CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
As one rises in level, Strength and Dexterity both increase. Our 17th level sample Barbarian has a CMB of +24. A CR 13 Storm Giant has a CMD of 40. Our CR 16 Cornugon has a CMD of 45. And both of those are before equipment. She needs a natural 16 to accomplish anything against a monster four levels lower than herself, and she only succeeds on a natural 20 against the fiend one level lower than herself if she can convince the DM that a natural 20 always succeeds on a Combat Maneuver roll.
And that's before we get into the maneuvers themselves:
Grappling no longer requires a free hand, it requires two free hands to avoid an additional -4 penalty to the Combat Maneuver Roll. So our Barbarian has to outright drop her greatsword to succeed on a grab attempt against that Storm Giant on anything other than a natural 20. And it doesn't even do anything unless you keep the grab up for two turns in a row (and the enemy can full attack you in the round in between - no fooling). Verdict: Useless.
Bullrushing is changed all out of recognition. Now, you almost get Domino Rush for free, except that you suffer a -4 penalty to try (which means it doesn't succeed). Also, you still push them one extra square for every 5 points you exceed the DC, which with CMB being what it is you're only ever going to get a 5 square shift off that maneuver. Also, pushing enemies into impassable squares makes your bullrush fail instead of dropping them prone. Verdict: Useless.
Overrun is based on the Andy Collins' petulant errata version where it's always a standard action and can't be combine with a Charge. So you already know it's bad. But they actually made it worse. See, your target can still let you go if they don't want to risk you making a CM check against them, but they might as well take the attack of opportunity because the only thing that happens if you succeed is you moving through their square. To get the knockdown effect, you need to exceed their CMD by five. Verdict: Useless.
Trip You get counter tripped if you fail by 10. So our sample Barbarian will actually trip the Cornugon on a natural 20, but fall down herself on a 1-11. Improved Trip has been divided into two feats (seriously) and the extra attack at the end is now an Attack of Opportunity so you need Combat Reflexes to actually have it stack with the attack you get for them standing up again. Verdict: Useless.
(Disclaimer: Not my work, but I find it hard to disagree with. Again, wanting to see how the Bestiary resolves this.)
I'm not the author of this quote, but I find this argument compelling. Is anyone else finding issues with CMB vs CMD in particular situations?
Yeah: You aren't supposed to CMB monsters -- they tend to win due to extra arms and, you know, magic abilities. :)
|
I have no problem with Huge Storm Giant being pretty much imunne to crazy antics of a Medium humanoid with Str of 24.
However, at lvl 17, and raging, I believe that Str of a Barbarian would be higher anyway. But I digress.
Also, the monsters are given using their 3.5 stats, not the PFRPG stats. And even then, the Cornugon's CMD is calculated incorrectly (should be 43).
EDIT
Ah, we're comparing iconic Amiri. The slavish devotion of PF critcs to use Iconics as a base makes me giggle.
Let's make a Trip Monkey Barbarian shall we ? We kick off with STR 18, we get the +2 racial, +4 from leveling, +6 from the belt, STR 30 @ lvl 17, raging STR 36, Improved Trip and Greater Trip. CMB when trippin' = 34.
We trip ze Cornugon at 9+, without any buffs.
There, done.
|
Yeah I dont have a problem with this example. It should be tough to grapple a creature that is more than 3x your height and (average height 21 feet vs a humans 6 feet) and outweighs you by 11,800 pounds (average weight of a Storm Giant is 12,000 pounds vs a human at 200 lbs.
I mean, in what disturbed mind would the barbarian even want to wrestle the giant? hmmmmm? I think any barbarian seeing the giant standing their would look at his hands...and look at his sword...and choose his sword ;)
Now as for the Devil since the devil has a DR of 10/good & silver and I will make the assumption that a 17th level barbarian has likely faced off to numerous fiends before...he probably knows its pretty futile to go hugging one....or trying to push it around, and would reach for his sword.
my 2 cents.
Ignoring all the silly examples which that post raises of Amari trying to wrestle with giant, she would need a 14 or better to trip/bullrush/disarm/etc. herself (or an 11, if one Amari was raging and the other wasn't). That's with her primary attack. By comparison, she can hit herself on a 0, and that's not counting rage eithr way.
