While I like the unified Combat Maneuver Bonus replacing the grapple bonus and whatnot, I still vastly prefer opposed rolls. I think they maintain a level of uncertainty in the game.
I don't think the flat DC system breaks the game or anything. I just like opposed rolls better. They seem more dramatic to me. More like a real struggle.
How 'bout you?
I DID buy the idea of the unified system of manuever. My players like, I like, the monsters like and all.
In the end, the system makes characters like a rogue (specially if it takes a feat that allows him to use dex rather than str for manuevers) REALLY use a good combat option like a trip atempt agains an ogre.
It makes for more cinematic combat.
However, I don't like the flat dcs. Using opposed rolls turns the table against the defender, who usually isn't good at the test. No one is going to trip a ogre berserker, but everyone will try to grapple the poor wizard. But then, making opposed rolls give the chance of you trying to trip the ogre. You would NEVER roll against 15+his modifier, but you can against a possible 10+his modifier.
Personally, I use the opposed rolls: More dramatic, and let the guys with low modifier be hiding, and le the big ones clash in their bull rush.
|
Opposed rolls may be more dramatic, but they slow down the game, especially in a game like 3.X/Pathfinder/4e where you have a bunch of different modifiers to add together to each d20 roll. Static DCs are the way to speed up play, especially at higher level play.
(White Wolf's combat system is all the proof I feel a need to present to show the problem with opposed rolls. Doesn't matter how good you are with a gun if your opponent rolls lucky at Dodge.)
I can see how opposed rolls could slow things down a bit. Or do they? A DM and a player rolling dice and comparing results at the same time versus just the player rolling and the DM adjudicating the roll. How much more time are we talking here?
|
I don't have a strong preference; in earlier editions of the game, weren't there d20 rolls in combat for both attack and defense? It does seem like less rolling would speed up the game, but I do lean toward letting players make rolls for things that might affect the characters.
Also, one of the things I didn't like in the lead-up to 4e was hearing that saving throws had been replaced by static defensive DCs, so YMMV.
For extra perspective, this thread on the ENWorld archives discusses defense rolls vs. static AC in combat:
For some maneuvers (bull rush, overrun, etc.), I don't care.
But for grappling in particular, I like opposed rolls better for reasons of symmetry. It doesn't make much sense to me that it's hard for A to escape from B on A's turn, and then it's hard for B to prevent A from escaping on B's turn!
|
I very much disliked the old way of doing maneuvers because the mechanics violated other mechanics already established. In the old method the attacker usually had to make an attack roll to hit an AC (which symbolizes the defenders attempts to avoid being hit) and then there was an opposed roll (which gave the defender a SECOND try to avoid being hit). This essentially said that during regular combat the defender just stands there and lets the attacker hit him. Dumb mechanic.
But that is old news.
In the new system I could go with either way, static or opposed rolls, but not both.
However, I do not believe the idea that it is crazy to try a grapple on an ogre is warranted at all. I would try a grapple on an ogre any day. In fact it might be a better idea than to try to slug-fest with it.
Let's CLOSELY look at the mechanics of a maneuver. This is a good one guys, you'll love this.
Ogre has a defense of 15+CMB which is STR modifier plus BAB plus special size modifier. So the Ogre has a defense of 15+5+3+1 for a total of 24. That is a great defense.
Nigh impossible for our attacker you say.
Attacking the Ogre is our 3rd level half orc fighter with Strength of 18. His CMB is 4+3+0=7.
Now, we carefully read the rules for maneuvers which says the maneuver makes an attack roll and adds his CMB to it.
Here is the fun part. Actually read what is an attack roll. An attack roll is a d20 PLUS your attack bonus, which includes your STR modififer+BAB+ size modifier. So our Fighter makes an attack roll of 1d20+4+3+0 (1d20+7). To this roll he adds his CMB of 7. This means the total to attack is 1d20+14 (1d20+4+3+0+7). A 3rd level fighter just needs to roll 10 or higher to grapple an ogre.
I know many players who say that is not correct and will say "An attack roll is an unmodified d20 roll." However, if you read the actual rules, you find that an attack roll is in fact a d20 plus the attack bonus. Always has been.
