It does raise a good question though.
Two Fighters, both have equal CMB.
They have only a 25% chance to do anything to each other. If they pick up the appropriate defensive feat, they suddenly only have 5% chance to accomplishing anything against each other.
Now even with the Improved versions, you are still looking at a 15% chance against someone who spent ONE feat to improve all defenses.
Food for thought.
|
Defensive Combat Training is br... probably not the most balanced feat there is. :-)
Discussion here.
I have found the problem is not just this, but I don't know what situations effect CMB.
Flatfooted for example could have a wide range of effect on CMB, could it not? Currently as far as I know, it has none, but it seems logical to me that almost all the CMB tricks should be easier to do if you catch somebody by surprise.
As for the base, since I don't know what effects CMB (flatfooted along with other conditions) I have a hard time currently making a judgment on it. I also think the bonus for the improved-CMB stuff should be a +3 instead of a +2.
Perhaps the defensive training should be +1 and then an improved feat to make it +2. Either way, since the base is 15 I think the scaling of the improved-CMB feats should always be slightly higher than the defensive abilities (at least by 1).
|
|
I have found the problem is not just this, but I don't know what situations effect CMB.
Flatfooted for example could have a wide range of effect on CMB, could it not? Currently as far as I know, it has none, but it seems logical to me that almost all the CMB tricks should be easier to do if you catch somebody by surprise.
SRD
Flat-FootedA character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, not yet reacting normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.
Consequence for CM
- No Dex bonus to defender's CMB (bad for characters with Agile Maneuvers)
- No AoO against the CM attempt
I also agree that DC 15+ is too high. In our last game a raging barbarian PC attempted to grapple an enemy fighter 4 levels higher than he was (an APL +2 encounter, challenging, but not overwhelming). He needed to roll a natural 18 to succeed. When he failed after rolling a 16 he decided it wasn't worth it to try again.
Under the old rules he'd have needed a touch attack and an opposed grapple check. He would have had a very good chance of succesfully initiating the grapple though his opponent would have had some advantage in opposed checks.
I think the DC should be 11+CMB. The Improved maneuver feats should grant a +4 bonus. I also think you should suffer a -2 penalty to your CMB DC whenever you are denied your dex to AC.
...He needed to roll a natural 18 to succeed. When he failed after rolling a 16 he decided it wasn't worth it to try again.
Under the old rules he'd have needed a touch attack and an opposed grapple check. He would have had a very good chance of succesfully initiating the grapple though his opponent would have had some advantage in opposed checks....
To be fair, in the example you give, with a difference of 3 between the CMBs (since that character needed to roll an 18) the chance of success is 15%.
Now for 3.5:
If I bypass the fact that if the opponent deals damage on the AoO the attacker automatically fails and take into account that the attacker needs to roll over 2 for the touch attack (fairly conservative, I think) and that you win if you beat your opponent’s roll.
No grapple feats for anyone and no automatic fail on 1 or success on 20. So the attacker fails for sure on rolls of 1 to 4 (since he needs to be over 4) and he also fails if the defender rolls 17 to 20 that’s a 160/400 fail to start with. I’ll spare you the rest of the calculations.
In the end, you get a chance of success is about 12% and that’s being very conservative for the 3.5 system since the AoO could cut that in half.
Opposed roll may seem like they offer a chance for everyone to make it but not only do you need to be lucky but you also need for the opponent to be unlucky.
The 15+ DC is closer to backward compatibility than it may seem IMO.
The 15+ DC is closer to backward compatibility than it may seem IMO.
I won't comment on the case of grappling, except to say that the Giant Octopus does NOT deserve a CR of 8 in Pathfinder. Its CMB is a measly 12 -- it has absolutely no chance of succeeding at the -20 check to hold an opponent with one tentacle unless the opponent's CMB is -4 or worse, for instance.
Even worse is sundering a worn item; it used to be fairly easy to sunder an enemy's spell component pouch or backpack, but now it's quite difficult to do so.
