Has anyone here noticed the halving of bonuses given to a specific combat maneuver feat?
I don't understand why this was done, not only does it make an already limited used factor in the game more unappealing but it also messes with backwards compatibility too much as many monsters and NPCs have these feats.
So Pathfinder? Was this change needed or needless?
FYI
Feat 3.5/P-DnD
Bull Rush +4/+2
Sunder +4/+2
Disarm +4/+2
Grapple +4/+2
Over Run +4/+2
I am REALLY starting Jason hates EVERYTHING associated with Power attack as it seems clear that ever one of the feats have been powered down and gimped.
I've already gone off enough on the Maneuvers in General (and specific ones, like Grapple),
so I'm holding off until Combat/Feats (which I hope are dealt with at the same time),
especially as Jason & other Paizoids haven't posted anything when it's brought up.
Suffice it to say , while I don't see any particular rationale for lowering the bonus,
that's the least of the problems with Maneuvers & CMB. (i.e. Maneuvers should not be 'saved' by upping the bonus from 2 to 4)
What do you mean by halving the bonus?
as written in the beta, I really like the new CMB and related feats
Improved Bull Rush in 3.5 is +4 to performing a bull rush, in P-DnD it is only +2, exactly half that of 3.5.
P.S. You really should step back and stop being so defensive about the new CMB system.
I've already gone off enough on the Maneuvers in General (and specific ones, like Grapple),
so I'm holding off until Combat/Feats (which I hope are dealt with at the same time),
especially as Jason & other Paizoids haven't posted anything when it's brought up.Suffice it to say , while I don't see any particular rationale for lowering the bonus,
that's the least of the problems with Maneuvers & CMB. (i.e. Maneuvers should not be 'saved' by upping the bonus from 2 to 4)
Yes, I was kind of wondering that myself. While I like the cmb concept, it does seem a little harder to pull off, especially when they lowered the bonuses of the feats you described above.
I have been playing the beta for about a month now, so I have only used the cmb a couple of times. We didn't have a problem with it, grapple was even successful the couple of times we tried it. But I am sure once we use it more I will gain first hand knowledge of what people have been saying about it.
I don't understand why this was done, not only does it make an already limited used factor in the game more unappealing but it also messes with backwards compatibility too much as many monsters and NPCs have these feats.
The special size modifier has been changed, too, so the numbers are already off. But to be honest, since the old bonuses for trip or disarm or bull rush are irrelevant now, changes to the bonus the feats grant don't do much with backwards compatibility.
I believe the numbers were toned down exactly so things would be harder. That is something that helps players a lot more than enemies! I think if it is too easy for really big critters to trip you, pin you, disarm you, or destroy your weapons, those critters will be a much bigger threat than before.
I actually realized something about the entire CMB system, and why the DC is 15, and the modifiers are all now half value.
All of the mechanics which the CMB system is replacing were opposed rolls.
Trip, Bullrush, and Overrun, and to a lesser extent Grapple, had opposed strength checks. The Opposed strength check essentially provided two opportunities for failure, in that you could roll under the minimum necessary roll to affect the enemy, or the enemy could beat your net roll of success. All things being equal, on an opposed roll, you could tie, and succeed 25%, roughly (50% you roll higher * 50% the opponent rolls higher, right?).
Disarm and Sunder both used opposed attack rolls, which again, all things being equal, result in 25% success.
Thus, the CMB system preserves the 25% success rate, and uses half of the size bonuses, and half of the Improved <foo> feat bonuses.
I don't like that kind of mechanic. It basically means that big critters cannot train grappling.
Tree_Lynx:
Your math is whack... You ALMOST got it, except the Opposed STR Check is only ONE chance of failure, not two.
Many Manuevers worked by a Touch Attack and Opposed STR Check.
The CMB system gives identical results for LOW-LEVEL LOW-STR NON-COMBAT TYPES:
+0 to-hit vs. Touch AC 10 = 50% chance
Opposed STR Check (same STR's) = 50 % chance = 25% total chance of success.
At higher levels, opponents with high STR tend to have low Touch AC (lower DEX/larger Size) (and Net Attack Bonus outpaces Touch AC generally), so it really comes down mostly to ONE of the components (STR), which with "equivalent opponents" means closer to 50% chance.
Tree_Lynx:
Your math is whack... You ALMOST got it, except the Opposed STR Check is only ONE chance of failure, not two.
Many Manuevers worked by a Touch Attack and Opposed STR Check.
