|
I may be in the minoroty, but I really liked the 3.5 grapple. My group did not have any probles with it at all. Last night was my second playtest with the new rules. I had a blast, but one thing that hit us is the fact that the attack roll was taken out of trip, grapple, et all. This brought up a problem. Your defense has nothing to do with getting away before the opponent could grab you. We came up with a case, where an ogre can grapple a pixie anytime, withour problem (Concidering the size bonus) regardless of the speed or ac of the pixie.
With the old grapple and trip, the initial attack roll, allowed a character to try to defend. In the curent system, my elf's expertise, and fighting defensivley, and magic dodge stuff, does not help me avoid getting grabbed at all.
I would like to see the initial touch attack back to start one of these manuvers (Trip and grapple). Then the CMB works fine.
For grapple, I think you should only be able to male one grapple check a turn. I see no reason why you can't use a light weapon, either. If you don't have it, an opposed grapple check to draw it. You should still need a grapple check to damage with the weapon, rather than a standard attack roll. You are using it in a different way, so the normal rules don't apply. Having it just allows you to use the weapon damage rather than you unarmed. Also another option could be to take the opponents light weapon with a grapple. Sure you can get out your +5 flaming dagger while being grapples by the wrestler, but he can just as easily pull it from you, and start using it on you. So here is a suggestion.
Trips and grapples need an initial attack roll, touch attack. If you make it you can automatically make your CMB check to engage the grapple, or attempt to trip.
with a grapple if you are successful, you are grappling. If you are already grappling, you can with a CMB roll:
Cause unarmed damage or damage from a light weapon
Move opponent
Pin opponent
grab light weapon from opponent
Draw light weapon
Break the grapple (if the opponent does not wish to continue this succeeds automatically)
One thing that was changed, I think should go back. When you grapple an opponent you should move them into the your square (or if the are a size bigger then you, you move into thier square. You would give eachother cover (-4) so anyone attacking either grappler has a chance to hit the other one. The exception would be if one is pinned, outsiders can make attacks on the pinned opponent with no change of hitting the non pinned one, if they so choose.
Note there is no distinction between being grappled, or being the grappler, unless one of you gets a pin. You both have the grappled condition. This is consitant with grappling in the real world as far as I have seen it, once you get in it, it goes to the better grappler, no matter who started it.
Well, just my opinions. We had a BLAST, and I will definatley be picking it up, one the games comes out, unless the beta has a lot more negative changes.
So to summarize...
Noretoc is saying that after really playing the game...
That grapple as it is written now does not take into account the fact that extreme small and fast (high Dex) opponents might be difficult to grab ('touch') in the first place.
They might be easy to grapple once you have your hands on them, but there's nothing in place to take into account that they're hard to touch in the first place.
The example of the Ogre and the Pixie is apt. I have no doubt an Ogre can pin a pixie down with no effort. I do wonder if an Ogre can actually catch the pixie in the first place if it is determined to flee.
Noretoc recommends putting the touch attack back in, and then taking the described CMB version grapple as it is currently written..
I will try to test Grapple as it is written now this Tuesday, and get feedback on whether the players feel they feel there should be a touch attack in place first.
|
Noretoc recommends putting the touch attack back in, and then taking the described CMB version grapple as it is currently written..
I am loathe to see the multiple rolls come back.
What if the combat maneuvers that are made as part of attack actions (disarm, grapple, sunder, trip) had an additional requirement for success: rather than needing to equal or exceed the target's 15+CMB, they must do so and also meet or exceed the target's touch AC? That would allow for at least a small amount of additional protection to be available to small or fast creatures, without greatly slowing down the maneuver resolution.
Incidentally, an ogre (unarmed attack +8) only has a 35% chance to miss a pixie (touch AC 16), even under 3.5 rules...
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I don't know how much of an issue this actually is. Working further with the pixie example, I think you can make a very strong case for the idea that any creature that gets Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat (or an equivalent ability, such as a familiar's ability to always use Dex instead of Str for attack rolls if it chooses) should similarly gain Agile Maneuvers as a bonus feat or effect. That would give the pixie a CMB of +3, for a total of 18 - a grappling ogre, CMB +9, would have a 45% of failure, which is actually worse than in 3.5 edition.
For builds that heavily emphasize dodge-based AC bonuses, there might be a problem, but overall, I don't think the difference is actually that great between the two systems. Perhaps the DC of CMB checks should be increased by dodge bonuses to AC as well? Would that resolve the problem?
I am loathe to see the multiple rolls come back.What if the combat maneuvers that are made as part of attack actions (disarm, grapple, sunder, trip) had an additional requirement for success: rather than needing to equal or exceed the target's 15+CMB, they must do so and also meet or exceed the target's touch AC? That would allow for at least a small amount of additional protection to be available to small or fast creatures, without greatly slowing down the maneuver resolution.
Incidentally, an ogre (unarmed attack +8) only has a 35% chance to miss a pixie (touch AC 16), even under 3.5 rules...
I take your point. Though, I didn't intend for the Ogre and the Pixie to be a literal basis of the argument, merely that small opponents who are quite fast aren't having those factors considered in the equation.
But again, I see your point. If we add in every variable and the process becomes complex again, and we don't accomplish the design goal.
I am going to resist offering any answer though. I'm not referring to you Shisumo, but there's a lot of "hey, try this way that I devised" happening on the boards. I don't want to add to it.