To be fair, in the example you give, with a difference of 3 between the CMBs (since that character needed to roll an 18) the chance of success is 15%.Now for 3.5:
If I bypass the fact that if the opponent deals damage on the AoO the attacker automatically fails and take into account that the attacker needs to roll over 2 for the touch attack (fairly conservative, I think) and that you win if you beat your opponent’s roll.
No grapple feats for anyone and no automatic fail on 1 or success on 20. So the attacker fails for sure on rolls of 1 to 4 (since he needs to be over 4) and he also fails if the defender rolls 17 to 20 that’s a 160/400 fail to start with. I’ll spare you the rest of the calculations.
In the end, you get a chance of success is about 12% and that’s being very conservative for the 3.5 system since the AoO could cut that in half.
Opposed roll may seem like they offer a chance for everyone to make it but not only do you need to be lucky but you also need for the opponent to be unlucky.
The 15+ DC is closer to backward compatibility than it may seem IMO.
It's not a fair comparison.
First of all the change to the Pathfinder CR system means that my player's barbarian 6 was fighting a CR 8 challenge, not a CR 10 as it would be in 3.5. CR 10 verges on overwhelming (no chance of victory), CR 8 should merely be challenging.
Secondly, both were unarmed (the higher level barbarian had used a thrown weapon the preceeding round), so no AoOs were happening at all. The enemy barbarian had a lower strength which evened the playing field.
Under 3.5, the 6th level barbarian would have needed to roll a 2 to succeed on the touch attack (+11 vs. AC 12) and then would have needed to succeed at an opposed check of +11 versus +14. If the enemy rolled a 10 he'd only have needed a 13 to succeed.
That's a 13 to succeed at an overwhelming encounter. Under Pathfinder this was not considered an overwhelming encounter (which I agree with). But that tells me that needing to roll an 18 every time to succeed was too hard.
Interestingly enough as far as the numbers for this encounter went if the DC had been 10+CMB the chances would have been very similar to 3.5. (he'd have needed a 13 to succeed).
I understand that opposed rolls don't work out exactly this way mathematically (using a 10 as I did above). However opposed rolls leave the player with the perception that they can get lucky and succeed (which is true). My player new he was going up against a static DC and when his 16 failed he said "Well, I'm not trying that again."
The Improved maneuver feats should grant a +4 bonus.
No, they shouldn't. They would be far better then their D&D 3.5 variants. The reason is this:
In D&D 3.5 both parties roll a d20. The difference between the two die results can vary from -19 to +19 for a total span of 39 different results. In Pathfinder only one party rolls a die, the other party has a static value. The possible results are from 1 to 20, for a total span of 20 different results.
A +2 bonus on a span of 20 different results has about the same effect as a +4 bonus on a span of 39 different results, as you will surely agree.
Had they kept the Improved feats at +4, their influence on the result would actually have been doubled.
The Improved maneuver feats should grant a +4 bonus.No, they shouldn't. They would be far better then their D&D 3.5 variants. The reason is this:
In D&D 3.5 both parties roll a d20. The difference between the two die results can vary from -19 to +19 for a total span of 39 different results. In Pathfinder only one party rolls a die, the other party has a static value. The possible results are from 1 to 20, for a total span of 20 different results.
A +2 bonus on a span of 20 different results has about the same effect as a +4 bonus on a span of 39 different results, as you will surely agree.
Had they kept the Improved feats at +4, their influence on the result would actually have been doubled.
Well, then how about +3, to make up for the fact that it's 15+ as opposed to 10+?
Well, then how about +3, to make up for the fact that it's 15+ as opposed to 10+?
That would be fair I guess.
some bad math
Sorry people, I botched my math on that one I'll have to get back to it. I tried to take a short cut and got lost.
I'll try again soon...
|
|
So I've heard a lot of both sides and are we kinda decided on the 15 base is too high?
DC 15 is based on the assumption that it is at least 25% harder to disarm, trip, grapple, bull rush etc, a naked average opponent that it is to hit him (see base armor class = "DC" 10).
