being charisma-based makes far more sense, strength really has little to do with it...especially in a world where it's the weak nerdy guys who dominate the fights.
Skill investment? Everyone gets a min. 1 skill point per level, even Int 1 animals. And you can get favored class for more skill points. Intimidate may be the only thing the person is good at, but if you cared about him being skilled at multiple things, you wouldn't have made him a low-int brutish type. The real crime here is that you're trying to make people pay skill points to keep up with CMD, which increases automatically with level up for zero investment. For you to then make this complaint as a defense is laughable.


It makes little sense in terms of size and Str, but it makes enough sense in terms of BAB and Dex. Like I said, I don't particularly like how either of these mesh with CMD, but then half the other maneuvers don't necessarily make sense in context anyway. In the end, it's just an abstraction to simplify things.

Ironically, the CMD thing was done by paizo to "streamline" combat maneuvers (as it turned out, they were being streamlined into not working).


Demoralize basically had two settings. Either you failed most of the time because you couldn't afford the investment, so you didn't use it at all, or it always succeeded because you maxed out Intimidate and was abused with dumb feats like Enforcer.

Lots of things in the game are pass/fail with no in between. And Enforcer is not a dumb feat, it's a cool, stylish feat that lets martials do something (well) other than just beat people to death. Your attitude about Enforcer... I don't think I can properly respond in this forum what I really think of that...

[TuggyNE]

All bonuses that apply to normal attacks also apply to combat maneuver attacks.

Including, oh I don't know, Dex? You say no you can't? How sad. Good thing there are no characters at all that use Dex as their attack stat, amirite? Even better that the classes that would Feint most of the time are certainly the most likely to use Str!

[StreamOfTheSky]

Including, oh I don't know, Dex? You say no you can't? How sad. Good thing there are no characters at all that use Dex as their attack stat, amirite? Even better that the classes that would Feint most of the time are certainly the most likely to use Str!

Well, you can pay a feat tax to use dex instead of str for combat maneuvers. Which is somehow SEPERATE from the feat tax you pay to use dex instead of str for melee attack rolls, even though combat maneuvers *are* melee attacks, by definition. Neither of which let you add dex *and* str to the rolls, just replace them.

But those are so ok the OP wants to convert more things to the CMD system, while bemoaning the feat tax of adding str *and* cha to intimidate checks.

Yeah...totally makes sense.

[Psyren]

PF does add a few advantages though. For instance, trip weapons add their enhancement bonus to the CMB check to trip, whereas a weapon's enhancement bonus was not part of the opposed Str check in 3.5. So that's another +5.

You can also combine Agile Maneuvers with Fury's Fall, though JJ's forum post throws that into question.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Well, you can pay a feat tax to use dex instead of str for combat maneuvers. Which is somehow SEPERATE from the feat tax you pay to use dex instead of str for melee attack rolls, even though combat maneuvers *are* melee attacks, by definition. Neither of which let you add dex *and* str to the rolls, just replace them.Point of clarification here. It's been ruled in an FAQ that characters who take weapon finesse can apply dex instead of strength for the trip, sunder, and disarm combat maneuvers.

[source] (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9ojt)

No, I don't know why it wouldn't also apply to grapple.

[Fax Celestis]

Point of clarification here. It's been ruled in an FAQ that characters who take weapon finesse can apply dex instead of strength for the trip, sunder, and disarm combat maneuvers.

[source] (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9ojt)

No, I don't know why it wouldn't also apply to grapple.

...then what the hell is this feat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/agile-maneuvers-combat) for?

[avr]

The reasoning is in a sidebar on the right side of your link, Fax.

Would it make PF combat maneuvers any better if they just used ordinary attack rolls but against CMD rather than AC? Aside from the size thing I'm still not certain what exact differences there are.

[TuggyNE]

...then what the hell is this feat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/agile-maneuvers-combat) for?

Presumably it's so your Prone Shooter build can make ranged pins with Dex or something? I dunno, PF rules are really weird and messed-up sometimes.

Edit: Note that I have no clue what maneuvers, if any, PF has options to perform at range. I'm just talking out of my hat on that. Prone Shooter, though….

[Squirrel_Dude]

...then what the hell is this feat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/agile-maneuvers-combat) for?Bull Rush, Overrun, and grapple, apparently. Yes, that feat is even worse, now.

[IronFist]

Bull Rush, Overrun, and grapple, apparently. Yes, that feat is even worse, now.

Also dirty trick.

[Keneth]

With monsters, their CMD goes into the insano-sphere every bit as much as their grapple mods did in 3E.

It goes to about 50 at CR 20, much like AC in most cases. Trip being the exception, but trip becomes useless at the point where things start flying.


I really hope "I made it based more heavily upon the player's own social adeptness!" is not what you meant there...

No, it isn't. Quite the opposite actually, I've made things much more defined, akin to Rich's Diplomacy fix. It's not that things wouldn't work anymore, it just doesn't feel right, much like this idea doesn't feel quite right.