The CMB system gives identical results for LOW-LEVEL LOW-STR NON-COMBAT TYPES:
+0 to-hit vs. Touch AC 10 = 50% chance
Opposed STR Check (same STR's) = 50 % chance = 25% total chance of success.At higher levels, opponents with high STR tend to have low Touch AC (lower DEX/larger Size) (and Net Attack Bonus outpaces Touch AC generally), so it really comes down mostly to ONE of the components (STR), which with "equivalent opponents" means closer to 50% chance.
It's actually about 45% for opposed rolls, as there are 400 possible outcomes. I think we both made a mistake on that, as I was (mistakenly) thinking opposed roll probabilities were multiplicative. Touch ACs are variable enough that it might not be easy just to handwave them away, especially with the autofail on 1, and autosuccess on 20 that applies to all attack rolls. And, adding an extra independant die roll increases the size of the data set you have to work with.
Still, I do think that, since the dataset is smaller, lowering the modifiers is appropriate to generate an equal amount of variable bonus/penalty.
Still, I do think that, since the dataset is smaller, lowering the modifiers is appropriate to generate an equal amount of variable bonus/penalty.
I thought that as well, though you have to realize the +4 was to STR,
which was the most difficult check generally speaking (Large, Strong, Quadruped Monsters are the hardest Grapplers),since Attack Bonuses (vs. Touch) are easy to find, but you only have one STR Enhancement, generally.
Though as I mentioned mid/higher level opponents with large Attack Bonuses and Strength tended more to 50% net chances
(let's say 47%, since a 1 auto-fails vs. Touch)
while under the Current Rules, vs. "equivalent opponents" they only have 30% chance of success.
(Obviously, high STR AND Touch AC is superior, but rarely seen. In my suggested REFINEMENT of CMB, Touch AC Mods are included, since otherwise Fighting Defensively has NO effect vs. Maneuvers, for no reason I can tell beyond the arbitrary design of the new CMB mechanism.)
I've been advocating for either returning to a Touch/STR system, but just making the STR a fixed DC for simplicity,
OR fine-tuning the CMB DC and allowing Touch AC modifiers like DEX and Fighting Defensively (which make it HARDER, of course!) along with ALL Attack Modifiers (Enchants, Flanking, etc)... As I see it, the only logical development of CMB would have to include all of those, but doing so just serves to emphasize that STR's importance has actually been radically REDUCED by the Core CMB system.
While both of those are viable ways to go, I guess,
I've been thinking recently how Maneuvers IN GENERAL are handled, aside from their specific resolution mechanism:
The low chances of Maneuvers (and lowering the difficulty helps Monsters as much as PCs) makes me wish PCs were able to use them similarly to how Monsters do with Trip and Improved Grab. Likewise, for characters without the Improved Maneuver Feat, facing an Attack of Oppportunity WHOSE DAMAGE LINEARLY INCREASES THE (ALREADY) DIFFICULT DC 1:1 pretty much removes Maneuvers from the game completely, as they're just not a viable option AT ALL.
So I was thinking, independent of the Manuever MECHANIC (Touch&STR or CMB), why not allow ALL characters to attempt Maneuvers without provoking an AoO? For the Improved Maneuver Feats, besides their bonus, they could work like Improved Grab, and allow a Maneuver Check (or STR Check, if we revert to some form of that) when ANY eligible melee attack hits (by eligible, either Unarmed or a Weapon ABLE to Trip/Disarm/etc) This could be limited to one "free" Maneuver/ round (or per weapon, for 2WF types) to keep it 'balanced' (though normal iterative attacks could be used for Maneuver attempts as well)
Of course they can train in grappling. If they take the feat, they don't provoke attacks of opportunity from grappling, which is always a useful advantage for a big critter that's good at grappling, even if there's no numerical bonus attached.
The gap would have lessened, and that should not be the case.
Say, a human and a rune giant (gargantuan - they're proper Giants) start taking grappling lessons (i.e. get the feat). After they're finished, the human is suddenly closer to the rune giant than before, even though they both did the same thing. If they had both trained with weights (i.e. increased their strength to increase their modifier, say by 1 in both cases), that wouldn't be the case.
I don't like that.
I don't think he'll have to stop using his size. In fact, I could see the feat helping him exploit his size even more.
Plus, everyone knows giants learn grappling in the GWL (Giant Wrestling League), against other giants (wearing some kind of weird underwear)
Now that I think of it, i motion that Improved Grapple grants a +2 bonus to Intimidate checks if you use the skill to taunt someone, provided you wear your underwear outside.
I have an idea here. Why not we eliminate the prerequisites for these feats at this point. I see no reason to may a maneuver that runs off of strength require an Int base feat.