I'm not sure how this would pan out in play. Some of the "maneuvers" in Pathfinder are DEFINITELY better than others (this was true in 3.5, but Pathfinder did nothing to fix it, and occassionally made it worse). And there's a clear defender's advantage to discourage these tactics for anyone who isn't specifically built for them.
|
|
So wait, we DON'T want Kratos to wrestle the Colossus of Rhodes? Cause that was pretty damn awesome to me when I played God of War 2 for the first time...
However, at lvl 17, and raging, I believe that Str of a Barbarian would be higher anyway. But I digress.*ahem*
Iconics are NOT optimized. The basic mistake everybody does is to take a Pathfinder iconic from the blog, run him thru some extreme scenario, jump to conclusions and scream "FAIL" on forums.
What I did above was a quick and dirty optimization of a Barbarian for using the trip maneuver. And I am generally a casual player, who tries to steer clear of min-maxing :)
|
Iconics are NOT optimized. The basic mistake everybody does is to take a Pathfinder iconic from the blog, run him thru some extreme scenario, jump to conclusions and scream "FAIL" on forums.
What I did above was a quick and dirty optimization of a Barbarian for using the trip maneuver. And I am generally a casual player, who tries to steer clear of min-maxing :)
Precisely my point. The downfall of CMD is that a new player, who would most likely create a character JUST LIKE the iconics (or might just take the pregen provided in the books) is going to try out this cool combat maneuver, find out he can't do anything with it, and go with auto-attacking. This is why we wanted the grapple/etc rules fixed. And it obviously isn't fixed yet.
As for unusual targets, I certainly can't imagine any situation where one would see a bear, or a tiger, a gorilla, etc coming at them and think "I'll drop my sword and wrestle that charging beast into submission".
Steven Irwin, rest his soul.
But what ever happened to getting to roleplay our epic legends and dreams? Who here hasn't read greek mythology or some such and marveled at the ability of the heroes?
Heck, even in the bible (whether or not you consider this true it's the most well known 'mythology' on the planet) a human out-wrestled an angel / aspect of a diety (Jacob submitted one in genesis on his way back home with his family)
Think about the heroes of mythology, be it Norse, Greek, Hebrew, what have you. Most of them accomplished extraordinary things that are NOT, I repeat, NOT realistic.
Fantasy diverges from mythology somewhat on that level.
Fantasy, especially sword&sorcery, shoots for verisimilitude. A medium-sized warrior COULD out-wrestle a giant in D&D, but only if he has some enormous magical or divine augmentation to his strength or skill. He can't do it just because 'he's the hero'. It's not about being realistic, just believable.
Furthermore, even in myth, not EVERYONE can out-wrestle a giant. Just the half-gods, for the most part.
|
|
Precisely my point. The downfall of CMD is that a new player, who would most likely create a character JUST LIKE the iconics (or might just take the pregen provided in the books) is going to try out this cool combat maneuver, find out he can't do anything with it, and go with auto-attacking. This is why we wanted the grapple/etc rules fixed. And it obviously isn't fixed yet.Iconics are NOT optimized. The basic mistake everybody does is to take a Pathfinder iconic from the blog, run him thru some extreme scenario, jump to conclusions and scream "FAIL" on forums.
What I did above was a quick and dirty optimization of a Barbarian for using the trip maneuver. And I am generally a casual player, who tries to steer clear of min-maxing :)
The only PF pregens we have seen in the books so far are the lvl 1 pregens in PF25. A bit early for a verdict here.
Well, a new player wouldn't have a bloody idea how a lvl 17 char works anyway, let alone the maneuvers. I would be seriously surprised if somebody began his d20 career with a high level char - and if he did, it wouldn't be the maneuvers that would put him off - just the sheer complexity of running a high lvl char. So no harm done.
For the record - IMHO, the iconics from previews should have been wickedly optimized. The biggest PR mistake of Pathfinder was showcasing the gimped Will :+3 Valeros as the first preview. Boy I hope Jason learned that lesson (and looking at Seelah, he did).
I wasn't saying everybody could, I just feel that it should be possible, with only a moderate amount of char-op, to be an efficient grappler/tripper etc.
Maybe I watch too much anime and read too much Mythology, but to me for a character to yank a giant off his feet isn't unrealistic, it's just fantasy. Translation, it's COOL lol
EDIT: Also, that giant's advantage isn't even coming from his size, it's only +1 per size now isn't it? That giant doesn't have a huge defensive advantage over an equally statted medium character, ergo even normal grappling is exceptionally hard.