Combat manuevers vastly favor the attacker. In our example, had the fighter had a Strength of 20 instead of a lowly 18, he would only have needed to roll 8 or higher to hit. If our fighter had been lvl 4 and Strength 20 he would have only needed a roll of 4 or higher to succeed. How do like them odds?
So, in essence, in ALMOST every case you are better off using a maneuver rather than a standard melee or ranged attack.
In Pathfinder RPG, My fighters will take every single Improved Grapple, Improved Trip, Improved Whatever, and probably carry a short sword and dagger just for show. I cannot wait to get to GenCon next year and Grapple the heck out of all the critters in the Pathfinder Society tournament and freak out the GMs there.
As much as I like opposed rolls for many of the same reasons stated above I'll gladly trade them in for, what I find, to be a much better system with regards to combat maneuvers.
For speed I prefer the static DC.
The only problem with it though is PC's being able to figure out whether or not they have a chance to succeed before they even start.
Instead of "gee that ogre was hard to trip!" you get "No, I can't trip that Ogre! His DC is X and my roll is X-10! there's no way I can beat that!"
Even if they don't say it- some folks will be thinking it. At least with the opposed roll the PC has a good shot at rolling high, hoping the other will roll low.
That may seem artificial- but that's how it seems to me.
-S
|
|
For speed I prefer the static DC.
The only problem with it though is PC's being able to figure out whether or not they have a chance to succeed before they even start.
Instead of "gee that ogre was hard to trip!" you get "No, I can't trip that Ogre! His DC is X and my roll is X-10! there's no way I can beat that!"
Even if they don't say it- some folks will be thinking it. At least with the opposed roll the PC has a good shot at rolling high, hoping the other will roll low.
That may seem artificial- but that's how it seems to me.
-S
How do they know what the DC is? Surely you don't tell the player what number he needs to beat before he decides whether to make the action? Or maybe he looked at the MM. In which case he should be smacked.
|
|
I vastly prefer opposed rolls. In fact, the only difference in time is the time it takes to add the result of a d20 and your CMB. If that is adding significant time to your gaming sessions, I am sorry for your math skills. Any modifiers that might apply would have to be added to a static DC anyway, so there is no time savings there.
I feel that opposed rolls much better simulate the chaos of combat.
In fact, I think I'm going to change Tumble to an opposed roll vs. a reflex save next time I run my game.
|
|
I very much disliked the old way of doing maneuvers because the mechanics violated other mechanics already established. In the old method the attacker usually had to make an attack roll to hit an AC (which symbolizes the defenders attempts to avoid being hit) and then there was an opposed roll (which gave the defender a SECOND try to avoid being hit). This essentially said that during regular combat the defender just stands there and lets the attacker hit him. Dumb mechanic.
But that is old news.
In the new system I could go with either way, static or opposed rolls, but not both.
However, I do not believe the idea that it is crazy to try a grapple on an ogre is warranted at all. I would try a grapple on an ogre any day. In fact it might be a better idea than to try to slug-fest with it.
Let's CLOSELY look at the mechanics of a maneuver. This is a good one guys, you'll love this.
Ogre has a defense of 15+CMB which is STR modifier plus BAB plus special size modifier. So the Ogre has a defense of 15+5+3+1 for a total of 24. That is a great defense.
Nigh impossible for our attacker you say.
Attacking the Ogre is our 3rd level half orc fighter with Strength of 18. His CMB is 4+3+0=7.
Now, we carefully read the rules for maneuvers which says the maneuver makes an attack roll and adds his CMB to it.
Here is the fun part. Actually read what is an attack roll. An attack roll is a d20 PLUS your attack bonus, which includes your STR modififer+BAB+ size modifier. So our Fighter makes an attack roll of 1d20+4+3+0 (1d20+7). To this roll he adds his CMB of 7. This means the total to attack is 1d20+14 (1d20+4+3+0+7). A 3rd level fighter just needs to roll 10 or higher to grapple an ogre.
I know many players who say that is not correct and will say "An attack roll is an unmodified d20 roll." However, if you read the actual rules, you find that an attack roll is in fact a d20 plus the attack bonus. Always has been.
