The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: sparkletwistYes, I'd agree with that summary. If the maneuvers aren't approximately equal, I don't think they have enough general utility to be worthwhile, and players-- used to lackluster results-- will not be inclined to try maneuvers even when they are worthwhile.

That's fair enough.  I think I veer a bit more towards maneuvers that are only effective in specific contexts: I'd rather have a wide selection of specialized maneuvers that have to be carefully chosen accordng to context in order to be effective than a more "general-use" maeuver that's useable in most situations.  Though I suppose there's no real reason that a system can't have both!

Interestingly, what we're getting into here is player psychology as much as math - if I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about incentivizing the use of manuevers because you're worried that if they're not mathematically viable in a broad range of contexts players will lose interest in them entirely.

Quote from: Steerpikeyou're talking about incentivizing the use of manuevers because you're worried that if they're not mathematically viable in a broad range of contexts players will lose interest in them entirely.

Yes. My evidence is anecdotal, so it's perhaps not the most ironclad, but in all Pathfinder games I've been in (and the tiny number I've run) nobody has really gotten very excited about maneuvers. Nobody really used maneuvers very much, and they few times they came into play, they were lackluster. Tripping and grappling seemed to be the most popular-- probably because the ability to generate attacks of opportunity or deny enemies their action were the most useful-- and even they generally seemed to require at least a moderate degree of specialization before they were worthwhile, so generalist characters tended to shy away.

Personally, my biggest problem with Pathfinder combat maneuvers is that they provoke the risk of reprisal via attacks of opportunity - I'm fine with their reliability and utility, it's the endangerment they require that bugs me, sometimes.

There's a lot to take in here. I've skimmed the thread, and sorry if this has come up, but is anyone familiar with the concept of the "clock" in MtG? Seems somewhat relevant here.

For example, to use an extreme variation of Steerpike's example earlier in the thread:

Fighter and Wizard go up against Dragon.
Fighter can hit for 20% hp.
Wizard can use sleep for a 10% chance to put Dragon to sleep.
Either can trip for a 20% chance of denying Dragon's next turn.
Dragon can breathe fire for a 100% chance to kill everybody.

Assuming you can't run, the wizard will use sleep because it's the only chance anybody has of winning without dying, and the fighter will use trip because in the event that wizard doesn't win, this is the only feasible chance to delay death.

Healing, defense, tripping, pinning, and anything else meant to extend your own clock rather than shortening your enemy's become more useful the more deadly foes are. So to some extent I think maneuver design would benefit from some monster redesigning in addition to everything else. The old school monster that kills you in one or two hits might actually have some use in this context, provided the party has the time to respond.

Additionally a lot of this discussion assumes that attacks and maneuvers run on the same action economy. If maneuvers cost move actions or work on a stance system, a lot of this comparison becomes invalid.

Personally, I don't consider instant-death monsters a particularly good solution to any problem at all ever, but I do see what you're saying. :grin:

Great example beejazz.  The concept of the "clock" illustrates what I was basically trying to get at earlier: apart from situations where combat maneuvers accomplish something very specific (like disarm), much of the value of debuff maneuvers is defensive rather than offensive.  They're as much or more about debilitating the enemy's attack capabilities and increasing your survival chances as they are about enhancing your offensive abilities.

Someone in a 3.5 game I am playing in recently rolled really high for initiative and used her attack to disarm a bad guy during (which apparently eliminates the opportunity attack). I've never really seen disarm used this way before and, to be honest, it sort of floored me at first. Then I started to think about making a Rogue who is maximized for disarming (by having a huge Dexterity and an even bigger Initiative bonus).

As with many maneuvers the utility of disarm depends very heavily on the kinds of foes a given DM utilizes: lots of humanoid foes make it very useful, lots of animals and aberrations or psychic foes/magic-users make it pretty useless.  Again this is a situation where pure math can't be the only evaluative factor - its usefulness depends on DM style and the sorts of contexts a DM throws at his or her players.

Quote from: Steerpikethis is a situation where pure math can't be the only evaluative factor

I agree with this. Nowhere in this thread was I arguing that math should be the only evaluative factor so I hope it never came across as such. What I am arguing for is to take statements like this one...