Usually larger creatures have greater strength bonuses. Indirectly, the size of the giant makes it harder for him to be grappled.
C'mon people, the barbarian has 25% chance to grapple with a Storm Giant and you think that is not good enough. This should be a once in a lifetime feat.
Ignoring all the silly examples which that post raises of Amari trying to wrestle with giant, she would need a 14 or better to trip/bullrush/disarm/etc. herself (or an 11, if one Amari was raging and the other wasn't). That's with her primary attack. By comparison, she can hit herself on a 0, and that's not counting rage eithr way.
I'm not sure how this would pan out in play. Some of the "maneuvers" in Pathfinder are DEFINITELY better than others (this was true in 3.5, but Pathfinder did nothing to fix it, and occassionally made it worse). And there's a clear defender's advantage to discourage these tactics for anyone who isn't specifically built for them.
This seems to come from the fact that people good at grappling usually are good at defending from grappling. It basically means that it is not automatic (35% chance) to grapple herself. After a few attempts you are there. Compare with someone who is bad at grappling (Same level wizard), and the chances improve significantly.
|
|
I love about 95% of what Pathfinder has done w/ 3.5 rules. Of the other 5% that I am no fond of - a big part of that is what has happened w/ the maneuvers.
However, they're were worse in 3.5 - but the other direction. They were TOO good and too easy and too broken.
Now they're too fixed I think.
Some of the follow up replies to the original poster failed to see the forest for the trees I think - and with tunnel vision got stuck on "med sized grappling vs Storm giant". Of which I do agree - it's not a good example to cry over.
However, the other maneuvers that weren't replied about - making many of the maneuvers so difficult to make them virtually impossible and the deck stacked against the attacker so much - that so far my experience is that the maneuvers have all but been abandoned; hack & slash round after round is all that's being done now.
I was quite vocal about the CMD early on in the previews - thinking they were out of wack. Thanks the fact that it's a "touch attack" mechanic - the small nimble guys like the gnome bard etc were getting scores that far exceeded others who were bigger than them and higher level. Which I'll admit - I have had since 3rd edition was released - a major hang-up over the touch AC mechanic - I think it's way too popular, over-utilized, over-inflated, too beneficial for nimble types, and too punitive for armored folks - and to apply the mechanic to yet another major aspect of combat simply had me seeing red.
IMO - it isn't a good mechanic.
I loved the CMB the way it was in BETA. I finally felt that I had a mechanic that my big ugh warrior / barbarian types that I love to play - or my armored tank sword and board paladins - finally had something quite useful that simply pitted their strength and BAB against a weaker foe. BUT as an a helpful OPTION, those weaker types still had a feat option that could use their DEX instead of their strength, giving them a helpful option for maneuvers if they wanted it. With the use the touch attack model, I have seen once again that the tiny little nimble pipsqueaks once again avoids anything the characters can do.
So they have more skills? check. They have no armor check penalty so their more skills are even better? Check. They're movement doesn't suffer? check. They have a better CMD than many? Check. They're overall AC is about the same to a sword and boarder? Check. So what's the problem? Ah - that cleric is casting slay living again.......hmmmm, the gnome bard with the 24 touch AC? or the dwarven fighter with the full plate touch AC 13???
I just feel that 3rd edition has turned rogues and nimble sorts into a pet project - I have always felt that way - they just seem to have too many benefits.
Given a choice - I would probably prefer the way Pathfinder has the maneuvers set up vs the over inflated power creep that occured with them in 3.5; but I'm certainly not satisfied with the amount of nerfing that happened with them - the CMD being too difficult I think, and each of the maneuvers were made too impossible to really be truly effective. Its not any one aspect - its a collective sum of the whole that overall makes them...as the O.P. said - pretty useless.
So far - it's the only thing that I have chosen to completely house rule a change on.
That all being said - I want to reiterate - that the negativity aside on this issue - I love the Pathfinder Core Rules as a whole and I am truly excited about 95% of it. No rule system is perfect by everyone's standards, and I understand that; you can't please everyone with everything. It's impossible. But I think they did a great job of pleasing the most people with the most of it. Kudo's for that. And Jason included in the preface the old Rule 0 - that the rules in the book are mere guidelines and he encourages anyone to change what they are not happy with. Course that doens't help in society play - but so far I haven't jumped on that ship - I have plenty of people in my area that enjoy the game more free-form to have that need to join.
