There have been a NUMBER of threads in General and playtest about CMB and I expect they will be repeated here. So, I would like to see some comment from the powers that be in reaction to some of those discussions. I like that 3P has attempted to simplify these maneuvers, especially grappling, but those discussions have brought up a number of holes that need to be addressed in the final product Notably for me is how will specific conditions like being Fully Defensive or which magical bonuses effect CMB? I feel if i had a better handle on that then I could make better, more consistent judgment calls in the heat of the moment... your own miles may vary.
There has been some dis ussion on this front, but things are not quite settled yet. I will pull together some answers over the next few days. Until then I would like to see the discussion continue.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
You know, the main thing that I want to know is how improved grab type abilities are suppose to work. Other than that, the new rules have been working pretty well for us, and we haven't had many questions.
|
I also think it would be good to know what affects your CMB modifier and your CMB check. Does a charge grant a +2? What about higher ground, a bless spell, bardic inspiration, etc. I've had lots of questions along these lines come up during playtesting.
We've been working with anything that would stack on an attack stacks on a CMB, so prayer/blessing, bardic music, etc. It seems to be balanced from an attackers point of view. The defender should probably get similarly deflection, moral, and dodge AC bonuses to their DC.
While it would weaken the consistency of the mechanic, the defenders DC against a combat maneuver could be the higher of touch ac or 15+CMB. Or at least have the option of using their dex in place of their str for determining their CMB, either always or for defense.
As for full defense, it would seem balanced to use the full defense AC modifier to your CMB, and the extra when mixed with acrobatics ranks.
Just my two cents, more after tomorrow as I take advantage of greater bulls rush.
Rather than start up a new thread, I would like to ask that you also consider what happens when someone is Sickened, Shaken, etc. I feel that these penalties should affect the CMB, but right now the rules are unclear. It's come up several times in our games already.
In this post (General Discussion -> Is Grappling Mutual ?) there has been an interesting 'wrap-up' of the rules regarding Grapple (the most controversial CMB condition):
Ok, here is the new full example of the grapple rules as written in the Beta book.
CMB = BAB + STR + Special size modifier
Round 1: Attacker: As a standard action, the attacker rolls a D20 + CMB versus a DC of 15 + CMB of the defender. If the test fails, both characters remain free. If successful, the attacker becomes the grappler and the defender becomes the grapplee. Both gain the status "grappled" indicated below:
grappled: character cannot move, suffers -4 Dex, suffers -2 to attack, suffers -2 to CMB except to continue or escape the current grapple, can take no actions that require two hands to perform, cannot make attacks of opportunity, can only cast spells if they succeed at a DC 15 + spell level Spellcraft check
Round 1: Defender: You can do nothing and accept the grapple.
Or
As a standard action, attempt to break the grapple by rolling D20 + CMB versus a DC of 15 + CMB of the attacker. Failure maintains the grapple and grants the attacker +5 on further checks. This does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Or
As a standard action, attempt to break the grapple by rolling D20 + Escape Artist versus a DC of 10 + CMB of the attacker. Failure maintains the grapple and grants the attacker +5 on further checks. This does provoke attacks of opportunity.Round 2: Attacker: You can do nothing and drop the grapple
Or
As a standard action, attempt to maintain grapple by rolling D20 + CMB (+5 if defender tried and failed to escape) versus a DC of 15 + CMB of the defender. Failure frees both characters from the grapple. Success maintains the grapple and grants a +5 on further checks (can only be granted once, does not stack with +5 due to defender failing to escape). Success allows the attacker to choose among 3 actions:
Move: The attacker can move both himself and the defender up to half his movement. The defender is placed in a hazardous square, he can immediately attempt to break the grapple by rolling D20 + CMB + 4 (bonus for imperative) versus 15 + CMB of the attacker.
Attack: Inflict unarmed damage to the defender.
