CKG - Combat Maneuvers Questions

[Demiurge]

From page 256. I've listed the maneuver and then my questions and then my best guess (if any) below.

Push
Question: On a successful attack does the defender take damage? What is the CL of the STR check?
Guess: The attack deals damage and the CL is the amount of physical damage dealt (not including fire damage from a flaming sword for example).

Close Supporting Fire
Question: There's a discrepancy between the table notes and the full description as to whether or not a roll of 2-3 or 2-4 results in striking an ally. Which should it be?
Guess: 1-4 is correct (unless 1 is a fumble in your game).

Parry
Question: How many opponents it is effective against? If it's one, it's identical to evade. If it's multiple, it's better than dodge.
Guess: Parry replaces evade.

Shield Blow
Question: What is the CL of the CON check?
Guess: ???

[Breakdaddy]

I'm kind of driving by this thread but I'd say the CL of any SIEGE check wherein you are trying to affect an enemy would be the HD of that enemy (for PUSH and maybe SHIELD BLOW, I dont have my books here at work).

[serleran]

I would not use level. I would use BtH. This means a 6th level fighter is always better at parrying than his counterpart the 14th level rogue. The reason is simple and goes to, to me, a fundamental mechanism of the design of C&C -- fighters are always better in combat.

[Breakdaddy]

I would not use level. I would use BtH. This means a 6th level fighter is always better at parrying than his counterpart the 14th level rogue. The reason is simple and goes to, to me, a fundamental mechanism of the design of C&C -- fighters are always better in combat.

BtH *IS* level (Hit Dice) for Monsters as you know.

[serleran]

Yes. At least for most monsters.

However, classed NPC enemies are somewhat different as would be allowing a monster use of combat maneuvers against the party, where BtH only equals level in the case of fighters.

[alcyone]

Close Supporting Fire
Question: There's a discrepancy between the table notes and the full description as to whether or not a roll of 2-3 or 2-4 results in striking an ally. Which should it be? Does this replace the normal -4 for firing into melee?
Guess: 1-4 is correct and it replaces the -4 penalty (20% either way).

I haven't seen the -4 firing into melee rule (page?), but I do have Close Supporting Fire replace the old rule for missed projectiles continuing and taking further minuses to hit (it only hit something with lesser AC than what you were aiming for if you missed).

[Demiurge]

I haven't seen the -4 firing into melee rule (page?), but I do have Close Supporting Fire replace the old rule for missed projectiles continuing and taking further minuses to hit (it only hit something with lesser AC than what you were aiming for if you missed).

You're right. I was thinking of another game.

[Treebore]

I agree with Serl, going by BtH definitely keeps being a fighter and fighter type more meaningful when combating classed NPC's.

[Omote]

Close Supporting Fire
Question: There's a discrepancy between the table notes and the full description as to whether or not a roll of 2-3 or 2-4 results in striking an ally. Which should it be?
Guess: 1-4 is correct (unless 1 is a fumble in your game).

We do 2-4 hits hits an ally. A 1 is a complete miss or a fumble.

~O

[Piperdog]

These really do add to combat flavor of the game, I have to say. And it makes transition from crunchier games easier for some of the players, especially when you add in the advantages and wound system. All good stuff.