3.5 or Pathfinder Combat Maneuvers?

[Thanos92]

Hi all!

I've always played 3.5 in the last years but recently I've read some parts of Pathfinder's base manual.
I was wondering about the possibility to change 3.5 raw rules for tripping, disarmin, ecc. with Pathfinder's ones.
So introducing (obviously changing related feats if necessary) the system Combat Maneuver Bonus Vs Combat Maneuver Defense in place of sequences of actions to perform for a specific combat maneuver.

Is it possible without big deal? Does it creats imbalances of some sort?

Thanks you so much for your answers :)

[Kurald Galain]

Good choice. The primary change is that PF's maneuvers resolve much faster without the need for opposed or secondary rolls. Note also the Dirty Fighting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dirty-fighting-combat/) feat which makes using them much easier.

You haven't mentioned what level you're playing at, this makes a difference. Maneuvers tend to work fine around level 1-10, and tend to require a specialist build around level 11-20 (although a "specialist build" can be as easy as "Magus with Truestrike, done").

Clearly, if most of the enemies in your campaign are humanoid (e.g. goblins, trolls, drow) then maneuvers are going to be more effective than if most of your enemies are big multi-footed monsters.

[Thanos92]

Actually I'm in the 1-10 range.

What worries me is the possibility of some strange bugs or problematic situations comin' from conflicts between 3.5 and that PF implementation.
It is simplier, yes, but it also keep the game balanced?

[Thanos92]

Anyone? Experiences?

[TheFamilarRaven]

It shouldn't change much about how you run your 3.5 game. The biggest annoyance would be updating all of the monsters you use to have CMD. It's not hard to calculate, but it would get tedious to do it for every critter.

Basically, it shouldn't unbalance things, and ultimately might make those maneuvers resolve faster than the 3.5 system.

[jmax]

If you do this, be prepared for any druids in your game to complain - it's a pretty solid nerf to grappling for characters that can get Large and Huge forms (and eventually Gargantuan and Colossal with shapechange, although others can get that as well).

[Kurald Galain]

If you do this, be prepared for any druids in your game to complain

The druid is one of the very strongest classes in the game, so toning down the druid makes the game more balanced (which appears to be what the OP wants).

[chaos_redefined]

It's a nerf to one of the less powerful things a druid can do. So... not a major nerf.

[Florian]

Anyone? Experiences?

The PF CMB/CMD version runs smoother and the mechanical resolution of maneuvers is quicker. Once players realize that most maneuvers can be done using a reach weapon, from stealth or during a surprise round without needing some of the "negate AoO" feats, you'll prolly see a lot more maneuvers in game.

[jmax]

The druid is one of the very strongest classes in the game, so toning down the druid makes the game more balanced (which appears to be what the OP wants).


It's a nerf to one of the less powerful things a druid can do. So... not a major nerf.

I am not disputing either of those assertions. But I'd still whine :-P

I will, however, point out that it also makes trip, bull rush, and overrun less effective as well - partly because of the size thing for some of them, but mostly because of adding both Strength and Dexterity to the defensive end of things. That hurts Fighters and Barbarians a lot more than it hurts druids. Granted, in terms of relative balance of power, they're still scraping the bottom of the barrel outside of specific ubercharger builds and the like. (But the tripper build, for better or worse, definitely becomes less effective.)

[Florian]

I am not disputing either of those assertions. But I'd still whine :-P

I will, however, point out that it also makes trip, bull rush, and overrun less effective as well - partly because of the size thing for some of them, but mostly because of adding both Strength and Dexterity to the defensive end of things. That hurts Fighters and Barbarians a lot more than it hurts druids. Granted, in terms of relative balance of power, they're still scraping the bottom of the barrel outside of specific ubercharger builds and the like. (But the tripper build, for better or worse, definitely becomes less effective.)

The trick is to move combat maneuvers from active actions to passive "triggers" and then string them up in self-activating chains, like using Shield Bash or Fell Smash to bull rush or trip as a free action after a regular attack and building up from there. First, you still do your regular damage routine, even if the maneuvers don't land, second, gaining the whole slew of free attempts does wonders to your economy of actions.