Pin: Give the defender the "pinned" condition. The attacker keeps the "grappled" condition but also loses his Dex bonus to AC.pinned: character cannot move, is flat-footed, suffers -4AC, can take only verbal and mental actions, can only cast spells (without somatic or material components, unless the material was already in hand) if they succeed at a DC 15 + spell level Spellcraft check
Round 2: Defender: See Defender Round 1
Repeat Round 2 until death or a failure do us part
I posted here in order to ask if this interpretation is correct (as it seems to be) - especially regarding the fact that the rules seem to imply that THERE IS a great difference between someone who starts a grapple (and has the upper edge) and someone who is victim of the grapple (and can only try to free himself).
Otherwise, there could be a situation like this:
'I try to grapple him; - ROLL - hey, success'
'Well, now it's his turn... - ROLL - ...yeeeeeeah, he pins you'
'...Duh !!!...'
...which I don't think is the intended rule.
I have another important question regarding CMB: basically is, what is the CMB value for actions that allow for multiple attacks (like Disarm and Trip)?
I mean, do you use always the FULL CMB value (and so, terribly useful for low-BaB iterative attacks - like 3rd or 4th attack- or Flurrying Monks)? Or, since the CMB is calculated on your BaB, you use the (lower) BaB of the iterative attack (-5 for the second, -10 for the third, -15 for the fourth - Monks excluded, which have a slightly different progression with Flurry) ?
This is fundamental in order to discuss if the flat value of the CMB (15) is too high, too low, or just right.
|
We've used what I think are the standard assumed rules, that is, if you try a maneuver as an iterative attack, you receive a penalty depending on which attack it is. Second attack gets a -5, third a -10, and so on.
We're CMB fans. If we didn't like the final version of PFRPG, we would nevertheless use CMB and the simplified skill point mechanics in our 3.x games (or our 4e ones, who knows).
We've used what I think are the standard assumed rules, that is, if you try a maneuver as an iterative attack, you receive a penalty depending on which attack it is. Second attack gets a -5, third a -10, and so on.
This is exactly what I believe is the currect interpretation, but it would be nice to have an official answer about this, as well.
Some people think the other way, in fact, and without an official anwer, they could be right (and we could be wrong).
Oh, and another issue: what bonuses are added to the CMB value (if any)? Weapon Training, I would definitely go for a 'YES', but what about others? Weapon Focus (if you are using a weapon)? Enhancements ? Morale bonuses?
In general, I would only go for bonuses from Weapon Training and specific feats (like Improved Grapple, for example), and stay clear from all others (in order to streamline CMB, for one).
Any official answer would be really appreciated on this topic (most players keep asking me what they can add to their CMB; "Hey, the Bard is singing and gives me this huge +5 bonus to hit and damage, why not on Disarm ???").
I don't know if it has already been discussed but here what I have thought about CMB.
Is it an attack roll which scales with iterative attacks or it is always the same modifier ?
If it doesn't scale with iterative attacks, it will be great for a high level fighters to use his two best attacks to effectively trying to damage his enemy, and use this two lower attacks to make a maneuver without any less chance of success. It can be troublesome.
In this post (General Discussion -> Is Grappling Mutual ?) there has been an interesting 'wrap-up' of the rules regarding Grapple (the most controversial CMB condition)
I should note that this wrap up I wrote is only a summary of current rules. We have also discussed several side issues and proposed clarification of the wording. My opinion of the current grapple system has actually increased due to the discussion, but it has become clear that it is buried under unclear writing.
