|
A friend of mine indicated that he had heard/read that Paizo is planning to ditch the CMB system/concept with the Beta Release.
Anyone have any news/info to support or deny this?
I do know that they are intent on remvoing "combat feats" system; so I'm wondering if he's just confused this with that.
I'd like to say that as a whole, I really thoroughly like the CMB system - perhaps not all the specific numbers involved exactly as written; but I do think the concept is wonderful.
Playtesting reveals that it's seamless and easy to do - instead of so many opposed rolls and counter rolls of the dice.
Thanks for any info,
Robert
|
|
I hope CMB (or something like it) stays too. It's not quite as elegant as opposed base attack checks from Arcana Evolved, but it's definitely a bit faster. I think that the base DC either needs to be set to 10 + CMB, or the "Improved Maneuver" feats all need to go back to giving their +4. It's just too hard to do maneuvers effectively right now against equivalent-level enemies.
Jeremy Puckett
|
|
but it's definitely a bit faster. I think that the base DC either needs to be set to 10 + CMB, or the "Improved Maneuver" feats all need to go back to giving their +4. It's just too hard to do maneuvers effectively right now against equivalent-level enemies.
Jeremy Puckett
I agree completely. I've argued this point a number of times. We've playtested 15 and 10 and 15 was just too difficult in most cases - even for creatures with superior capabilities and odds.
Robert
good to hear the CMB isnt going anywhere, i like the mechanic and does speed up things a bit. though i do wonder if perhaps a base of 15 is a bit high, gonna take some more playtesting with my group to figure that one out. got a player who designed his monk to be a grappler, who holds the enemies while the rest of the group beats the guy he's holding :p
Yeah... um no.. CMB is not going anywhere.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Not even straight to the top? I find that very hard to believe.
Excellent point Argamae. I also like this more open mechanic. With a little creativity it can also be used for things like pulling the rug out from under someone, yanking a curtain down over their head, pushing a statue over on someone, hitting them with a chandelier whose rope you've just cut, and so forth.
I do however think the current DC is too high. I'll be using a DC of 11+CMB for my games.
I think CMB is a good element to help speed along the flow of the game.
The DC needs to be reduced to between 10 to 12. (Especially so, when considering all the different maneuver bonuses are now +2).
CMB is the one thing that I am taking straight to my game without any adjustments. Though our group didn't like the pathfinder races and classes at all, everyone was strongly in favour of CMB.
... the more open mechanic of the CMB allows for more creativity for the players. Before, I got the impression that D&D always facilitated maneuvers that were 'officially allowed", nudging players towards a "adjust-the-situation-to-fit-a-certain-maneuver" instead of the much more creative "think-of-a-maneuver-that-best-fits-the-situation" attitude. GMs can easily adjust the CMB requirements for a creative maneuver the player comes up with instead of telling him "no can do".
At least that is the way I see the possibilities.
Perfectly put, it's the way I see it too. Iron Heroes also gives a lot of freedom and stimulates players to think of interesting maneuvers, but the rules are a bit clunky. Now, with CMB (and some skill tests to not leave every maneuver with the same bonus) it's gotten simpler and faster. Thumbs up for CMB... with 15 DC.
Now.. Jason.. what about those 4 skill points for the sorcerer, uh?
lol.. just kidding, I don't wanna change topics
good to hear the CMB isnt going anywhere, i like the mechanic and does speed up things a bit. though i do wonder if perhaps a base of 15 is a bit high, gonna take some more playtesting with my group to figure that one out. got a player who designed his monk to be a grappler, who holds the enemies while the rest of the group beats the guy he's holding :p
That right there is an amazingly effective tactic. In the last campaign I ran, my players had the same racket going. At 3rd level they managed to lay the smacketh down on a young topaz dragon who clocked in at +4 CR.
Thumbs up for CMB... with 15 DC.
I agree. And I think 15 is fine. Keep in mind that you're not just swinging a sword at an entire BODY, you're swinging at a specific part of the body for a specific result. It SHOULD be much tougher to do.
