Combat maneuvers recieve any penalties to attack. If you trip on your third attack the trip attemp is at -10.
Why? Because the attack with the -10 included is the normal attack bonus.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat maneuvers recieve any penalties to attack. If you trip on your third attack the trip attemp is at -10.
Why? Because the attack with the -10 included is the normal attack bonus.
Actually, the trip attempt is using your 3rd BAB, it isn't at a -10. Now, this is fundamentally identical in almost every case, unless you have something crazy and probably cheesey like Shield Master that removes all penalties to attack rolls[doesn't work with any sane GM, even PFS], because while the penalty from ITWF and GTWF could be nullified, the penalty from iterative attacks could not be removed, as it is not a bonus but instead a lower penalty. Keep in mind that this only comes up in instances such as a GM allowing Shield Master to work with all penalties, and so probably won't.
Shield masyery only removes the penalties for twf there is a chart listing them. It has no effect on imp twf or gtf.
Someone with shield slam slamming on their attack from gtwf does so at a -10. See numerous other threads explaini g this.
Combat maneuver attempts apply all penalties applied to the attack roll associated with them.
|
|
Shield masyery only removes the penalties for twf there is a chart listing them. It has no effect on imp twf or gtf.
Someone with shield slam slamming on their attack from gtwf does so at a -10. See numerous other threads explaini g this.
Combat maneuver attempts apply all penalties applied to the attack roll associated with them.
Completely understand this, but am just saying that there is an interpretation that I completely disagree with, do not encourage, and do not allow that says it literally applies to all penalties and can be used with TWF PA CE FD, etc. So I am stating that even if your GM agrees with and allows the insane interpretation, you still have the lower attack bonus due to 3rd BAB, because the iterative attack roll rules do not say that this is an additional attack made at a penalty, but at a lower bonus that the combat maneuver would be made at. See here for the most recent crazy shield master thread.
Heres the important bit
The following four combat maneuvers can be made using the same rules for all other combat maneuvers. Each one requires the attacking character to make an attack roll, adding in his Combat Maneuver Bonus (CMB) in place of his normal attack bonuses. If the result is equal to or greater than the target's Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD), the maneuver is a success. The drag and reposition maneuvers have varying levels of success depending on how much the attacker's roll exceeds the target's CMD.
All combat maneuvers are attack rolls they are subject to any and all penalties that affect an attack roll. This means if a character tries a trip/disarm/sunder on his 4rth iterative attack it is done at -15 and subject to any other penalties such as power attack.
However, i should appologize i answered your initial question on my phone and did not address Grab. Basicallly.. if a monster attacks, and is using power attack and i thas the grab ability its grab is affected by power attack. the power attack affects every attack roll after the decision to power attack is made and CM checks are attack rolls.
Similarly, if the monster was attacking defensively, its CM checks with grab would be subject to the -4 to hit for fighting defensively.
What i cant tell you based on a rules example is if a creature has Grab connected to a secondary attack is the attempt at a grab affected by the 'secondary attack penalty' i would assume yes based on the examples i am positive about but i dont have an example of this.
Im not sure why your linking a thread to me in which i a) participated in and b) 99% of the respondents disagreed with the Op's premise.
Except using an iterative base attack bonus does not constitute as a "penalty," it simply modifies the assumed Base Attack Bonus number you apply to an attack to equate to your total Base Attack Bonus - 5/10/15/X.
There are combat maneuvers that can be substituted in for attacks; trip, sunder, disarm, etc. all qualify for such. When making maneuvers, you use the Base Attack Bonus involved with that attack roll. For example, if I have a +13 Base Attack, leaving me 3 attacks I can make, each one made at 13, 8, and 3 respectively. I could substitute any of those 3 attacks with one of the above maneuvers; that doesn't replace the Base Attack Bonus being utilized with the given attack, because the Base Attack Bonus for my 3rd attack is treated as 3, not 13. (Nice try at shenanigans though.)
The same applies to whatever maneuver you're trying; if it's not an attack roll using your highest Base Attack Bonus, then the Base Attack Bonus you use is the one that correlates with the attack you're making.
@ Mojorat: I understand the premise of Shield Master; RAI, it's not supposed to apply to every penalty, only TWF penalties are affected. This is reflected in the table description.
But, here's what the RAW says in the actual feat description:
You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.
It's the same problem with the Courageous Weapon Property. (Which hasn't been resolved yet...)
Any means any. The factor that this is a more specified description of the feat instead of the general table description in the feat table would by rights trump the table description in terms of both applicability and intent, translating to "Attack rolls made with a shield while wielding with another weapon cannot suffer from penalties of any kind."
Of course, anyone who isn't some insane goober would realize both the intent and the obvious flavor text and wouldn't have that interpretation fly at their table...
TryKnight there is a certain monk archetype that can make use Grab so in that case it could apply to players, unless the monk can only use grab on its first attack, which is not the case IIRC.