Jason, I can being a repost campaign if you would like, or have the designers been hovering over the CMB discussions on the general boards too? I think we have found the exact words and phrases that hide the desired mechanics of grappling and we have had some suggestions for minor modifications that might help clarity, realism, and flow of grapple significantly.
|
I have a question that's come up multiple times in our playtest
What happens when you bullrush an enemy that is standing in front of another enemy? In our game we were in a narrow ledge, and the knight bullrushed an enemy kython (small sized) who was standing in front of another kython. The DM said he couldn't do it, was he right?
|
i will wait to see which changes there are
cmb 15 looks high in low levels... but i have discovered that cmb 10 makes some classes almost always suffer from it (grapple for example has affected some of my players inmbilizing at least one that then failed his Escape artist check), cof in 3rd level such player took "agile maneuvers"
while it has worked for me and my group i would want to see what is in store
in general, i like it
i don't think its more complicated than just getting the cmb and the modifiers, and it has been fun to use
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I have a question that's come up multiple times in our playtest
What happens when you bullrush an enemy that is standing in front of another enemy? In our game we were in a narrow ledge, and the knight bullrushed an enemy kython (small sized) who was standing in front of another kython. The DM said he couldn't do it, was he right?
This is a good question to get clarified in the rules. I could see that it forces the target diagonally backwards, or that it forces them into the occupied square behind them, making both creatures squeezed.
Most of the CMB changes I don't mind, but I really don't like the changes to grapple. Here are my biggest complaints:
- Takes a standard action, not an "attack action"; this makes various grappling monsters (and grappling PCs) pretty useless compared to full attacking.
- If you fail a grapple check, the grapple ends. This seems to imply that no matter how good a grappler you are, you're going to drop your opponent every 2 minutes (on average, since you always fail on a 1).
- The DC is too high, or alternately the bonuses you can get for size and/or feats are too low.
On a lesser note, I don't like the fact that grappling is no longer symmetric, but that I can live with.
I'd also really love to know what bonuses work with CMB checks (True Strike? bardic music? flanking? being prone?).
If you fail a grapple check, the grapple ends. This seems to imply that no matter how good a grappler you are, you're going to drop your opponent every 2 minutes (on average, since you always fail on a 1).
Is it stated anywhere that a CMB check fails on a 1? Is it a skill or an attack? Mechanically, I'm not sure this is a problem anyway. I don't know about you, but I can't think of very many 1-on-1 combats that have lasted 20 rounds. I can't even think of very many party-on-party combats that have lasted 20 rounds, but I do tend to avoid high level campaigns.
Is it stated anywhere that a CMB check fails on a 1?If you fail a grapple check, the grapple ends. This seems to imply that no matter how good a grappler you are, you're going to drop your opponent every 2 minutes (on average, since you always fail on a 1).
Yes, in the general CMB boilerplate.
Mechanically, I'm not sure this is a problem anyway. I don't know about you, but I can't think of very many 1-on-1 combats that have lasted 20 rounds. I can't even think of very many party-on-party combats that have lasted 20 rounds, but I do tend to avoid high level campaigns.
I'm thinking about a roc grabbing a PC and flying away with him, for instance.
But from a mechanical point of view, I liked the old system of grappling where you can fail a grapple check, but that doesn't end the grapple. It gives your opponent motivation to actively break out. In Pathfinder, I might as well wait until my opponent screws up while I continue to make full attacks, cast spells, etc. with a small penalty. The only drawback to ignoring the grappler is that he might use the "super-hogtie" action on me, making me helpless in a flash...
Yes, in the general CMB boilerplate.
Ahh, yes, sorry. In the little wrap text at the top. Then that makes the concept of a DC misleading. That implies a skill roll.
Ahh, yes, sorry. In the little wrap text at the top. Then that makes the concept of a DC misleading. That implies a skill roll.
Yes, in the general CMB boilerplate.
Note that this also implies that, no matter how well you tie someone up with ropes, they can escape in about two minutes (since a natural 20 always succeeds).
Note that this also implies that, no matter how well you tie someone up with ropes, they can escape in about two minutes (since a natural 20 always succeeds).
Extra annoying. Now I'm on your side.
Um no please keep the auto-fail/success that worked great in my game and has both saved me and helped me, and been to my detriment.
I've always been a fan of the "treat natural 20 as 30, treat natural 1 as -10" optional rule, myself.
Note that this also implies that, no matter how well you tie someone up with ropes, they can escape in about two minutes (since a natural 20 always succeeds).