The only difference I would make is to sunder. Sundering a weapon would give a -2 penalty to hit and damage while sundering armor would cause a -2 penalty to AC and skill checks. They can't be completely broken, but they regenerate automatically over a 10 minute period (still useful in combat, but doesn't completely bone the user).
good to hear the CMB isnt going anywhere, i like the mechanic and does speed up things a bit. though i do wonder if perhaps a base of 15 is a bit high, gonna take some more playtesting with my group to figure that one out. got a player who designed his monk to be a grappler, who holds the enemies while the rest of the group beats the guy he's holding :p
Not only is the DC fairly high, but the bonus for Large size and Improved Grapple are lower. And, more importantly, under the current Pathfinder rules the penalty for being grappled (as opposed to pinned) is much less severe. For instance, a grappled opponent can still make a full attack against any target within reach with any natural or one-handed weapons he has (albeit with a -2 penalty).
Not only is the DC fairly high, but the bonus for Large size and Improved Grapple are lower.
Plus grapple now needs a standard action. It takes at least two rounds to get anyone pinned. Pity, it would be nice to see grapple-trip-pin specialists. Possibly too effective but nice, nonetheless :)
Has the following phrase from page 77 been clarified anywhere?
"When you perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll adding your CMB to the result plus any bonuses you might have due to specific feats or abilities."
When I initially read this I believed the roll to be "1d20 + CMB". With reference to "attack roll", does this mean that I am rolling: "1d20 + BAB + STR MOD + CMB". (A doubling of effects?)
Good to hear that CMB is sticking around; I think there are a couple more things that could stand to be integrated with CMB (like tumble DCs to avoid AoO's).
One suggestion I'd like to make, and this is a good a place as any - encourage players to write down their 'defensive CMB' or 'CMBAC', whether that's 10+blah, 11+blah, or 15+blah. It speeds things up to have a precalculated target.
The DC 15 is too high, and I'll tell you why.
If I want to hit an opponent with a +4 modifier to his CMB (pretty low level) and I have a +8 CMB (Either really high for low level or 4-6 level) I still need to roll at least an 11 to hit. Thats a pretty big gap between levels.
I would not think that a close to 50% chance to execute a maneuver which potentially harms or disadvantages an opponent is too high.
Let's look at this from the perspective of a first level character.
Your typical, medium sized opponent with STR 12-13 might have a +2 CMB (from BAB and STR) - this already beats most low-level monsters like Goblins and the like, which tend to have even lower CMBs. So you need to roll a (15+2=)17 to make your maneuver work. Let's say you are of a combative class with a good BAB progression and a decent above normal STR (12+). Note: most characters who intend to make frequent use of the CMB would likely have higher STR scores.
This gives you a 25% chance to succeed - which is 1 out of 4. I honestly don't think that this is too high. Just imagine: if the chances were significantly higher, everbody would disarm the opponents in round 1 and finish them off in round 2. Okay, maybe I exaggerate, but using a CMB should not become standard tactic. I hope you catch my drift...
Thing is, if we strive for balance between Melee classes and Casters we should make CMs easier to pull off. A 1st level Wizard with an intelligence of 18 makes the opponent make a DC 15 check to not be put to sleep, tripped, charmed or lose their reach advantage (Sleep, Grease, Charm Person, Reduce Person). Most CR 1-3 monsters have at least one low save that would mean they have to roll a 13 or 14.
I love the CMB system, with one exception.
I miss the "make a Touch Attack to hit your target" step. This helped to prevent high-Dex opponents from getting hit with Grapple/Trip in the first place. The CMB system gives no credit to most characters that are hard to touch in the first place.
Pinning a weasel that you're grappling should be easy. Grabbing the weasel in the first place should be much harder.
-Scott
I think CMB is a good element to help speed along the flow of the game.
The DC needs to be reduced to between 10 to 12. (Especially so, when considering all the different maneuver bonuses are now +2).
Would that be an 11?
CMB is the one thing that I am taking straight to my game without any adjustments. Though our group didn't like the pathfinder races and classes at all, everyone was strongly in favour of CMB.
