No touch attacks. It doesn't make sense to me that a dragon should be able to trip a pixie even though he might not be able to hit her (what with his size penalty on attack rolls and her size bonus to AC).
This really bothers me. I think that combat maneuvers should require a touch attack (and a reduced DC to compensate for having to hit twice).
What I don't like about this is that, unfortunately, it makes the system clunkier and requires two rolls. (This is bad.) Any suggestions on how to combine these two things into a more streamlined, more believable system?
A: Combat Maneuvers ARE Attack Rolls, and take all relevant bonuses: STR, DEX w/ Weapon Finesse & Finesse Weapons (as per 3.5/SRD, subsuming Dextrous Maneuvers), Flanking, Specialization, Enchants, etc.
B: CMB (for Defensive Purposes, i.e. the DC) could now be more accurately called Maneuver AC. Essentialy it would be the same as Touch AC, but with a higher base (15, directly converted from CMB) and increasing with BAB and STR. Like Touch AC, it takes all Dodge bonuses (reflecting the ability to EVADE a Maneuver in the first place, as per 3.5/SRD). Given that Dodge bonuses now apply, the base DC (15) may be appropriate to lower (->12?), although the exact number isn't clear.
Conforming to the Attack Roll/ AC system means NO new rules/sub-systems need to be described, other than the details of Maneuver AC (= Touch AC + STR & BAB) It also means the "fixed DC" you roll against IS a fixed number on the Character Sheet (Maneuver AC), not a formula you add together (15+CMB), for what that's worth. The offensive use of CMB does not differ from how Melee Attack Rolls are normally calculated, so keeping it as a normal Attack Roll means the wheel doesn't have to be re-invented.
Trying to keep two parallel systems distinct, that are 99% identical, is a waste of copy space, as well as confusing. This retains the one roll, fixed DC of CMB, while out-doing CMB in it's stated purpose: simplicity.
...Thoughts?
Okay, I'm re-reading the CMB section, and it turns out that my friend didn't know what he was talking about when he was explaining it--he didn't think it had an attack roll as part of it.
Oops.
I will think about your suggestion.
Man, I just really make the player roll his Manuever vs the enemy Manuever. Simple, probably faster, probably with more problems than it's worth considering for most groups, but I'll say at least this time: It works for my group.
The second idea, however, is interesting.