Yikes. <FLASHING RED LIGHTS>
I think saying Nat. 20 and Nat. 1 have no effect for Maneuvers would be a reasonable thing.(This also comes back to the Kitten PINNING me 5% of the time - though that's cute, of course)
Yikes. <FLASHING RED LIGHTS>
I think saying Nat. 20 and Nat. 1 have no effect for Maneuvers would be a reasonable thing.
(This also comes back to the Kitten PINNING me 5% of the time - though that's cute, of course)
Even without thought to the goals of grapple, writing a grapple check as "vs DC (blank)" it implies a skill check, which would remove auto-fail and auto-success. Using a CMB AC (like a touch AC) as has been proposed elsewhere would allow auto-fail and auto-success by current definition. So, regardless of my personal preference, the rules should pick one and go with consistent wording.
|
|
Note that this also implies that, no matter how well you tie someone up with ropes, they can escape in about two minutes (since a natural 20 always succeeds).Ahh, yes, sorry. In the little wrap text at the top. Then that makes the concept of a DC misleading. That implies a skill roll.
Yes, in the general CMB boilerplate.
I thought once they were tied up getting out of the bonds was an escape artist check against a set DC? That means there is no autosuccess to get out of the bonds.
I thought once they were tied up getting out of the bonds was an escape artist check against a set DC? That means there is no autosuccess to get out of the bonds.
Ahh, but bonds put on in grapple are maintaining a pin. Thus they are opposed by CMB allowing an auto-success. However, bonds put on outside of a grapple are impervious to auto-success! Again, poor wording of the rules.
I thought once they were tied up getting out of the bonds was an escape artist check against a set DC? That means there is no autosuccess to get out of the bonds.
Looking at the rules on page 151, it works like any other grapple/pin effect as far as I can tell (e.g. you can break it with a CMB check or an Escape Artist check).
However, bonds put on outside of a grapple are impervious to auto-success! Again, poor wording of the rules.
Huh? Where does it talk about separate rules for "bonds put on outside of a grapple"?
|
|
I thought once they were tied up getting out of the bonds was an escape artist check against a set DC? That means there is no autosuccess to get out of the bonds.Ahh, but bonds put on in grapple are maintaining a pin. Thus they are opposed by CMB allowing an auto-success. However, bonds put on outside of a grapple are impervious to auto-success! Again, poor wording of the rules.
Gotcha, I'd just clarify that in all instances once the bonds are on it becomes what I said earlier.
As I see it, grapple needs several changes and here is what we have come across so far:
1) Rewrite it. The terms used to describe grapple need to be well defined and the possible actions and states need to said explicitly. Now that I have seen what the current grapple rules say and seem to imply, I am more happy with them, but it shouldn't have taken me several days and discussions with many other people to find all the details. See "Is grappling mutual?" in the general discussions if you want to see more details of this being hashed out.
2) Include Dex somehow. The goal of most people versus grapple will be to avoid it. That is Dex based, not Str.
3) Include the concept of a "reversal." In actual grappling, the idea of who is dominant (grappler) versus who is submissive (grapplee) is very important. We have found that such concepts are buried in the current grapple text, but in order for some one to go from being the "grapplee" to the "grappler," they must entirely break the grapple and then initiate a new one. Thus, if they break free on their own initiative, the original "grappler" is likely to just re-initiate and nothing is gained. I propose adding some mechanic for reversing a grapple. My current suggestion is that if you fail a grapple check to maintain or keep the "grapplee" from escaping by X (10 seems like a good starting point), the roles of "grappler" and "grapplee" are reversed immediately.
We have found that such concepts are buried in the current grapple text, but in order for some one to go from being the "grapplee" to the "grappler," they must entirely break the grapple and then initiate a new one. Thus, if they break free on their own initiative, the original "grappler" is likely to just re-initiate and nothing is gained. ...My current suggestion is that if you fail a grapple check to maintain or keep the "grapplee from escaping by X (10 seems like a good starting point), the roles of "grappler" and grapplee" are reversed immediately.