Quote from: Steerpikelots of humanoid foes make it very useful, lots of animals and aberrations or psychic foes/magic-users make it pretty useless

... and analyze them in more detail. Can be we be sure a given maneuver is "very useful"? What is "very useful," i.e., how much damage does it cause or prevent, and how does this compare to the opportunity cost? In what situations is it or isn't it generally useful? etc.

sparkletwist, apologies: I'm not trying to say you only believe in "pure math."  In fact I'm not trying to make any statements at all about your beliefs or arguments, I'm trying to clarify/refine my own thoughts.

What I'm trying to say is that while you can analyze individual situations mathematically, the overall usefullness or lack of usefullness of a maneuever like disarm is tied to the commonality or rarity of armed foes vs. unarmed foes like animals.  That commonality or rarity cannot be predicted by a set of rules: it can't be balanced or unbalanced per se because the rules don't mandate the commonality or rarity of certain types of foes, the DM does.  Ergo, disarm becomes more or less valuable as a result of DM decisions about the commonality or rarity of armed foes, just as, say, Bull Rush becomes more or less valuable as a result of DM decisions to include a lot of cliffs or lava-rivers.  We can apply math to individual situations to determine the value of the move, but the holistic value of the maneuver over time has to be measured against the totality of the various contexts it can be used in, contexts which are created not mathematically but by the decisions of the DM.

This isn't, of course, to preclude a critique of the maneuver's specific mechanical dynamics and effectiveness.  I'm just saying that I can imagine a campaign in which disarm is a beautifully balanced and mechanically effective maneuver but is rendered useless/valueless because all the DM ever throws at players are wolves and bears and other monsters that don't fight with weapons.

Does that make any sense or am I blathering?

Incidentally, just to clarify, when I make statements here, I'm not necessarily saying "unlike sparkletwist, I argue that..."  Just making points and comments in general.  If you agree with those points, great!  If not, also great!

Quote from: SteerpikeThis isn't, of course, to preclude a critique of the maneuver's specific mechanical dynamics and effectiveness.  I'm just saying that I can imagine a campaign in which disarm is a beautifully balanced and mechanically effective manuever but is rendered useless/valueless because all the DM ever throws at players are wolves and bears and other monsters that don't fight with weapons.

Ok, this makes perfect sense to me. :)

Perhaps I should also clarify and refine my own thoughts too. What I feel (and what I feel like the mathematical analyses I've done so far have demonstrated) is that many maneuvers are often not worth doing in systems like Pathfinder even in situations where they "should" be the optimal choice (based on how the DM has set things up and the the tactics the players have chosen) due to the way their numerical balance works out-- and that's what frustrates me about them, and what I would advocate changing in house rules. For example, I'll point to the rather modest damage increase that you got by doing a dirty trick to cause blindness even when it was against an enemy with a big Dex bonus to AC and in position to get hit by two very strong fighters; I feel like lining things up in your favor that much should flat out win, or at least lead to a big damage increase. (FATE somewhat suffers from this syndrome, too, but people haven't really wanted to focus on the crunch of FATE nearly as much so I haven't gone into as much detail; I think FATE Core handles it better than earlier iterations, anyway)

Quote from: sparkletwistWhat I feel (and what I feel like the mathematical analyses I've done so far have demonstrated) is that many maneuvers are often not worth doing in systems like Pathfinder even in situations where they "should" be the optimal choice (based on how the DM has set things up and the the tactics the players have chosen) due to the way their numerical balance works out-- and that's what frustrates me about them, and what I would advocate changing in house rules.

I think this is a broad enough version of your thesis that I can get onboard with completely.

This thread is reminding me that I need to actually read FATE Core, now that it is a thing that exists.

Quote from: Steerpike
As with many maneuvers the utility of disarm depends very heavily on the kinds of foes a given DM utilizes: lots of humanoid foes make it very useful, lots of animals and aberrations or psychic foes/magic-users make it pretty useless.  Again this is a situation where pure math can't be the only evaluative factor - its usefulness depends on DM style and the sorts of contexts a DM throws at his or her players.

I've seen disarm used effectively against a wizard to remove a dangerous wand, rod, staff or other hand-held magic item - especially a metamagic rod, so repeated Quickened spells stop blasting the party. Against spellcasting itself, not so much, but I wouldn't say disarm is completely ineffective versus spellcasters.

That's very true, good point.