Robert
Creative Director
|
Folks are, I fear, sort of missing the point on when combat maneuvers should normally apply. They aren't the types of things you should probably be doing against tough foes, or honestly even equally matched foes. It SHOULD be tough to disarm your clone, or trip a giant, or bull rush something tougher than you. Combat maneuvers are flashy and more exciting than simply stabbing a foe, and as a result they should be harder to do. Especially since, in most cases, the effects of a successful combat maneuver can be MUCH more advantageous than simply doing a batch of damage to a foe. Better effect = harder to pull off.
Against most foes, you should probably want to simply hack away. The combat maneuvers should come out most often in one of the following situations.
1) When you fight against foes that are weaker than you.
2) When you have a LOT of bonuses stacking up; remember, a CMB roll is an attack roll, so it gets boosted by things like bard performances, bless spells, morale effects, and the like. Likewise, a CMD score can be reduced by things like ability drain and certain curses and the like.
3) When you're desperate.
4) When you have a character who's specifically built to make certain maneuvers. By taking the right feats, fighting with the right weapons, and using the right tactics, you can significantly increase your chances of success with specific stunts.
So if combat maneuvers are only happening in specific cases like the above, that's pretty much the hope and point of the game as designed. The rules are intended to be easy for PLAYERS to use, not necessarily easy for your CHARACTERS to pull of.
|
|
2) When you have a LOT of bonuses stacking up; remember, a CMB roll is an attack roll, so it gets boosted by things like bard performances, bless spells, morale effects, and the like. Likewise, a CMD score can be reduced by things like ability drain and certain curses and the like.
Does it mean that true strike works on maneuvers ? If yes, my Duskblade player will be happy !
But what ever happened to getting to roleplay our epic legends and dreams? Who here hasn't read greek mythology or some such and marveled at the ability of the heroes?
Heck, even in the bible (whether or not you consider this true it's the most well known 'mythology' on the planet) a human out-wrestled an angel / aspect of a diety (Jacob submitted one in genesis on his way back home with his family)
The storm giant is a particularly bad example. As noted above, a trip monkey barbarian could do it more easily. It's strange to think that a generic, off-the-shelf barbarian should easily be able to grapple what should be one of the best grapplers in the game.
As for wrestling with angels, a trumpet archon has a grapple check of +17 in 3.5e, which should roughly translate into a CMD of 27. Amiri could certainly do that.
I have not read over all the rules. I believe in 3.5 you could not grapple or trip something 2 category size larger than you anyway. I hope this rule is still in place. If it is not in place I will be giving the monsters the old category size bonus which made it almost impossible to win a grapple check against them. I know the PC's are the heroes and not to many things should be out of their grasp, but when someone is 3 times your height and maybe 50 times your weight there is no way you should be grappling them anyway. This also extends to knocking them down.
|
|
Folks are, I fear, sort of missing the point on when combat maneuvers should normally apply. They aren't the types of things you should probably be doing against tough foes, or honestly even equally matched foes. It SHOULD be tough to disarm your clone, or trip a giant, or bull rush something tougher than you. Combat maneuvers are flashy and more exciting than simply stabbing a foe, and as a result they should be harder to do. Especially since, in most cases, the effects of a successful combat maneuver can be MUCH more advantageous than simply doing a batch of damage to a foe. Better effect = harder to pull off.
I don't disagree with you James.
I would be more inclined to agree even more whole-heartedly, if the maneuvers still carried with them the amount and level of impact that they did in the previous incarnations of 3rd edition rules.
When you were once able to trip, and then get a free attack while they person is on the ground - all with a great chance of success, and then get the attack of opportunity when they stand - I would agree with you - they should be as hard (if not harder) to pull off as they currently are.
Or a bullrushed opponent could be subjected to a myriad of attacks of opportunity from others standing by.
Neither of which is an issue any longer - at least not with the same easily acquired feat options.
However, when one considers the fact that they have all been trimmed down so significantly that their impact has less than half (but don't get me wrong - the effects of them NOW are more appropriate by far), I feel that the combination of both the limitations of them, the smaller bonuses for having the feats, and the more difficult mechanic in pulling them all - all adds up to a level of frustration that is too far in the other direction.