I don't see that reading (having to re-initiate a grappple after escaping).
A successful Grapple Attack says that BOTH Combatants now have "Grappled" condition.
Grapple says that if your opponent is "Grappled" at start of your turn, a successful Grapple Check allows you to PIN them.
There ISN'T currently any "roles" of grappler/grapplee to be reversed.
Because you're limited to ONE Grapple Check per round (unless you're a Monster and have Improved Grab), that means the "Defender" needs one successful check to PIN the "Attacker", while the "Attacker" needs two successful checks
I've suggested:
A) Removing the Full Round limitation on Grapple, making it compatable with Iterative Attacks. IF being able to Grapple & Pin in one round seems to much (I don't think so, if Iterative Grapples use lower BAB), Grapple can be clarified so that the "Grapple Category" can only be shifted one/round, but a Grapple attack is just like a normal Attack, meaning you could do other things allowed by Grapple (like Move them) or just use Unarmed or 1H Weapons to attack your opponent for damage.
B) Adding distinct "Grappled - ControllER" and "Grappled - ControllED" sub-Conditions, which while sharing the same general Condition modifiers, serve to spread out the "pacing" of a Grapple, so that we don't have the Defender only needing to pass one Grapple check to PIN the Attacker.
Grapple says that if your opponent is "Grappled" at start of your turn, a successful Grapple Check allows you to PIN them.
It doesn't say that. It says:
"Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check [...] allows you to perform one of the following actions." (emphasis mine)"You are grappling an opponent" is not the same as saying "an opponent has the grappled condition".
Where is "Grappling an opponent" defined as distinct from the Grappled Condition?
The Attacker has the exact same Condition (Grappled) as the Defender.
The English verb "Grapple" is a mutual verb,
i.e. "The two men are grappling (each other)", like "The two men are dancing."
You do not "dance" someone like you paint a wall, you are both DANCING.
I'm suggesting clarifying those distinct "Controller" and "Controlled" sub-Conditions, because without them there's wonky results that I pointed out. If we relied on Implied Readings, the book could be about 1/4 the size it is.
There ISN'T currently any "roles" of grappler/grapplee to be reversed.
As written, there is an implied distinction. It is by no means clear and that is my biggest complaint.
"If you successfully grapple an opponent, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions."
By referring to "maintaining the hold" and your target not "break(ing) the grapple" seems to imply that the person who initiated is in some control. Combined with the wording of the escape:
"If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action..."
but there are no further options given, this seems to talk about a submissive character.
The person who initiated the grapple can check to maintain, pin, etc... but the person who was grappled can only attempt to escape. The condition "grappled" is a separate state that grants penalties, nothing more.
This makes more sense since dominance is so key to grappling. However, I can see the argument against reading into the rules. We shouldn't need to. Either plaster the text with words like "grappled" in italics to show that we are using a defined term, or it will imply things.
Where is "Grappling an opponent" defined as distinct from the Grappled Condition?
Where are they defined to be the same? Let's say Alan is grappling Betty and Casper is standing next to Betty. If Betty is Casper's enemy, does that mean that Casper is "grappling" Betty (since Betty is an opponent with the grappled condition)?
I'm suggesting clarifying those distinct "Controller" and "Controlled" sub-Conditions, because without them there's wonky results that I pointed out.
Well, obviously there's at least one person who finds it confusing, so I agree it would be good to have it clarified.
My biggest point is that the fact that we can have this debate is a problem, whether or not the designers intended there to be a distinction.
If there were no distinction, the escape paragraph should be incorporated into the "this is what can happen when you succeed on a grapple check" paragraph.
As far as I can figure out:
Any conditions or effects that enhance a combatant's attack rolls enhance their CMB check as well (Buffs, Charge, etc). A weapon's enhancement bonus counts only if the weapon is used in the maneuver (as with Sunder or Disarm).