And the feat isn't just to add str to it, it's to add it on top of Cha. Two abilities to a skill check is totally worthy of a feat. Now, if you just wanted to replace Cha w/ str, then maybe it could be houseruled. But intimidate being charisma-based makes far more sense, strength really has little to do with it...especially in a world where it's the weak nerdy guys who dominate the fights.

Which basically hurts every creature or character that has a low Charisma score. Like, you know, both the brutish and the nerdy guys. I've been wanting to divorce Intimidate from Charisma for quite a while, but I can quite get there. So at the very least, I'll make sure demoralize isn't tied to it, once I figure out what I'm gonna do with it.


Intimidate may be the only thing the person is good at, but if you cared about him being skilled at multiple things, you wouldn't have made him a low-int brutish type.

There's an argument to be had about Intelligence and number of skill points, but since it's an oversimplification, we'll just leave it at that. Sadly, the game punishes you for specializing, so other skills generally take priority over something you'll never be good at.


Ironically, the CMD thing was done by paizo to "streamline" combat maneuvers (as it turned out, they were being streamlined into not working).

I don't know what kind of games you've been playing in, but combat maneuvers have always worked for us. Maybe things fall apart at high levels, but our games, and indeed most people's games, never reach high levels. I'm not trying to say it's not an issue, but maneuvers are hardly the only system that falls apart at high-levels, when spellcasters become gods, and monsters have abilities that result in instant deaths.


And Enforcer is not a dumb feat, it's a cool, stylish feat that lets martials do something (well) other than just beat people to death.

It pretty much automatically disables any creature you hit that's not immune to fear. I don't call that cool, in the same way I don't call SoS spells cool. I call it dumb because that's what it is.


Including, oh I don't know, Dex? You say no you can't?

Yes, you can. It does cost you a feat though if you're not tiny. :smalltongue:


PF does add a few advantages though. For instance, trip weapons add their enhancement bonus to the CMB check to trip, whereas a weapon's enhancement bonus was not part of the opposed Str check in 3.5. So that's another +5.

Actually, all weapons add their enhancement bonus to trip, sunder, and disarm checks (or any other maneuvers you might be performing with a weapon). If I recall correctly, needing a disarm/sunder/trip weapon to add your enhancement bonus was only in the first release and has long since changed.


No, I don't know why it wouldn't also apply to grapple.

Because you don't grapple with a weapon (aside from the very few grapple weapons).


...then what the hell is this feat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/agile-maneuvers-combat) for?

All the other maneuvers, or characters not using finesse. Hey, if you're tiny, you don't need either.

[Psyren]

Actually, all weapons add their enhancement bonus to trip, sunder, and disarm checks (or any other maneuvers you might be performing with a weapon). If I recall correctly, needing a disarm/sunder/trip weapon to add your enhancement bonus was only in the first release and has long since changed.

Thanks for the clarification; the true benefit though, again, is that you get the enhancement bonus to the opposed check itself (CMB) instead of just the initial attack as in 3.5.

[Keneth]

Ok, as mentioned yesterday, I've abandoned the idea of making Feint and Demoralize combat maneuvers. I am now looking into how to make these unique combat actions. I am also still interested in hearing your opinion on what is wrong with combat maneuvers, so that I may try to fix things in my games.

If I removed Str bonus from CMD, would that be a good start? It'll help low-Strength creatures out a bit, and it'll nerf high-Strength creatures substantially, especially at higher levels.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ok, as mentioned yesterday, I've abandoned the idea of making Feint and Demoralize combat maneuvers. I am now looking into how to make these unique combat actions. I am also still interested in hearing your opinion on what is wrong with combat maneuvers, so that I may try to fix things in my games.

If I removed Str bonus from CMD, would that be a good start? It'll help low-Strength creatures out a bit, and it'll nerf high-Strength creatures substantially, especially at higher levels.

I don't think you need to remove str bonus... I think the single biggest change you could engender would be to cap the amount of BAB you can add to CMD (and perhaps also CMB) by your CR. So giant pile of HD monsters can't get such obscene scores. Having CMB and CMD both either [add dex and str] or [pick the highest of the two] (former might be better; latter encourages min-maxing one at the expense of the other) would also be nice. And would finally bury Agile Maneuvers in the shallow grave it deserves. Or even if you needed Weapon Finesse to get the dex option...still an improvement.

Ever since PF came out, I've also suggested a more evenly distributed size bonus/penalty scheme of +/- 0/2/4/6/8 rather than PF's exponential +/- 0/1/2/4/8, though that won't make much of a difference for fixing CMD. I just think it's a better way to handle it.

I also would make the Improved and Greater maneuver feats into one feat that gives +4 and all the benefits of each, with the requirements of the Improved feats. In other words...the way it was in 3E.
I also think there are too many freaking maneuvers and they could be merged together. How is debatable, but last time I suggested it, Steal as not a combat maneuver but part of Sleight of Hand, Reposition + Disarm, and Bull Rush + Drag seemed popular. Or alternatively, Steal + Disarm, Dirty Trick + Reposition, and Drag + Bull Rush, I guess. (First leaves Dirty Trick alone b/c some think it's pretty good on its own).