Those maneuvers with their lessened effects seem to be too hard to pull off IMO.
Like I said - I still prefer them doing less - but now it's gone from being the obvious option - to almost a non-option.
Robert
In my experience, the disarm rules come up when an enemy wields an evil artifact, the grapple rules come up when an ally has been dominated, and the bullrush rules come up when you're fighting on a cliff's edge.
I TOTALLY agree that these rules are for special situations- I don't want to seem them used every round. The best tactic should usually be to just fight. However, in special circumstances (when it would make logical sense to do so, and/or when it would be very cinimatic), I want my players to use these rules, even if they don't have the appropriate feats (and they probably won't).
The precise balance (such that these things won't be used all the time, but will when it's appropriate, and also by characters who have specialized in them) is hard to judge. I find the "10 + strength + dex" part to be much more satistfying than the old "15 + strength", but it does introduce a double scaling factor on CMD, and I'm not sure how that will play out (especially considering that some of the effects have been made weaker even on success).
Honestly, I like most of the change a lot. For instance, the ability to scoop up multiple foes on a bullrush sounds like a blast.
A good point which was raised is that fighter-types can still prison-beat the puss out of spellcasters if they get their hands on them. Poor BAB = -10 CMD. (in that light, I frankly have no problem with the nerf on grappling, either. It's still worth doing in many situations).
On the other hand, it would be nice if over-run were good for what it was originally intended- stampeding over a mook to charge someone more important. It's hard for me to see a situation where a character would want to use this manuver.
I'd like to remind everyone that Dex factoring defensively but not offensively into grapples is not new.
In fact, it came up in the playtest that characters who were too agile to be grappled in 3.5 were sitting ducks in the beta version.
The complaints observed in the OP are the same you would have had to have about 3.5's grapple mechanics. The only significant difference is that Pathfinder Maneuvers are simpler to resolve, the success rate comes out really close to how it was.
Perhaps this person was hoping there would be changes in the success rate of certain actions, but in that case, we'd have seen a post complaining that it was too different.
In fact, it came up in the playtest that characters who were too agile to be grappled in 3.5 were sitting ducks in the beta version.
Would you care to elaborate?
Anything that applies to touch AC still applies to your CMD, and you can still use escape artist t-
Oh, right, beta. No adding DEX to CMD. Carry on then.
|
|
Folks are, I fear, sort of missing the point on when combat maneuvers should normally apply. They aren't the types of things you should probably be doing against tough foes, or honestly even equally matched foes. It SHOULD be tough to disarm your clone, or trip a giant, or bull rush something tougher than you. Combat maneuvers are flashy and more exciting than simply stabbing a foe, and as a result they should be harder to do. Especially since, in most cases, the effects of a successful combat maneuver can be MUCH more advantageous than simply doing a batch of damage to a foe. Better effect = harder to pull off.
Against most foes, you should probably want to simply hack away. The combat maneuvers should come out most often in one of the following situations.
1) When you fight against foes that are weaker than you.
2) When you have a LOT of bonuses stacking up; remember, a CMB roll is an attack roll, so it gets boosted by things like bard performances, bless spells, morale effects, and the like. Likewise, a CMD score can be reduced by things like ability drain and certain curses and the like.
3) When you're desperate.
4) When you have a character who's specifically built to make certain maneuvers. By taking the right feats, fighting with the right weapons, and using the right tactics, you can significantly increase your chances of success with specific stunts.
So if combat maneuvers are only happening in specific cases like the above, that's pretty much the hope and point of the game as designed. The rules are intended to be easy for PLAYERS to use, not necessarily easy for your CHARACTERS to pull of.
You forgot to mention some other situations I as a DM often try to incorporate into my games;
The need to capture someone alive or where the use of the environment is far stronger than your weapons.
An example of the second would be if I put in a golem into a game I knew the PCs couldnt defeat without rolling criticals and maximum damage but possibly pushing that same golem into the lava pool would do the trick. Its situations like this that turn a regular enounter into something "special" and with the mechanics of CMB/CMD players are a lot more willing to try them out.
On the other hand, it would be nice if over-run were good for what it was originally intended- stampeding over a mook to charge someone more important. It's hard for me to see a situation where a character would want to use this manuver.
