The Hatred racial trait says "+1 to attack rolls". In 3.5e you make attack rolls for combat maneuvers. In PF, you technically don't. You make a combat maneuver roll that also includes the attack bonus.
I think it should read "+1 to attack rolls and combat maneuver rolls."
|
The Hatred racial trait says "+1 to attack rolls". In 3.5e you make attack rolls for combat maneuvers. In PF, you technically don't. You make a combat maneuver roll that also includes the attack bonus.
I think it should read "+1 to attack rolls and combat maneuver rolls."
sounds reasonable that way they show to be really prepared to combate them, not just hit them
|
The Hatred racial trait says "+1 to attack rolls". In 3.5e you make attack rolls for combat maneuvers. In PF, you technically don't. You make a combat maneuver roll that also includes the attack bonus.
I think it should read "+1 to attack rolls and combat maneuver rolls."
From the Beta:
When you perform a combat maneuver, make an attackroll and add your CMB to the result plus any bonuses you
might have due to specific feats or abilities.
So, technically you do make an attack roll.
Ha!
Nice one, sneaking in Combat Maneuvers into this phase of the Beta review!
:-)
But besides that one line, there's NOTHING that gives any more verification.
I'm pretty much expecting that whenever the Combat chapter gets reworked, it'll be clarified more. I think that'll also help with all the complaints about the high CMB difficulty, if Weapon Enchants, Flanking, Charging, etc, all help your Combat Maneuvers...
Although Armor Enchants would likely help the Defense as well (as well as Fighting Defensively, Racial AC bonuses vs. Giants, and other Defensive bonuses.)
So, technically you do make an attack roll.
I thought so, I just think it should be mentioned at that place as well to prevent confusion.
If attack bonuses apply to CMBs (Defensive bonuses aren't mentioned yet),
it's still a bizarre situation with things like Agile Maneuvers (Dex->CMB) and Weapon Finesse (Dex->Melee attack) seeming to stack.
Perhaps those Feats will be collapsed into one when Combat is revisited, or else I imagine it'd be more explicitly detailed if the intention is to allow 2 Feats to give a double DEX bonus to CMBs.
(+10 CMB with 20 DEX and 2 Feats. Ouch)
|
|
As an attack roll, anything that modifies the attack roll also modifies the maneuver.
Since weapon enchants already add to attack rolls they naturally are used when you make a maneuver, assuming you are using a weapon as part of the maneuver.
Flanking and Charge cannot aid the CMB as they specifically state they are for melee attacks, and a Maneuver is used as an attack action replacing the melee attack.
It also says that the CMB is modified by applicable feats and abilities.
However, Armor enchants do not seem to apply to maneuvers, since no part of the Maneuver Attack roll involves AC.
Those "high" target numbers aren't so high either. Remember to make a maneuver you make an attack roll first, which is a d20 plus attack bonus. The attack bonus is the BAB + STR + Size. To that you add your CMB, which is BAB + STR + Special Size.
In essence when you make a Maneuver roll (involving two medium critters) you roll 1d20 and add BABx2 + STRx2 and it is only defended against by 15+BAB+STR. The advantage is very often with the attacker, especially at higher levels.
For example two lvl 20 fighters are fighting. Both have +20 BAB, and neither have a STR bonus (for easier math). The attacker rolls 1d20 + Attack Bonus (20) + CMB (20) for an average of 50. The defender gets 15 + CMB (20) for 35. The attacker only misses on a d20 roll of 1 which always misses.
At level 15 we get 1d20 + Attack Bonus (15) + CMB (15) for an average of 40, defended by 15 + CMB (15) for 30. The attacker misses on a roll of 1 which always misses.
At level 10 this same scenario plays out as 1d20 + Attack Bonus (10) + CMB (10) for an average of 30. Defended by 15 + CMB (10) for 25. Attacker misses on a roll of 1-4.
At level 5 we get 1d20 + Attack Bonus (5) + CMB (5) for an average of 20 defended by 15 + CMB (5) for 20. Attacker misses on roll of 1-9.
At level 1 we get 1d20 + Attack Bonus (1) + CMB (1) for an average of 12, defended by 15 + CMB (1) for 16. Attacker misses on a roll of 1-13.
I think most people have just been rolling 1d20 + CMB, which is not correct. It says make an attack roll modified by the CMB. An attack roll is 1d20 + Attack Bonus. The Attack Bonus is BAB + STR + Size. The CMB is Attack Bonus + STR + Special Size. The entire formula would be 1d20 +(BAB +STR + Size) + (BAB + STR + Special Size) modified by applicable feats and abilities (and any enhancements that would modify the attack roll).
Feats and such are only used once in the description. So we don't have to worry about them doubling effects.
|
|
If attack bonuses apply to CMBs (Defensive bonuses aren't mentioned yet),
it's still a bizarre situation with things like Agile Maneuvers (Dex->CMB) and Weapon Finesse (Dex->Melee attack) seeming to stack.Perhaps those Feats will be collapsed into one when Combat is revisited, or else I imagine it'd be more explicitly detailed if the intention is to allow 2 Feats to give a double DEX bonus to CMBs.
(+10 CMB with 20 DEX and 2 Feats. Ouch)
As it is defined now, those feats DO stack. In fact a LOT of things can stack, and it becomes insane. At levels 15 and above without any modifiers and all things equal, the attacker only misses on a roll of 1.
|
|
Per Beta, the mechanics of an attack roll.
"An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your
opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an
attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus."
Definition of an attack bonus is "Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
A combat maneuver is accomplished by...
"When you perform a combat maneuver, make an attack
roll and add your CMB to the result plus any bonuses you
might have due to specific feats or abilities."
The CMB is defined as "CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier +
special size modifier
It does not say that the attack roll is a d20 roll. It specifically says d20 + attack bonus for an attack roll.
I just mentioned the Defensive/AC bonuses,
because even though there's NOTHING whatsoever about them at this point,
it just seems that at a minimum, things like Fighting Defensively/Full Defense and Dwarven bonuses vs. Giants will have CMB wording specifically added... Because otherwise those actions give you NO benefit if that Giant wants to Bullrush you off a cliff, etc. If CMB is to become an integral part of the game, I think you'd want to give characters a way to increase their CMB defense just like they can against melee attacks.
|
|
I just mentioned the Defensive/AC bonuses,
because even though there's NOTHING whatsoever about them at this point,
it just seems that at a minimum, things like Fighting Defensively/Full Defense and Dwarven bonuses vs. Giants will have CMB wording specifically added... Because otherwise those actions give you NO benefit if that Giant wants to Bullrush you off a cliff, etc. If CMB is to become an integral part of the game, I think you'd want to give characters a way to increase their CMB defense just like they can against melee attacks.
That is a good idea and point. The defensive feats really should apply to maneuvers as well. Right now as maneuvers are defined and written, somewhere around level 8ish it makes more sense to use maneuvers than melee attacks. After about level 12 a fighter should almost never make attack rolls using maneuvers almost exclusively.
I KNOW the intent was to simply make the attack a d20 + CMB but they did not actually do that. Even then the CMB needs to by more dynamic otherwise it will still make sense to do maneuvers more than melee attacks at higher levels when you have so many more modifiers added in. Granted that is not a bad thing at all. It offers new combat options that is for sure.