If you and your players like tactical combat, put the base DC down to 10. That means that half of the time, your attempt to bull rush the same flatfooted naked opponent will succeed. Bear in mind that big bad monsters with high BAB and STR will benefit more from the lower DC than the party. Hilarity and frequent Swallow Wholes will ensue. :-)
Zaister,
I see where you're coming from with the +2 to static DCs, but this is a bonus that is being applied to a relatively infrequently used maneuver. Many monsters can't be disarmed or sundered at all since they don't use weapons. Some can't be tripped (oozes, perfect fliers, swarms, etc), and quite a few are just so large and strong that the maneuvers have little chance of success. So I feel like these feats should provide a large bonus to their maneuver. If the DC were lowered to 11+CMB I might be convinced that you were right, but even then I'm on the fence. +3 might work.
Locworks,
IMO there will be no more swallow wholes than there were under 3.5. Lowering the CMB DC to 11+CMB also lowers the DC for the escape check of the swallowing monster's victims. This is on top of the change to size modifiers which is much greater than the 4 pt difference we're talking here. So the fighters have a better chance of actually breaking free, the rogues have a better chance of escape artisting out, before they are actually swallowed. Plus grappling does not provide the same restrictions on spellcasting that it did under 3.5. A grappled Spellcaster needs only a DC 15+ spell level Spellcraft check to cast any spell (no restrictions on components as with 3.5 grapple). Even pinned this is the same DC they would need to cast a verbal only spell, like dimension door.
... both were unarmed (the higher level barbarian had used a thrown weapon the preceeding round), so no AoOs were happening at all.
... the 6th level barbarian would have needed to roll a 2 to succeed on the touch attack (+11 vs. AC 12) and then would have needed to succeed at an opposed check of +11 versus +14.
...
O.K. I re-did my math (3 times for good measure), sorry again.
To line up with the more details you gave, success would be 30% for 3.5 (considering a 5% fail chance on the touch attack, and that you must beat the opponents not just equal it) vs the 15% of the CMB, so I concede that in that specific case 3.5 would have been better. But the presence of even an Improvised or Natural weapon could have changed the chances drastically.
I would still argue that compared with the facts that in 3.5, A successful AoO would cancel both Grapple and Disarm, that you must roll above your opponent, that a failure in Disarm, Overrun and Trip come with a free-risk-free retaliation from the target and that Sunder did nothing until you had fully destroyed a potentially valuable item; the DC 15+ manoeuvre attempts MAY be harder in some cases but you can try again easily and unless you have a very-bad roll you don’t end up prone or disarmed.
The simpler system and lack (almost) of side effect made a major change on my games for the better, the players go for it, take the AoO if applicable and try again the next round. It's one roll instead of a string of "maybes and ifs".
I agree that some clarifications are required regarding what bonuses and condition apply to a CMB (ex.: Bless?) and that some “grabby” monsters need a bonus (possibly with the Improved Grab ability giving a bonus or using the original size mod. if they have it) but the 15+ DC still seems to do the job for us.
Edit: I do like the +3 option for Improved manoeuvre feats.
Bear in mind that big bad monsters with high BAB and STR will benefit more from the lower DC than the party. Hilarity and frequent Swallow Wholes will ensue. :-)
Right, but that's why monsters like the behir or the tendriculos currently have a (relatively) high CR. If you nerf their Swallow Whole ability, they become chumps just like the giant octopus.
|
|
Bear in mind that big bad monsters with high BAB and STR will benefit more from the lower DC than the party. Hilarity and frequent Swallow Wholes will ensue. :-)Right, but that's why monsters like the behir or the tendriculos currently have a (relatively) high CR. If you nerf their Swallow Whole ability, they become chumps just like the giant octopus.
Not quite sure I see what you mean.
The behir's base CMB would be 19 (BAB (+9) + STR (+8) + Size (+2))
DC 15
The 8th level Wizard with STR 10 has a CMB of 4, so he is grappled on a roll of 2 (DC=15+4=19)
The 8th level Fighter with STR 18 has a CMB of 12, so he is grappled on a roll of 8. (DC=15+12=27)
DC 10
The 8th level Wizard with STR 10 has a CMB of 4, so he is grappled on a roll of 2.