Combat manuevers vastly favor the...
Has this been confirmed by Jason or the others? I didn't even notice that it said attack roll before, but if this is REALLY the correct way...then they need to explain it better, and we've been doing it wrong. :)
This has always been my understanding. What's more, if the combat maneuver uses a weapon, bonuses for that weapon apply to the attack roll, but not the CMB, i.e. magic enhancement and weapon focus. If the weapon provides a bonus to the CMB for tripping or disarm or whatever, it applies to the CMB bonus but not the attack bonus.
There are all kinds of ways to get a CMB boost. The advantage is clearly to the attacker. Putting the move on bigger creatures is actually pretty easy. Maybe too easy. I've always thought the original 3.5 size bonuses should be used; +4 for large instead of +1.
-Jack
Now, we carefully read the rules for maneuvers which says the maneuver makes an attack roll and adds his CMB to it.Here is the fun part. Actually read what is an attack roll. An attack roll is a d20 PLUS your attack bonus, which includes your STR modififer+BAB+ size modifier. So our Fighter makes an attack roll of 1d20+4+3+0 (1d20+7). To this roll he adds his CMB of 7. This means the total to attack is 1d20+14 (1d20+4+3+0+7). A 3rd level fighter just needs to roll 10 or higher to grapple an ogre.
I know many players who say that is not correct and will say "An attack roll is an unmodified d20 roll." However, if you read the actual rules, you find that an attack roll is in fact a d20 plus the attack bonus. Always has been.
Combat manuevers vastly favor the...
Jason Buhlman, I summon thee. I'd sure like an official ruling on this. If Krome's interpretation is correct that really kind of throws a different perspective on things for me.
But I still like the opposed roll better. Feels more like wrestling.
|
|
Let's CLOSELY look at the mechanics of a maneuver. This is a good one guys, you'll love this.
Ogre has a defense of 15+CMB which is STR modifier plus BAB plus special size modifier. So the Ogre has a defense of 15+5+3+1 for a total of 24. That is a great defense.
Nigh impossible for our attacker you say.
Attacking the Ogre is our 3rd level half orc fighter with Strength of 18. His CMB is 4+3+0=7.
Now, we carefully read the rules for maneuvers which says the maneuver makes an attack roll and adds his CMB to it.
Here is the fun part. Actually read what is an attack roll. An attack roll is a d20 PLUS your attack bonus, which includes your STR modififer+BAB+ size modifier. So our Fighter makes an attack roll of 1d20+4+3+0 (1d20+7). To this roll he adds his CMB of 7. This means the total to attack is 1d20+14 (1d20+4+3+0+7). A 3rd level fighter just needs to roll 10 or higher to grapple an ogre.
I know many players who say that is not correct and will say "An attack roll is an unmodified d20 roll." However, if you read the actual rules, you find that an attack roll is in fact a d20 plus the attack bonus. Always has been.
Combat manuevers vastly favor the...
I honestly hope this is not the case, and it's just a matter of wording.
Otherwise, it basically means that we roll a d20 and apply twice the CMB, which in my book is very wrong.
Still waiting for some official ruling here. Don't force me to start another thread. I'll call it: "The Krome Hypothesis: Double Your CMB or Your Money Back".
|
|
In line with Krome's comments, and resulting from my own playtest:
Does Weapon Focus and/or a weapon's enhancement bonus add to a CMB check made with a weapon, and if so only to the attack rolls with the weapon? Technically it adds to all attack rolls, so it would. But CMB Defense is not an attack roll, so you wouldn't get the bonus there - another win for the attacker.
Wierd situations, say with shatterspike the ultimate sundering weapon. How exactly does it help?
Oh please, this can't work like that.
I'm with the guy who says that this is really WRONG to add you BBA two times. Man, I don't really care to have written on the book that there is a static Dc. I'll buy it and use opposed rolls: They add so much drama, specially since I tend to roll first, giving my player the metagame (but great nonetheless) feel of "Beat Diego's roll!".
But if you add your manuever to your Melee Attack Bonus, then, all's fuc@$d...