I've been attempting to build a character as a grappler for a long time, but every time I do, it's a horribly contrived and difficult road that never pays off soon enough to be fun or useful. There's the maneuver master monk, but it's a very specific archetype.
Got me to thinking, why aren't all combat maneuvers attack substitutions? They all depend on a CMB roll, which is modified by attack bonuses. On the logic side of things, why wouldn't a person trained in grappling and the like be capable of snatching a person's arm when they leave themselves open during a retreat, or a master thief steal a bauble for the same reason? Linking 'standard action' to what is another attack roll puts a squeeze on the variety of things a martial class can do.
What're the community's thoughts on all CMB checks being attack alternatives instead of standard actions? I feel it would help diversify melee combat significantly.
Wrong forum. And there is no way Paizo is going to change this at this point, so this is homebrew territory.
Anyway, there are lots of effective grappling builds: Strangler Brawler, Tetori, Order of the Penitent Cavalier, Blood Conduit Bloodrager etc. etc.
I specifically posted it here to challenge the decision as an official rule. Yes, it can easily become a homebrew, there's no debating that. No, they won't change it and I have no arrogant delusions of being able to sway them into doing so, which means the most I can do is glean some understanding.
(As an aside, though, I do thank you for posting about these potential builds. I'd no idea there was actually a cavalier option for this kind of stuff. Interesting stuff.)
Before I go any further, I want to assure that I am not in any way attacking the developers or their creative decisions. Been a player for 5 years and probably will be for many more. Got a lot of respect for the developers, even when I disagree with some creative decisions such as the one this topic is about.
To reiterate, the question I posed was this one: Why aren't all combat maneuvers attack substitutions?
What was the thought process that went behind this decision? Was it simply upholding archaic 3.5 tradition, as Pathfinder has its roots in that system? Is it because of balancing issues? Did there need to be a justification for a host of other feats, such as Rapid Grappler?
Huh, really? I know trip attacks and grapple rules were a thing in the past, though I had forgotten that CMB was actually a recent addition to Pathfinder.
Looking at the old 3.5 SRD, grappling was actually done as a touch attack. So was tripping, for that matter. Bull rush, overrun, and feinting were standard actions.
Knowing this is a step in the right direction. Removing the 'touch attack' condition was good, since everything would always succeed in a grapple check in that scenario unless it had ridiculously high dex, deflection, and/or dodge bonuses to AC.
I can understand bullrush and overrun being standard actions, since they are essentially 'a movement that is also an attack'.
But what about grapple, or feint? Feinting isn't anything more than altering your combat rhythm, or redirecting a blow at the last moment. It wouldn't take more effort than a regular attack, and I've already made the argument for grappling.
"Probably to simplify grapples and bull rushes and such."
As a very long time player of D&D in its many variants, this is one of the biggest bugbears of the game. Pun intended.
However, I think I'm going to agree with Rumpkin that this is homebrew stuff as at this point it's VERY unlikely to change.
The grappling rules were definitely complicated as written in 3.5. However, I'm not sure that altering it into a standard action rather than making it an attack substitution was for the sake of simplification (or if it was, that it was successful) since trip, sunder, and disarm were also attack substitutions in 3.5 and were kept as such in PF.
Nevertheless, I think I've gotten as good as I'm going to get without a direct developer answer on the reasoning, and I'm thankful for everyone's answers.