The 8th level Fighter with STR 18 has a CMB of 12, so he is grappled on a roll of 3.
It looks like the behir is an interesting proposition.
The octopus is weaker and has lower BAB, but with 8 attacks + normal damage + grapple attempts + constrict damage (+ pulling the victim underwater), it's not too bad either.
Right, but that's why monsters like the behir or the tendriculos currently have a (relatively) high CR. If you nerf their Swallow Whole ability, they become chumps just like the giant octopus.Not quite sure I see what you mean.
The behir's base CMB would be 19 (BAB (+9) + STR (+8) + Size (+2))
DC 15
The 8th level Wizard with STR 10 has a CMB of 4, so he is grappled on a roll of 2 (DC=15+4=19)
The 8th level Fighter with STR 18 has a CMB of 12, so he is grappled on a roll of 8. (DC=15+12=27)DC 10
The 8th level Wizard with STR 10 has a CMB of 4, so he is grappled on a roll of 2.
The 8th level Fighter with STR 18 has a CMB of 12, so he is grappled on a roll of 3.It looks like the behir is an interesting proposition.
I'm just saying the 3.5 version of the behir has a grapple check of +25 vs. the fighter's +12; this equates to a 93% chance of success for the behir. You can't lower that to a 65% chance of success and expect the behir to have the same CR.
Similarly, the 3.5 behir has a good chance (~50%) of grappling the wizard while remaining ungrappled itself (by taking a -20 on the grapple check), but has a 5% chance of doing so in Pathfinder.
...Have you considered how any monster that is 'good' at something like grappling would need a +5 modifier over the opponent to have a 50/50 chance of sucess would have DC of 20 over the opponent to be grappled back?...
My experience is that most monster with the Improved Grab + Constrict + Reach Combo end up being under-rated in CR.
I had a near TPK with a full health 11th level party of four being surprised by 3 Giant Constrictor Snakes (CR7, EL:+/-10) and they didn't roll crapy and weren't to unbalanced as a party.But that's just my experience.
Slime,
Thanks for taking the time to do the math.
Part of my problem is also player perception beyond the numbers. My barbarian player saw that he had an opportunity to grapple because he found his foe unarmed after making a thrown weapon attack. He recognized that there was not going to be an AoO. He thought while raging that he would have the edge in strength (and did 20 to 14) and this would at least bring him close to on par with his target. When he rolled a 16 he thought for sure he'd started a grapple. When I told him it was not so, there was a clear 'Well, I'll never try that again' moment.
The problem is increased by Pathfinder's CR system for classed characters. This was a challenging encounter for the party (APL +2) but in 3.5 it would have been considered an overwhelming encounter (APL +4). If I ran it as a challenging encounter under 3.5 the enemy would have been two levels lower and the 16 the player rolled would have been a success. I think the Pathfinder CR rules for classed npcs are a big improvement over 3.5, but they still exacerbate this issue since all classed npcs foes are likely to be two levels higher than they would have been under 3.5.
I doubt the AoO really makes much of a difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder since even in Pathfinder the AoO affects the success of the grapple attempt. If the enemy had taken an AoO and hit the barbarian the damage would have been added to the DC of the CMB check. So if he did 3 pts of damage the barbarian player couldn't have grappled him even on with a roll of natural 20 (and the enemy had a minimum damage of 3).
It just seems all around to me that it being a lower DC would be better for the game (including for giant swallowing creatures).
EDIT: This just made me wonder, do CMB checks have auto succeess on a 20 and auto-failure on a 1?
...Part of my problem is also player perception beyond the numbers......The problem is increased by Pathfinder's CR system for classed characters. ...
...If the enemy had taken an AoO and hit the barbarian the damage would have been added to the DC of the CMB check. So if he did 3 pts of damage the barbarian player couldn't have grappled him even on with a roll of natural 20 (and the enemy had a minimum damage of 3)...
...do CMB checks have auto succeess on a 20 and auto-failure on a 1?