I plan on testing Jason's current Alpha 3 Grapple, and see if the players like it or if they scream bloody murder. Then I'll see if the OP's point holds up.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I don't know how much of an issue this actually is. Working further with the pixie example, I think you can make a very strong case for the idea that any creature that gets Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat (or an equivalent ability, such as a familiar's ability to always use Dex instead of Str for attack rolls if it chooses) should similarly gain Agile Maneuvers as a bonus feat or effect. That would give the pixie a CMB of +3, for a total of 18 - a grappling ogre, CMB +9, would have a 45% of failure, which is actually worse than in 3.5 edition.
For builds that heavily emphasize dodge-based AC bonuses, there might be a problem, but overall, I don't think the difference is actually that great between the two systems. Perhaps the DC of CMB checks should be increased by dodge bonuses to AC as well? Would that resolve the problem?
That's a good idea about giving small fast creatures Agile Manuevers as a bonus feat. That puts the "fix" in a future monster book rather than the core rules. It certainly does something towards addressing the problem. Somebody tell Clark Peterson that if he does a Tome of Horrors Pathfinder monster book.
The dodge bonus idea also seems logical.
I'll try the way it is now, and report back. Then maybe look at these suggestions. Good discussion!
|
|
Giving all agile characters a free feat to fix an 'bug' in the system is a small time fix. You're basically saying all Rogues should either get another free feat, or they should all take it as their 1st level feat.
Dex-focused characters should take Agile Maneuvers as a rule, yes. First level may be worrying about it too much, but relatively early is probably not a bad idea. But then, since by 7th level you're a feat ahead of the game vs. 3.5, why not spend that extra feat on Agile Maneuvers?
I think rogues can take Agile Manuevers as a rogue talent too, via their "combat trick" talent. I'm not sure, however. *I* would allow it, at any rate.
Note too that this situation is better than 3.5, where Dex-based characters really had no defense against grappling at all, since as you noted yourself, the touch attack rarely slowed down the attackers.
Here's a big example of what the OP's problem is.
Fighting defensively is a -4 to attack rolls for 1 round, +2 to AC. CMB is counted as an attack roll right? its based on the current attacks to hit.
So theoretically, if I fight defensively I have a -4 to my CMB DC. Which is just plain wrong.
You're right, it is wrong. That's because, while CMB checks are attack rolls, CMB itself is not, and thus the DC would not change. If you're not attacking, you don't take attack penalties to your rolls, and if you're not rolling, you really don't take penalties to your rolls.
Also, I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the OP's issue with the system.
|
|
Giving all agile characters a free feat to fix an 'bug' in the system is a small time fix. You're basically saying all Rogues should either get another free feat, or they should all take it as their 1st level feat.I don't like this idea either. It should either be builty into the CMB (Allowing the character to use Dex or Str, which ever is higher.) or there should be another way to handle it.
Another thing is that 3.5 trip was against your dex or Str, whichever was higher. The way it is now, the agile character has no recourse without taking a feat. I understand that combat is geared toward the strong type, and Pathfinder has added some option for the non-strong fighter, but each of thoes options cost. If you want to play a really effective dex or smart fighter, you spend a lot of feats doing so, and the strength does not. This has been a hang up for me me in 3.5 too, but at least in 3.5, you could jump over a guy trying to trip you. Not all you can do is try to be stronger than it. I hope there is a good suggestion floating around for a fix.
I know the point of PRPG is to streamline things, but that is also what some of us who don't like 4th, dont like. The effort to makes things easier and less complex can take away options that are important.
I may be in the minoroty, but I really liked the 3.5 grapple. My group did not have any probles with it at all.
I'm in the same minority, then -- I (mostly) liked the old grapple/trip/disarm/sunder/bull rush rules and I don't really think the Pathfinder versions are an improvement.
I like the old rules, I'm hopeful for the new ones (im trying CMB DC 10+ mods, rather than 15+) but I got to admit, some points in the old rules get funky.
The old system could have been perfected by taking the "vague" out of grapple. Is a grapple check an attack roll? Yes or no, rather than a silly maybe. In some places it says no, but you can do so many similar things to attacking while grappling, like make a full grapple attack, or a full attack with a weapon at a penalty in a grapple.
Can you two weapon fight in a grapple if your using the light weapon in your off hand, but using your main hand to make grapple checks?
Does bardic music boost it? Or any other attack roll booster? Does magic fang boost a grappling monk?
Personally, while I like the new grapple, I may be brewing up a personal fusion of the new and old that clears up some of the vague.
For what its worth, in my 3.5 games, I treat grapple as attack rolls (since the precedent for opposed attack rolls already exists in disarm and sunder). Solves a lot of problems. Double Nat 20's, when they happen, go to any other rule for a tie.
I like the old rules, I'm hopeful for the new ones (im trying CMB DC 10+ mods, rather than 15+) but I got to admit, some points in the old rules get funky.
That's true; there's certainly room for improvement in the old rules (e.g. in 3.5 sundering a non-weapon item is too easy, IMO) and I do appreciate the simplicity of having a single roll. But overall I don't think the new rules are an improvement.
I certainly agree that clarity is important!
Fighting defensively is a -4 to attack rolls for 1 round, +2 to AC.
CMB is counted as an attack roll right? its based on the current attacks to hit.
CMB is Base Attack Bonus, which is a static value, plus Strenght Modifier, which is also a static value, plus Size Modifier, which again is a static value. Though the attack bonus is also Base Attack Bonus plus Strength bonus, it doesn't say that CMB is based on your current Attack Bonus. It would be a good idea to clearify that somewhere in the Beta and Final, but as I read Alpha3, any penalties to Attack Bonus don't affect your CMB.
Though in situations you use a Combat Maneuver to make an attack, such penalties should also apply.
Also, adding any dodge-boni to AC to your CMB for the determination of the DC for the attacker would seem plausible for me.