Any conditions or effects that enhance a target's chances to dodge you or that otherwise interpose between you and the target increase the CMB's DC. (Fighting Defensively, the Dodge feat, the Shield spell, etc)
Personally I haven't had any problems so far extrapolating situations to deduce which modifiers can be applied to a CMB check or DC, my only question is regarding the Flat Footed condition: It affects Dex, not Str, so mechanics-wise it shouldn't affect a CMB's DC, but then if a warrior falls in combat for the archetypical "Your shoes are untied McFly!" (Feinting in Combat), shouldn't he be easier to disarm or tackle?
cmb 15 looks high in low levels... but i have discovered that cmb 10 makes some classes almost always suffer from it
The problem is not quite the base number, but the fact that "scaling difficulty" is just an illusion for warrior classes, who will always need to roll around 15 (or 10 on many tables) on the die no matter what. It's the non-warrior classes who suffer this gradual increase in difficulty as the CMB of their enemies grows to the point of Combat Maneuvers becoming plain unavailable for some (using 15 as the base DC number just makes matters worse, as it bans non-warriors completely from the very start of the game).
Combat Maneuvers are great and give depth to what would otherwise be boring, videogamey combat. The current system is simple enough, I just wish it was less exclusive so all classes could have their share of the fun.
|
|
Any conditions or effects that enhance a combatant's attack rolls enhance their CMB check as well (Buffs, Charge, etc). A weapon's enhancement bonus counts only if the weapon is used in the maneuver (as with Sunder or Disarm).
Any conditions or effects that enhance a target's chances to dodge you or that otherwise interpose between you and the target increase the CMB's DC. (Fighting Defensively, the Dodge feat, the Shield spell, etc)
Is this a quote you took from the actual rules? If so from where? Or is this just an intepretation on your part?
Robert
|
|
Where is "Grappling an opponent" defined as distinct from the Grappled Condition?
The Attacker has the exact same Condition (Grappled) as the Defender.The English verb "Grapple" is a mutual verb,
i.e. "The two men are grappling (each other)", like "The two men are dancing."
You do not "dance" someone like you paint a wall, you are both DANCING.I'm suggesting clarifying those distinct "Controller" and "Controlled" sub-Conditions, because without them there's wonky results that I pointed out. If we relied on Implied Readings, the book could be about 1/4 the size it is.
Indeed why we need clarifications. This is a synopsis of what I think needs to be indicated more clearly....
Use terms "attacker" and "defender"
Round 1: "attacker" rolls CMB to grapple vs "defenders" CMB score +15. If successful, both combatants take the "grappled" condition. IF the "attacker" beats the DC by 10 or more, the attacker does not suffer the "grappled" condition, though he is still grappling the "defender" and cannot take actions that require two hands. On the "defender's" turn, he can make a grapple check to break free (DC 15 + opponents CMB score) as a standard action, or an escape artist check (DC 10 + opponents CMB score). If you beat your opponents DC by 10 or more while trying to break free (but not when using Escape Artist), you can instead turn the grapple against the "attacker" and you are now considered to be the "attacker" and he, the "defender."
Round 2: If the original defender failed to break free and is still the defender, the "attacker" can maintain the grapple with a successful grapple check with a +5 bonus. Success allows a number of choices - pin, damage, move, (add the throw that someone suggested). Success by 10 or more means the "attacker" does not suffer the "grappled" condition though still cannot take actions requiring two hands. On the "Defender's" turn repeat as above.
Round 3 and up: rinse and repeat.
Then we need to clarify the conditions a bit more.
Currently the rules on page 151 of the grappling rules state that when you "Pin someone" you "lose your Dexterity" This implies that you are not flat-footed and instead, 'lose your Dexterity'; meaning you are susceptible to being the victim of a sneak attack. And this is for the "attacker" who is administering the Pin.
Meanwhile the "pinned" condition states you are "flat-footed" and take a -4 to Dex. This implies that aside from the additional -4 to DEX, one who is pinned and who has Uncanny Dodge is NOT susceptible to being victim of a sneak attack.