Your group doesn't like pathfinder's races or classes at all? What, the +2 to any attribute for humans and half-elves too vastly overpowered? OK, I'll concede that I believe half-orcs seem a little weird with a +2 to Wisdom. However, the class changes were awesome. Unless you prefer havinf 19 dead levels to sorcerer.
in response to Samuli
YEAH!!! Like a Judo or Aikido version of the reaping mauler prestige class. Samuli, you are onto something big. I can smell it from here. It smells like napalmed DM. Love it baby!
I love the CMB system, with one exception.
I miss the "make a Touch Attack to hit your target" step. This helped to prevent high-Dex opponents from getting hit with Grapple/Trip in the first place. The CMB system gives no credit to most characters that are hard to touch in the first place.
Pinning a weasel that you're grappling should be easy. Grabbing the weasel in the first place should be much harder.
-Scott
What the hell kind of campaign are you guys playing where you grab and pin weasels? Got an opening?
The 15 DC is a boost to defenders, and anyone who tries to excel at offensive CMB is boosting their defence and so their CMB DC is also getting ridiculously high.
Right; if character A somehow gets to the point where he can successfully grapple character B 60% of the time, that necessarily entails that character B cannot possibly escape the grapple with a CMB check (since B's CMB is 6 lower than A's). All he can do is wait and hope that character A fails one of his grapple checks!
Just a quick vote for keeping the CMB DCs as they are. We've not had any problem with them in our playtests. Any lowering of the DCs will lead to combat-crazy-awesome in a bad way!
As a compromise between the groups though, the bonus offered by the 'improved X' feats could be increased. +3 would be a little fairer than +2 for a whole feat's worth o' spendin'.
Peace,
tfad
Thanks Hogarth. I hear people asking for DC 10 to 12 base CMB all over the forum but when I start mentioning it feels like they're all left. lol.
Just for the record, I prefer the 3.5 grapple/trip/disarm/sunder/bull rush rules as they are, warts and all.
Had no issue with DC of 15 here...I do like to CMB rules
Agree 100% with Brit O. (Admittedly, I haven't playtested yet, but hope to in the next couple weeks.)
In 3.5 combat maneuvers didn't get heavy use in my group unless you specialized in them. Now, if you told me the other guy was always going to roll a 15, I wouldn't try to use them without a feat against any full BAB class or monster.
Here, we've not only assumed the 15, but also reduced the bonuses from the feats, making things even worse. When a character with a full BAB goes up against something else with a full BAB, he should at least have no worse chance to succeed than under 3.5 rules, which would mean assuming the average d20 roll of 11. I mean, was disarming and tripping running rampant in anyone elses game? (excluding characters whose entire game plan was to do one maneuver in combat)
In short then, if a 50% success rate for equally matched opponent was not unbalancing in 3.5, it won't be in PF -- so the number should be +11.
To be honest, I don't have a big problem with a base DC 15+CMB for disarm/trip/overrun/bullrush. But using that DC for grapple just seems wrong to me, somehow.
Suppose a crocodile (CMB +6) is trying to grapple Joe the 1st level cleric (CMB +1). On the crocodile's first turn, Joe puts up enough of a struggle that he has a 45% chance of escaping. But when it's Joe's turn and he actively tries to escape, suddenly he has a 5% chance of breaking free! (I'm assuming that Joe's armor check penalty makes it unfeasible to wriggle loose using Escape Artist.) Then it's the crocodile's turn again and he has a 20% chance of breaking free again. Why is it so much easier for him to escape when he doesn't do anything?
|
|
To be honest, I don't have a big problem with a base DC 15+CMB for disarm/trip/overrun/bullrush. But using that DC for grapple just seems wrong to me, somehow.
Suppose a crocodile (CMB +6) is trying to grapple Joe the 1st level cleric (CMB +1). On the crocodile's first turn, Joe puts up enough of a struggle that he has a 45% chance of escaping. But when it's Joe's turn and he actively tries to escape, suddenly he has a 5% chance of breaking free! (I'm assuming that Joe's armor check penalty makes it unfeasible to wriggle loose using Escape Artist.) Then it's the crocodile's turn again and he has a 20% chance of breaking free again. Why is it so much easier for him to escape when he doesn't do anything?
This is an interesting point. One of the ideas of Pathfinder's grapple system is that it is supposed to make grappling a less powerful option; if anything, though, it's actually gotten moreso, I think.