Imagine a 5' wide corridor, an enemy blocking said corridor, and a rogue who desperately needs a flanking buddy to make mincemeat out of the enemy. Overrun starts looking pretty good right about now, doesn't it?
Unless there are two of them in that 5-foot coridor. And then it doesn't matter if they're grigs; you simply can't get past them both.
But yea, I see what you're saying. Of course one can imagine some situation where a character would use it; sorry for the hyperbole.
I just got an idea how to solve this problem.
There should be two kinds of CMDs and CMBs - Strength based and dexterity based.
Of course it is hard to bullrush a giant - that's because your strength or size doesn't really match compared to it.
On the other hand tumbling is much easier because it's dexterity isn't that high.
So CMB would still be BAB+Str mod, unless you had "agile maneuvers" feat, when you could use it as BAB+Dex mod. CMD would be 10+BAB+size+str or dex, depending what the opponent is using.
This way it would be more "realistic" and it would still use both strength and dexterity. Of course untrained would be only using strength, and for them it would still be hard to tumble the giant.
Bull rush, overrun etc. would always use strength for CMD
I just got an idea how to solve this problem.
There should be two kinds of CMDs and CMBs - Strength based and dexterity based.Of course it is hard to bullrush a giant - that's because your strength or size doesn't really match compared to it.
On the other hand tumbling is much easier because it's dexterity isn't that high.
So CMB would still be BAB+Str mod, unless you had "agile maneuvers" feat, when you could use it as BAB+Dex mod. CMD would be 10+BAB+size+str or dex, depending what the opponent is using.
This way it would be more "realistic" and it would still use both strength and dexterity. Of course untrained would be only using strength, and for them it would still be hard to tumble the giant.
Bull rush, overrun etc. would always use strength for CMD
I agree - STR OR DEX; not both. I am still confused as to what the authors were trying to accomplish with this process???
I have no problem with Huge Storm Giant being pretty much imunne to crazy antics of a Medium humanoid with Str of 24.
However, at lvl 17, and raging, I believe that Str of a Barbarian would be higher anyway. But I digress.
Also, the monsters are given using their 3.5 stats, not the PFRPG stats. And even then, the Cornugon's CMD is calculated incorrectly (should be 43)...
Let's make a Trip Monkey Barbarian shall we ? We kick off with STR 18, we get the +2 racial, +4 from leveling, +6 from the belt, STR 30 @ lvl 17, raging STR 36, Improved Trip and Greater Trip. CMB when trippin' = 34...
We trip ze Cornugon at 9+, without any buffs.
There, done.
This comment pretty much destroyed the OP's argument. I"m still laughing over people actually complaining that their character can't trip a storm giant. Our characters are supposed to by heroes not demi-gods like Hercules and.....Drizzt LOL.
Personally, I think that STR+DEX in CMD is a typo and it should be STR or DEX.
my 2 cents
Let's make a Trip Monkey Barbarian shall we ? We kick off with STR 18, we get the +2 racial, +4 from leveling, +6 from the belt, STR 30 @ lvl 17, raging STR 36, Improved Trip and Greater Trip. CMB when trippin' = 34...
We trip ze Cornugon at 9+, without any buffs.
There, done.
This comment pretty much destroyed the OP's argument. I"m still laughing over people actually complaining that their character can't trip a storm giant. Our characters are supposed to by heroes not demi-gods like Hercules and.....Drizzt LOL.
Fundamentally we don't want melee-types Tripping because... why? Because Tripping means they're demigods?
|
|
2) When you have a LOT of bonuses stacking up; remember, a CMB roll is an attack roll, so it gets boosted by things like bard performances, bless spells, morale effects, and the like. Likewise, a CMD score can be reduced by things like ability drain and certain curses and the like.
So, a weapon's magical rating would apply to a trip? A spell like True Strike?
Doesn't the magic rating of magical armor protect against Touch Attacks? I know..or I thought...Mage Armor, the spell does. So does Mage Armor help in CMD?
Thanks.
I agree - STR OR DEX; not both. I am still confused as to what the authors were trying to accomplish with this process???
They were intentionally trying to grant a defender's advantage.
In the Beta, it was 15 + STR, not 10 + DEX + STR. I like this a lot better because it means mook enemies are very easy to throw around, and also means your dex helps you avoid maneuvers just as it does attacks.
They have something against people playing fighters like Kratos. Or Samson. Or Heracles.