I sure understand the "I won't try that again" moments and I had them A LOT for 3.5, I think the change of system alone helped our group.
I haven't played with the new CR system so I can't pass judgement but I can understand your troubles with it.
I couln't find the part about AoO hit adding to the DC, where is it? Is it in Alpha 3.
In Alpha 3 20 is auto-succes and 1 is auto-fail.
I'll think about what has been said around here. And thanks for the friendly exchange, the last thing I wanted was to get into a post-war like we see to much around these days.
Slime, no problem. Your posts have been well reasoned and clearly extend from experience with the new rules. You've given me a lot to consider (including the possibility that I'm flat wrong).
On page 77 of release 3, under Performing a Combat Maneuver:
'Unless otherwise stated, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, add the damage to the DC to perform the maneuver.'
This even further slants things in my mind. This combined with the base difficulty of 15 makes success against another humanoid of similar strength and ability highly unlikely.
|
|
I'm just saying the 3.5 version of the behir has a grapple check of +25 vs. the fighter's +12; this equates to a 93% chance of success for the behir. You can't lower that to a 65% chance of success and expect the behir to have the same CR.
I'm not sure that should warrant a CR change. On two attacks out of three, he will get his tin can and open (rake) it.
Similarly, the 3.5 behir has a good chance (~50%) of grappling the wizard while remaining ungrappled itself (by taking a -20 on the grapple check), but has a 5% chance of doing so in Pathfinder.
On the next round, the wizard is swallowed, so the grapple stops anyway. But you definitely highlighted the need to look at Improved Grab and to adapt it to the new CM rules.
|
|
[...] If you are hit by the target, add the damage to the DC to perform the maneuver.'
This even further slants things in my mind. This combined with the base difficulty of 15 makes success against another humanoid of similar strength and ability highly unlikely.
In 3.5, the AoO automatically stops the maneuver. In that respect Alpha 3 is more generous.
Not by much. Effectively the Alpha 3 DCs are so high already that increasing the DC via AoO damage is virtually the same as negating the attack altogether. (As in my example, the minimum possible damage made the CMB DC impossible to achieve).
|
|
Arne, I'm not sure we should be taking CR into the account. It should be applied at party level, not at the level of each party member.
The 6th level barbarian would have needed a roll of 15 to grapple his own clone.
In the example you mentioned, he went for a 10th level fighter (or barbarian?). As far as I am concerned, he was batting way out of his league, as he would have been in any system where you go against an opponent with nearly double your levels.
I've brought this up before, but I'll re-itierate my own example of why DC 15+ is too high.
In our playtest, we're doing RotRLs, and are currently in Fortress of the Stone Giants. There are dire bears in this adventure. Dire bears (CR 7) that have improved grab and a CMB score of 20. One of the players is a dwarf barbarian 10. The Dwarf was enlarged and raging. His CMB was 18. He was grabbed (pretty easily), and then he couldn't escape. He was shooting for a 17 or better to break a critter three CR's-below-the-party-average's grapple, with the best strength in the party, the size bonus, and a solid base attack bonus. He was the best equipped in the party to resist grapples. And he couldn't do it. I think with the odds so stacked against players (since monster HD, size, and strength climb faster than CR), the dc should be dropped to 10+. Otherwise, the defensive CMB feat will become pretty much mandatory for every character.
Arne, I'm not sure we should be taking CR into the account. It should be applied at party level, not at the level of each party member.
The 6th level barbarian would have needed a roll of 15 to grapple his own clone.
In the example you mentioned, he went for a 10th level fighter (or barbarian?). As far as I am concerned, he was batting way out of his league, as he would have been in any system where you go against an opponent with nearly double your levels.
I was applying it at the party level. The Barbarian was in a party of 5 sixth level characters. For them a 10th level barbarian is only EL 8 (lower actually because there were 5 of them). Challenging, but certainly not overwhelming. If the barbarian had been level 8 he would have been an EL 6 encounter, a standard encounter for a party of four 6th level characters. And my barbarian would still have needed to roll a 16 to grapple him (18 if the enemy barbarian had been raging).