Take the same hypothetical combat in 3.5. If we assume Joe has a Dex bonus of +1, the crocodile has an 80% chance of grabbing Joe, and then (very roughly) a 65% chance of winning the subsequent grapple check. Together, that means that a 3.5 crocodile has only a slightly better than 50% chance of actually achieving the grapple. In Pathfinder, it has a 55% chance - so we're right about where we should be.
On subsequent turns, though, the crocodile continues to only have a 65% chance of winning the grapple check, and will probably have to make two a round - so the odds of it getting through an entire round while still holding onto its prey are somewhere in the neighborhood of 42%. By contrast, the Pathfinder crocodile only has a 20% chance of failing the second grapple check and Joe only a 5% chance of succeeding on his, for a net probability of 76% that the crocodile will still have Joe in its clutches when its next turn comes around. That's nearly twice as much as the 3.5 crocodile's odds!
Take the same hypothetical combat in 3.5. If we assume Joe has a Dex bonus of +1, the crocodile has an 80% chance of grabbing Joe, and then (very roughly) a 65% chance of winning the subsequent grapple check. Together, that means that a 3.5 crocodile has only a slightly better than 50% chance of actually achieving the grapple. In Pathfinder, it has a 55% chance - so we're right about where we should be.
On subsequent turns, though, the crocodile continues to only have a 65% chance of winning the grapple check, and will probably have to make two a round - so the odds of it getting through an entire round while still holding onto its prey are somewhere in the neighborhood of 42%. By contrast, the Pathfinder crocodile only has a 20% chance of failing the second grapple check and Joe only a 5% chance of succeeding on his, for a net probability of 76% that the crocodile will still have Joe in its clutches when its next turn comes around. That's nearly twice as much as the 3.5 crocodile's odds!
But in 3.5, if you fail a grapple check that doesn't end the grapple. In fact, the grapple will continue even if you do other things like casting a spell. So the grapple will never end unless Joe actively tries to break free; attempting to break free has a 26.25% chance of succeeding. In Pathfinder, Joe has a 20% chance of breaking free if he does nothing at all.
However, it should be noted that it's much easier in Pathfinder to have no possibility of escape from a grapple; if your opponent's CMB is 10 higher than yours and he succeeds on his first grapple check, then he'll never fail another check and you'll never be able to break free. In 3.5 your enemy needs a grapple modifier 20 higher than yours to guarantee that you'll be unable to escape.
|
|
Good point about the failed grapple check not ending the grapple. I'd forgotten about that (long-ago houserule on my part, to weaken grappling overall). That does change the picture somewhat.
However, it should be noted that it's much easier in Pathfinder to have no possibility of escape from a grapple; if your opponent's CMB is 10 higher than yours and he succeeds on his first grapple check, then he'll never fail another check and you'll never be able to break free. In 3.5 your enemy needs a grapple modifier 20 higher than yours to guarantee that you'll be unable to escape.
Actually, Pathfinder will never allow you to have an unbreakable grapple. Combat maneuver checks always succeed on a 20, and always fail on a 1. Every grapple has at least a slightly less than 10% chance of ending on any given round.
Actually, Pathfinder will never allow you to have an unbreakable grapple. Combat maneuver checks always succeed on a 20, and always fail on a 1. Every grapple has at least a slightly less than 10% chance of ending on any given round.
I missed that part. That does make a little difference.
|
|
I think that the base DC either needs to be set to 10 + CMB, or the "Improved Maneuver" feats all need to go back to giving their +4. It's just too hard to do maneuvers effectively right now against equivalent-level enemies.
I agree. We have playtested both of these solutions now and the Base DC of 10 was easier for the DM and players alike, but raising the bonus of the "Improved X" feats to +4 made the players feel better for taking the feat, despite the math working less in their favor this way.
I would support either change though.
15 is too much. I haven't done any math to support this but my gut tells me 12 would be best.
I did the math and your gut is pretty right on, assuming we want odds very close or slightly under the 3.5 odds.
I've been using 11 and with good results. I also changed the size mods to...
Fine –16, Diminutive –8, Tiny –4, Small –2
Medium +0
Large +2, Huge +4, Gargantuan +8, Colossal +16