While I am sure that this is done the same as the grapple modifier in 3.5 I always thought that the 3.5 core books were a little vague when explaining the grapple modifier in relation to the question that I am about to ask. When calculating the CMB I know that the formula is Base Attack Bonus + Strength Modifier + Special Size Modifier + any Miscellaneous Modifiers that may apply. My question is if the character in question has more than one attack per round on a full attack action do you just use the highest BAB to calculate a single CMB and thus only one Combat Maneuver is possible per round ever? Or do you calculate a CMB based on the BAB for each attack that character has per round on a full attack action? Thus allowing for multiple Combat Maneuvers per round in the case where this is possible and the character in question has more than one attack per round available? I just haven't found a clear answer to this anywhere.
Charles
Okay, my interpretation is:
More specifically:
Okay, my interpretation is:
Some CMBs replace attacks, and can be used multiple times, and others require a standard or full-round action, or can't.
Iterative attack penalties don't apply to CMB maneuvers - the difficulty keys off the base attack.
It seems a bit silly to me that you could have an iterative attack at -15 (e.g. the +1 attack out of +16/+11/+10/+6/+1) that works great as a disarming attack but terrible at actually hitting someone normally. I think I'd apply the normal penalties for iterative attacks in my game.
hogarth, I understand where you're coming from, but generating low totals on a disarm check results in the disarmer becoming the disarmee. If you miss the target by 10 or more, your trusty disarming tool is lying on the ground.
If the Rules As Written (and interpreted by Tergiver) don't work for you, why not make disarm a standard action rather than imposing iterative penalties?
Yeah, but in the "+16/+11/+10/+6/+1" scenario,
using the actual BAB for each iterative attack when using attack-equivalent Maneuvers doesn't realistically mean you're likely to get disarmed yourself because you used the weakest attack (+1), it means:
taking the weaker BAB of iterative attacks into account, you will use your STRONGER attacks to actually pull off the Manuever.
Saying that all Maneuvers use your full BAB is just allowing you to ignore the penalties for iterative attacks, which would otherwise motivate players to shift their damage-dealing attacks (which don't have penalties for failure) to their weaker attacks. It is giving a higher chance to pull off 4 attacks & 1 CMB, than just taking 5 attacks. It's pretty clear the intention is, generally speaking (equivalent BABs, non-insane ACs), CMBs are supposed to be HARDER to pull off than regular attacks.
Anyhow, good one to bring up when CMB is actually being reviewed by Jason (Combat Chapter).
This is another example where just making Maneuver Attacks = standard attacks (since the formula is the same), and create a "Maneuver AC" = (15? + CMB + Defensive Bonuses), would clear up all these problems stemming from developing a pseudo-distinct sub-system that must re-invent the wheel for how it interacts with all the variables of actual combat.