The Krome Hypothesis: Double Your CMB or Your Money Back

[Gurubabaramalamaswami]

Down in the Preference: Opposed rolls vs. flat DCs thread regarding Combat Maneuvers, Krome advanced the theory that the wording regarding combat maneuvers is you make an attack roll (d20+base attack+Str) and then add your CMB to that roll.

I thought that you just rolled 1d20 and added your CMB but Krome insists that the wording is you make an attack roll and then add your CMB.

That seems to good to be true.

[Tholas]

Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

Down in the Preference: Opposed rolls vs. flat DCs thread regarding Combat Maneuvers, Krome advanced the theory that the wording regarding combat maneuvers is you make an attack roll (d20+base attack+Str) and then add your CMB to that roll.

I thought that you just rolled 1d20 and added your CMB but Krome insists that the wording is you make an attack roll and then add your CMB.

That seems to good to be true.

Yea, it probably is.

Edit: If I remember my calaculations right every additional +1 increases your chances of success by 5%.

I remember a somewhat similar question from Alpha 3:

endier wrote:

Hi Folks,

While reading the part about combat maneuvers and the CMB, which I think is a wonderful idea, I stumbled over this passage:

Pathfinder alpha 3 wrote:

When performing combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While most combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action (in place of a melee attack), others require specific actions. [...] 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.

Does this mean that spells like

Haste, Divine Favor, Divine Power, Bless, Heroism etc. gives also a Bonus to combat maneuvers ?

Same question to feats and abilities:
Weapon Focus, Melee Weapon Mastery, Weapon Training of Fighter, Favored Enemy of Ranger, Smite Evil of Paladin, Bardic Songs, etc.

All these gives bonus to Attack rolls.
So do they also give bonus to maneuvers like Grapple, Trip and Disarm ?

What about weapon enchantment boni ?
They also gives a +x to attack (and damage)...

What about the defensive position ?
Do these spells /abilities / feats give their bonus also to resist being tripped/disarmed/grappled/overrun/whatever ?

[Gurubabaramalamaswami]

All very excellent questions for which an answer would be groovy.

[Squirrelloid]

Krome is technically right. An attack roll is already a d20 roll with all your normal attack mods added in.

This should be fixed. Its simply bad writing. There's no point defining terms (ie, 'attack roll') and then misusing the term you defined elsewhere.

[Kirth Gersen]

Squirrelloid wrote:

This should be fixed. Its simply bad writing. There's no point defining terms (ie, 'attack roll') and then misusing the term you defined elsewhere.

Same deal with "caster level," "class level," "enchantment," and a slew of other examples throughout the Beta. Jason Bulmahn does very superior design work. Once that's done, though, the technical writing needs to be reviewed by someone possibly with less design skill but who has much, much greater precision of language and attention to detail.

[alleynbard]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Squirrelloid wrote:

This should be fixed. Its simply bad writing. There's no point defining terms (ie, 'attack roll') and then misusing the term you defined elsewhere.

Same deal with "caster level," "class level," "enchantment," and a slew of other examples throughout the Beta. Jason Bulmahn does very superior design work. Once that's done, though, the technical writing needs to be reviewed by someone possibly with less design skill but who has much, much greater precision of language and attention to detail.

I agree. 3e tried very hard to be as clear and complete as possible. Distinct terminology played a significant part in this. Utilizing terms incorrectly only leads to confusion. Using "slang" terms that see use in home games and/or exist as hold overs from previous editions leads to the same conclusion.

As for the CMB issue, I suspect it is intended to be a d20 roll + your CMB bonus. If that is the case, it should not be called an attack. The use of that term has some pretty express meaning. It should simply be called a maneuver roll, or some such thing. Then it can be clearly defined which buffs/bonuses can enhance this roll.

[alleynbard]

alleynbard wrote:

I agree. 3e tried very hard to be as clear and complete as possible. Distinct terminology played a significant part in this. Utilizing terms incorrectly only leads to confusion. Using "slang" terms that see use in home games and/or exist as hold overs from previous editions leads to the same conclusion.