[jmax]

The trick is to move combat maneuvers from active actions to passive "triggers" and then string them up in self-activating chains, like using Shield Bash or Fell Smash to bull rush or trip as a free action after a regular attack and building up from there. First, you still do your regular damage routine, even if the maneuvers don't land, second, gaining the whole slew of free attempts does wonders to your economy of actions.

Does Pathfinder provide more opportunities to do that than 3.5? With 3.5 I know a few ways to get free combat maneuvers, but not a whole lot for stringing them together. Admittedly, I never play melee-only characters - I typically derive action economy from telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html).

[Kurald Galain]

Does Pathfinder provide more opportunities to do that than 3.5? With 3.5 I know a few ways to get free combat maneuvers, but not a whole lot for stringing them together. Admittedly, I never play melee-only characters - I typically derive action economy from telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html).

I'm not aware of any such loops in 3E, but they probably exist.

PF has a couple of loops that keep going until you miss, such as Squash Flat (free trip on a bull rush) combined with Shield Slam (free bull rush on a trip) combined with anything that deals damage on a trip or BR. It gets easier if you accept OAs as part of the loop; they're limited per turn, but it's a pretty high limit.

[Florian]

Does Pathfinder provide more opportunities to do that than 3.5?

Yes and plenty. Discussions about "trip builds" and such don't get any focus anymore, because that's something you simply side-line in and be done with it.

[Psyren]

I would recommend also looking into the Starfinder combat maneuvers for inspiration, as they have clarified and streamlined some of the interactions there. There are finally clear rules for tripping flying creatures for instance, and you don't need feat taxes to avoid provoking.

[Kurald Galain]

I would recommend also looking into the Starfinder combat maneuvers for inspiration, as they have clarified and streamlined some of the interactions there. There are finally clear rules for tripping flying creatures for instance, and you don't need feat taxes to avoid provoking.

Hm, that was interesting. Starfinder removes most restrictions from the maneuvers (e.g. size limits on your target, or penalty for disarming a twohanded weapon) and removes all OAs. On the other hand, no maneuver can be done as part of a full attack any more, and it reduces accuracy to the point of uselessness (all maneuvers are now a roll against AC with a -8 penalty). Also, the overrun and steal maneuvers no longer exist.

Overall I don't see this as an improvement. Smart players can already use maneuvers without provoking in 3E/PF anyway, and a -8 penalty to all maneuvers is really over the top.

[Caelestion]

Combat manoeuvres were opposed melee roles in 3.5 and then a melee roll vs melee + Dex + 10 in Pathfinder, I believe. Having it just be KAC +8 in Starfinder is an improvement.

[Kurald Galain]

Combat manoeuvres were opposed melee roles in 3.5 and then a melee roll vs melee + Dex + 10 in Pathfinder, I believe. Having it just be KAC +8 in Starfinder is an improvement.

Nope.

3.5 requires a touch attack followed by an opposed strength check. Against most opponents, that's going to be much easier than KAC+8.

Pathfinder uses "melee + Dex + 10" against maneuvers in the same sense that armor class is "armor + Dex + 10" against regular attacks, i.e. the two numbers are pretty close to each other. Warrior types have higher CMD, caster types have lower. The new system is "armor + dex + 10 + 8" which is much harder to hit against.

[Caelestion]

So it's harder to do at low levels and easier at high levels, which I don't see a problem with.

[Psyren]

and it reduces accuracy to the point of uselessness (all maneuvers are now a roll against AC with a -8 penalty).

Eh, most CR1 creatures are in the 12-13 KAC range. There's a couple of outliers like Drow Enforcer, but this holds true for the majority. This gives you a decent chance of landing the maneuver even before the +4 feat or class features. And at higher levels, this "penalty" is far lower than PF's CMD or the 3.5 hard limits.

[Kurald Galain]

Eh, most CR1 creatures are in the 12-13 KAC range. There's a couple of outliers like Drow Enforcer, but this holds true for the majority. This gives you a decent chance of landing the maneuver
A 15% to 20% chance is not what most people would call "decent".


even before the +4 feat or class features.
Well, looks like Starfinder maneuvers have a feat tax.

[Psyren]

A 15% to 20% chance is not what most people would call "decent".

Do you often play melee builds with 10 Str and no gear or class features?


Well, looks like Starfinder maneuvers have a feat tax.

Granted - a single one, as opposed to 3.5 and PF's slew.