This doesn't make good mechanics. Why is the PINNER more susceptible to a rogues' sneak attack than the PINNED? In a previous game, I allowed the rogue NPC to pin me, so that HE "lost his dexterity" and our rogue was able to sneak attack him. Had I pinned him, he would have been "Flat-footed" and our rogue would not have been able to sneak attack him - since the rogue had uncanny dodge.
Instead :
Grappled Condition - remain as written.
Pinned Condition - should state: You are immobile and thus lose your Dexterity (remove the flat-footed verbage to avoid situation described above). On a succesful CMB check by the "Defender" you can un-Pin yourself however you still have the "grappled" condition. If while "pinned" you beat the DC by 10 or more, you can completely escape from the "attack".
The rules in the grappling description to PIN someone should state: "Despite pinning your opponent you only have the 'grappled' condition; each round that you beat your opponents DC by 10, you can avoid having the "grappled" condition - though he still cannot take actions requiring two hands."
I added in the "beat DC by 10 or more" to avoid the "grappled condition" to be a carryover from the -20 rule of 3.5. And used above allowing the defender to become the attacker when grappled, or allow the defender to completely escape from a pin. This makes it much more streamlined I believe.
Robert
Im glad to see people willing to analyze in depth. Good to see you in the new posts Robert. Ive just returned (through the snow) from a successful grapple attempt. I can say that even with the current rules, a rogue 6 with armor spikes of frost can be quite effective. One round to grapple, one to pin, and from then on I do 5d6 damage per round. I would like to note though that there seems to be no penalty to CMB checks while "pinned"... this is very odd since a pin is practically impossible to escape from. I would suggest that "pinned" contain a severe penalty to CMB.
I am also happy to see the idea of dominant and submissive grapplers along with a reversal mechanic has caught on. I think it is far more realistic than a symmetric grapple and it makes grapple worth trying. If the false defender can immediately pin the false attacker, why would I ever try this? Im already giving up iterative attacks to do unarmed damage, and now I can be pinned and nearly helpless in one round? I think a rework is needed for grapple to be taken seriously.
Where is "Grappling an opponent" defined as distinct from the Grappled Condition?Where are they defined to be the same? Let's say Alan is grappling Betty and Casper is standing next to Betty. If Betty is Casper's enemy, does that mean that Casper is "grappling" Betty (since Betty is an opponent with the grappled condition)?
If Casper is "standing" there, he's not grappling Betty, obviously.
The rules-as-written say "once YOU are grappling an opponent, you may...", NOT 'once your opponent is grappled'.(nice Strawman!)
Anyhow, the current wording is obviously not so great, relying on prose which seems to assume an unwilling "Defender" who doesn't want to fight back. Some interpretations here suggest the "Defender" must LEAVE Grapple first before turning it around, which seems counter to the nature of Grappling. All I can say is that it' necessary to distill this down to CONDITIONS and options springing from those, that lays out the structure of Grappling, independent of PC/NPC intentions.
One other thing:
I actually made a "whoops" when complaining about Grapple as "Full Round Action", when that's NOT the Case.
I think I was confused that it was defined as a "Standard Action"
(this is really part and parcel of the semi-pseudo-distinction between Maneuvers and Melee)
I took the "Standard Action" bit to mean it CANNOT be part of a Full Attack Action (Iterative), which seems pointless since how then could you ever USE your 1H Weapon you're holding so you can stab the guy, even though it's giving you a -5 penalty on your CMB?
THEN, I realize: Melee Weapon Attacks are ALSO Standard Actions, right?
So I'm not even sure if the intent is to make Grapple NOT work with Iterative Attacks.
Anyhow, my view is that it SHOULD, and IF it's felt being able to Grapple & Pin opponents (2 Grapple Attacks) in one Round is "too much", then there can be specific limit saying you can only shift the "Grapple Category" of your opponent 1/ round - Meaning you can use the rest of your Iterative Attacks for 1H Melee or other usages of Grapple that don't shift the Category (i.e. Move). This seems reasonable and necessary if Grappling is to be at all effective, certainly against Improved Grab Monsters with Multi-Attack.