As for the CMB issue, I suspect it is intended to be a d20 roll + your CMB bonus. If that is the case, it should not be called an attack. The use of that term has some pretty express meaning. It should simply be called a maneuver roll, or some such thing. Then it can be clearly defined which buffs/bonuses can enhance this roll.

And this is not to disparage PFRPG at all. I think Jason has created some interesting and thought provoking design choices. I am very excited about the game overall. I just think clarity is an important consideration for the new ruleset.

[Jeff Wilder]

Put me in the camp that doesn't believe CMB is intended to use an "attack roll" as its base.

Note that this raises another interesting issue: since CMB stuff can be done as an attack, if it's not an attack roll, it doesn't suffer from iterative attack penalties. So a fighter 12 could attack (+12 plus) with his first attack, maybe second, and use CMB stuff with any iteratives he wouldn't otherwise hit with anyway.

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing -- for one thing, it provides an alternate viable path from the "massive damage" choices that eliminate iteratives -- but it's interesting.

--Jeff

[seekerofshadowlight]

This has come up a few times the wording does need to be better however. CMB is your BAB+SIZE MOD+ STR MOD.I really dont think it was ment as BAB+STR+1D20+CMB

[Krome]

Thank you guys.

This one has driven me nuts since I realized it. I really do not think the intention was to double your mods like it does. I think that most people just assume that an attack roll is an unmodified d20 roll, but it has never been defined that way.

An Attack roll is defined on p 131 of PRPG "When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus." It lists the attack bonus a few lines later, which are the usual STR modifier, BAB and size modifier.

On page 150 of the PRPG It tells how to make a Maneuver roll "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 then defined as STR modifier, BAB and a special size modifier.

I know their intention was not to give an attacker double bonuses, but the wording does just that. They just need to better define the Combat Maneuver.

[Quandary]

Agreed. IMHO, just saying it's an attack roll that takes all attack bonuses would be the way to go (with different Size modifiers applying for CMBs vs. Regular Attacks). I'm not really sure why it should take 2 separate feats (Weapon Finesse/Dex. Maneuvers) to apply Dex to 'regular' attacks AND Combat Maneuver attacks.

[Tholas]

Krome wrote:

An Attack roll is defined on p 131 of PRPG "When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus." It lists the attack bonus a few lines later, which are the usual STR modifier, BAB and size modifier.

On page 150 of the PRPG It tells how to make a Maneuver roll "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 then defined as STR modifier, BAB and a special size modifier.

I know their intention was not to give an attacker double bonuses, but the wording does just that. They just need to better define the Combat Maneuver.

Yes, indeed.

Btw.:I didn't get the whole meaning of "attack roll" the first time I posted in this thread. Adding feats, weapon enhancements and such is one thing, adding your BAB a second time is something totally different.

And another thing that seems bit odd:
The description of the Trip CMB seems a bit ambiguous and could be interpreted in such a way that you can make a normal attack _and_ try to trip someone.

Pathfinder Beta, p150 wrote:

While most combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action (in place of a melee attack), others require specific actions.

This would indicate that all you always loose your normal melee attack, but:

Pathfinder Beta, p150-151 wrote:

Disarm
You can attempt to disarm your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
[...]
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
[...]
Trip
You can attempt to trip an opponent as a melee attack.

Either the "part of an attack action in place of" is missing or you could interpret it that you can trip an opponent you hit as a free action.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Same deal with "caster level," "class level," "enchantment,"

As an aside, since you brought them up: there is a difference between Class Level, Character Level, and Caster Level.

Caster Level, in particular, is a real effect of having PrCs which increase one's Casting Level without affecting the Class Level for other Class Features (such as Channelling Energy, Sneak Attack, etc.)

Character Level rarely figures in as its own in formulae, but when it does, it ought to be its own value (Multiclassing, anyone?)

I agree that the Technical Editing is a must before the Hardback comes out.

[Gurubabaramalamaswami]

Obviously no insult or disrespect intended towards Mr. Buhlman. This is obviously a labor of love. The call for clarity is merely intended to clear these matters up before final printing so he and the fine folks will not be plagued with questions about them forever after.