I think it's relevant that the CR system has been altered such that encounters with higher level characters are going to be happening more frequently. In 3.5 a CR appropriate challenge was one npc of the player's level. Now its two of the player's level or one npc 2 levels higher.
|
|
I've brought this up before, but I'll re-itierate my own example of why DC 15+ is too high.
I have the feeling that the issue here is the DC for escaping the grapple DC, not to resist the attack.
The dire bear has a CMB of 20 and needed a 13 to start the grapple.
If you lower the DC across the board, it will grapple on an 8.
|
|
The 10th level barbarian is an APL+2 encounter for a level 6 party. It's a "hard" encounter.
I am not sure how a Hard encounter maps to the DMG definitions, but I'm guessing that Hard = Very Difficult:
DMG p. 90.
Very Difficult: One PC might very well die. The Encounter Level
is higher than the party level. This sort of encounter may be more
dangerous than an overpowering one, because it's not immediately
obvious to the players that the PCs should flee.
That sounds about right. :-)
|
|
I think it's relevant that the CR system has been altered such that encounters with higher level characters are going to be happening more frequently. In 3.5 a CR appropriate challenge was one npc of the player's level. Now its two of the player's level or one npc 2 levels higher.
Your encounter had a classed NPC with 4 more levels than the APL. Not an appropriate challenge, methinks.
I think it's relevant that the CR system has been altered such that encounters with higher level characters are going to be happening more frequently. In 3.5 a CR appropriate challenge was one npc of the player's level. Now its two of the player's level or one npc 2 levels higher.Your encounter had a classed NPC with 4 more levels than the APL. Not an appropriate challenge, methinks.
There were 5 PCs and this was their only encounter the entire day. It was completely appropriate and was in fact a relatively easy battle for them. The DMG guidelines are just that, in the end the DM has to assess abilities and circumstances to determine appropriateness.
Yes, it would be a better test if they had been the same level, but that's not how it happened and I don't want to report from fictional experience.
I know the idea is that it should be harder to perform a combat maneuver against someone than to just hit them outright, but even at DC 11+CMB in most cases this will still be true. The only problem I see is at low levels where it might be easier to perform a CMB than to straight attack someone (because AC will be higher than CMB DC). I'd actually be fine setting a minimum difficulty for the success of any CMB (say 15). So the DC would be 11+CMB or 15 whichever is higher.
The penalties for a successful combat maneuver are in many cases less severe than they were in 3.5. Grappling does not prevent spellcasting anymore. Improved trip does not grant a free attack anymore. So successful maneuvers pay off less and are harder to achieve under Pathfinder. The system is definitely easier to use which is great, but I think ultimately it will not be used by PCs because it's too hard to succeed and the rewards are not great enough.
The more I think about it, based on my example above, the more I think a return to opposed checks is the way to go; maybe straight CMB vs. CMB.
The advantage to this is not mathematical, it is in player perception. If my player had failed an opposed check with a 16 he might very well have assume that the enemy also rolled well. It doesn't give away the fact that the DC is so high like a static DC does. In other words the player won't know for sure that a 16 is always a failure against this foe. So he might try again in the hopes of getting lucky.
|
Agreed, also the high DC hurts BWC, and I can prove it.
In 3.5 I curently have a wizard 3/Bard 1 he uses a whip and often trips enemies then lets his familiar run in and deliver touch spells while they don't threaten AoOs. In Pathfinder this character concept is completely useless due to the fact that most creatures we fight (despite being humanoid) are to high in CMB, yeah great I can trip other wizards, but my character concept is completely lost, even improved trip won't help since all it does is give me a slight bump.
|
|
Str 16
Dex 9
(I rolled iron man)The BAB is hitting you badly.
I'm wondering if within the new system, using the right weapon for the job would not grant a +2 bonus to the CM check. The whip would also gain a +4 to disarm rolls. It's in house-rule territory, of course, but worth a try.
The whip provides a +4 bonus to trip in 3.5?