[Keneth]

I think the single biggest change you could engender would be to cap the amount of BAB you can add to CMD (and perhaps also CMB) by your CR.

CR is an abhorrent abstraction and basing any mechanical rules on it is preposterous as far as I'm concerned. There are homebrew attempts that get reasonably close to making it somewhat representative of actual challenge, but for a general rule, it's not something I would ever consider doing.


Having CMB and CMD both either [add dex and str] or [pick the highest of the two] (former might be better; latter encourages min-maxing one at the expense of the other) would also be nice.

People min-max regardless, and the former further penalizes characters who can't invest in both, such most non-melee characters. I would prefer to reduce CMD rather than increase CMB to its ridiculous levels.


I also would make the Improved and Greater maneuver feats into one feat that gives +4 and all the benefits of each, with the requirements of the Improved feats.

Done that ages ago, as noted in my second post. And removed any risk for using maneuvers without feats.


I also think there are too many freaking maneuvers and they could be merged together.

That doesn't really make any sense to me, and I kinda like the fact that there are a lot of them. Since my system no longer requires feats to use them in their basic form, I think it's just fine as it is, and I wouldn't actually mind extending the list.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, you can pay a feat tax to use dex instead of str for combat maneuvers. Which is somehow SEPERATE from the feat tax you pay to use dex instead of str for melee attack rolls, even though combat maneuvers *are* melee attacks, by definition. Neither of which let you add dex *and* str to the rolls, just replace them.

With specific ones, the combat manoeuvres that can be done as attack rolls, like Trip, for example, Weapon Finesse replaces your strength for them.

[137beth]

For CMB/CMD:
Why not have CMB=BAB+Str+Dex+Size? With an extra clause that DEX only applies if it is positive. That makes it a bit closer to CMD:smallconfused: Either make both STR and DEX apply to CMB, or let people choose one, and do the same for CMD.
Also

(and why Combat Maneuvers are the devil's work)
Then why don't Pit Fiends have any Combat Maneuver boosting feats:smalltongue:


I think the single biggest change you could engender would be to cap the amount of BAB you can add to CMD (and perhaps also CMB) by your CR.
I don't agree--I don't think any in-game statistics should depend on CR. CR is a (very wild, frequently inaccurate) abstraction of a creatures capabilities. It shouldn't determine the abilities it is based on.

But, more importantly, I'm going to *casting Suggestion* suggest that this be moved to the homebrew forum--since it seems (to me) you are basically trying to create a new subsystem.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Because you don't grapple with a weapon (aside from the very few grapple weapons).I don't know about you, but i use those fists of mine that are treated as lethal weapons when I grapple.

[Keneth]

Why not have CMB=BAB+Str+Dex+Size? With an extra clause that DEX only applies if it is positive. That makes it a bit closer to CMD :smallconfused:

As mentioned in the previous post, I don't want to bring CMB close to CMD, I want to bring CMD closer to CMB, so I'm going with option B here.


Then why don't Pit Fiends have any Combat Maneuver boosting feats:smalltongue:

Why would Pit Fiends be using pitfalls of their own design? :smallbiggrin:


I'm going to suggest that this be moved to the homebrew forum.

Fine, be that way. :smallmad:

Nah, I've actually realized this should be there about 2 seconds after posting the thread, but I don't have the power to move it myself.


I don't know about you, but i use those fists of mine that are treated as lethal weapons when I grapple.

Barely enough to deserve mention. :smalltongue:

[NightbringerGGZ]

Well, you can pay a feat tax to use dex instead of str for combat maneuvers. Which is somehow SEPERATE from the feat tax you pay to use dex instead of str for melee attack rolls, even though combat maneuvers *are* melee attacks, by definition. Neither of which let you add dex *and* str to the rolls, just replace them.

But those are so ok the OP wants to convert more things to the CMD system, while bemoaning the feat tax of adding str *and* cha to intimidate checks.

Yeah...totally makes sense.

Well, some of the Combat Maneuvers actually specify that they are an attack action while the rest are simply an action. That means you could probably justify using Weapon Finesse to apply Dex to the CMB roll instead of Str. Specifically Disarm, Sunder and Trip work this way without the additional Agile Maneuvers feat.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Well, some of the Combat Maneuvers actually specify that they are an attack action while the rest are simply an action. That means you could probably justify using Weapon Finesse to apply Dex to the CMB roll instead of Str. Specifically Disarm, Sunder and Trip work this way without the additional Agile Maneuvers feat.It's not quite that clear.


PRD: Combat
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. So yes, Combat maneuvers are attacks, but not, and all the bonuses apply to them, but not always.

I personally prefer the CMB/CMD system, but think it could have been executed better. Again, I'll point out that grapple could easily also be considered a maneuver you should apply weapon finesse to because you're making an unarmed attack, and unarmed strikes are weapons.

Hell, it makes more sense than Sunder getting dexterity applied to it.