If you want to be Kratos, Samson or Heracles, find a way to get a strength score in the 50s.
If at that point you feel that the system still isn't treating you well, then we'll talk.
And yet we fight hydra and medusa at level 7.
Kratos' world and that of Pathfinder are two completely different things. I don't see how you can make a logical attempt at comparing them in terms of game mechanics. You really think a lvl 7 fighter should be tripping and bull-rushing hydras and medusa?
Hercules beat the hydra by chopping off its heads with a sword while his nephew Iolus used a torch to burn the stumps.
Perseus cut off Medusa's head with a sword, and deflected her gaze attacks with a mirror shield.
Where does CMB and CMD come in here?
I guess you could argue that you could use a disarm check if they're using their heads as a weapon...
|
|
Chopping off a hydra's head is a sunder action.
And no, I don't expect a 7th level fighter to do that to a hydra. But I expect him to do it to a minotaur, CR 4. And I expect a 17th level barbarian to have a chance to affect a CR 13 giant.
Also, no Kratos doesn't belong in Golarion. But he is certainly a 17th level character.
Also, no Kratos doesn't belong in Golarion. But he is certainly a 17th level character.
With a strength score in the 50's.
:)I really don't think you should be able to do whatever you want to a creature with a lower CR than you, even if that creature is 50 feet tall. A viper can easily kill a horse, but that doesn't mean he can knock if over or wrestle it to the ground (unless, of course, that viper's father was Zeus or Aries).
|
|
When did I ever say I wanted higher level opponents to make lesser enemies their prison b!tch? Other than the hyperbole about God of War: The Tabletop RPG, of course. :) All I want is the chance to pull off an epic feat, rather than autofail. The 3.5 version offered that at least, where a poor roll on one and good roll on the other would let it happen. And did, as my players 15th level fighter/ninja stopped a dragon's bullrush.
Huh?
Bullrush in 3.5 was a straight strength check. You are much more likely to stop a dragon in Pathfinder (which, honestly, is one thing I really dislike about using CMB for everything, but it improves and streamlines things enough that I'm willing to swallow it).
FYI, that never would have happened in my 3.5 game: I specifically houseruled that brute strength checks (any roll that adds STR and nothing else) use a d6, with proportionately lower DCs. That way, a halfling might knock a troll on his ass if he has some spell driving his strength score into the stratosphere, but not 'just because he's the hero'.
|
|
Que?
Bullrush was an opposed Strength check. There were no DCs to be modded. It was his roll+STR vs your roll+STR. Making it a d6 would make it an autofail against creatures with a +6 lead over you. If you like to play that way, fine. Me, I like the option of at least trying and having a chance.
And no, you are not likely to stop a dragon in Pathfinder, let alone more likely. It rolls a CMB check vs your CMD. Which is not going to be enough, I'm sorry to say. Unless he rolls abysmally, and guess what? You didn't contribute to any of that. He rolled bad, missed your CMD. You didn't get a great roll that blocked his rush. Sure, you can say that your character performed a great feat of strength to hold the line, but it just doesn't feel the same to me.
|
Just want to wade in on this...
If the maneuvers are harder to do, I say great. In all of the games of 3.5 I've run, the main issue has always been grappling. And not because it was hard to learn/remember how to do. We learned it quickly and easily, and then the problems happened. Players who moderately wanted to play grapplers were able to decimate fights. And those that even made the "grappler" character turned into John Cena of the fantasy world in 3 levels.
Some encounter breaker moves that were done easily were:
Stopping vampires with a pin, bull rushing skeletal T-Rex's (by the way, it was a halfling), summoning Dire Wolves at any point, and my personal favourite, every fight that the ex-samurai 3 / were-tiger 3 was in and he changed/charged.
On the flip side, when used on players who weren't ready for it (about 80%), using a larger monster with Improved Grapple or swallow whole turned deadly and/or boring really quickly. Urlstrasas', large dinosaurs, Linnorms and even Giants who wanted to grapple some players has turned into the equivalent of "You don't do anything, the monster hurts you". The only ones who could fight back were fighters, and even then some didn't make it because they didn't specialize in grappling.
If anything, while doing "cool stuff" may have been sacrificed, I'd much rather that than the above problems. Honestly, the "cool stuff" is really only cool if it doesn't happen every single fight