Is this a quote you took from the actual rules? If so from where? Or is this just an intepretation on your part?
Robert
I started the reply with "As far as I can figure out:" ...heh, guess it's my fault for abusing bolds, the line might have been easy to miss. =P
|
|
I started the reply with "As far as I can figure out:" ...heh, guess it's my fault for abusing bolds, the line might have been easy to miss. =PIs this a quote you took from the actual rules? If so from where? Or is this just an intepretation on your part?
Robert
Sarcasm will get you everywhere. =)
That being said, I believe your analyis isn't accurate. That's why I wanted to be sure where you came to the conclusion before making this assertion.
Robert
Where is "Grappling an opponent" defined as distinct from the Grappled Condition?Where are they defined to be the same? Let's say Alan is grappling Betty and Casper is standing next to Betty. If Betty is Casper's enemy, does that mean that Casper is "grappling" Betty (since Betty is an opponent with the grappled condition)?If Casper is "standing" there, he's not grappling Betty, obviously.
The rules-as-written say "once YOU are grappling an opponent, you may...", NOT 'once your opponent is grappled'.
(nice Strawman!)
I agree that it makes no sense, but that was exactly what you said in an earlier post!
Grapple says that if your opponent is "Grappled" at start of your turn, a successful Grapple Check allows you to PIN them.
|
|
As far as I can figure out:
Any conditions or effects that enhance a combatant's attack rolls enhance their CMB check as well (Buffs, Charge, etc). A weapon's enhancement bonus counts only if the weapon is used in the maneuver (as with Sunder or Disarm).
Any conditions or effects that enhance a target's chances to dodge you or that otherwise interpose between you and the target increase the CMB's DC. (Fighting Defensively, the Dodge feat, the Shield spell, etc)
I would have to disagree with the shield spell affecting grapling, it is an armor bonus, unless you also allow fighters with shields to apply their shield bonus to the CMB you are doing melee a diservice by unfairly advantaging the spellcasters.
I would have to disagree with the shield spell affecting grapling, it is an armor bonus, unless you also allow fighters with shields to apply their shield bonus to the CMB you are doing melee a diservice by unfairly advantaging the spellcasters.
I can see ANY shield bonus applying, but only to initiate grapple. If you have a tower shield, you can probably fend off would be grapplers quite well. Once in a grapple though, a shield is probably a big disadvantage. This may make grapple too complicated, so I am ok with it being ignored.
|
|
I'm not sure where this should fall, but it's come up once in a playtest. The PCs were sneaking up on an extremely Dextrous but not especially observant opponent. The NPC had Str 12 and Dex 30, along with Agile Maneuvers. Once the PCs got close enough, moving through a room filled with gauzy curtains (to provide concealment), they pulled down a curtain and tried to wrap the NPC up in it.
Had this been 3.5, the attack would have worked like this: touch attack, against a flat-footed (unaware) opponent, so AC 10. Str vs Str check, with the Str 18 ranger having a substantial advantage over the Str 12 NPC.
Instead, it went like this: CMB check against DC (something huge). Grapple attempt fails, regular combat begins.
Now, clearly, Agile Maneuvers played a big role: the ability to use Dex instead of Str for certain characters is an extremely potent advantage. However I realized several things after this, most of which are specific to AM (and probably should have been raised during the feat section).
1) Being flat-footed has no impact on CMB, with or without Agile Maneuvers. This makes *some* sense for maneuvers like grapple, but is completely ludicrous for things like, say, trip or bull rush. (With Agile Maneuvers, it only becomes more insane.)
2) Agile Maneuvers can be really, really, really good for some characters. Possibly too good.
3, though this didn't actually come up, I realized it when I began to consider what happened if the PCs succeeded in their attempt) Agile Maneuvers works very oddly in combination with grappling, because the Dex penalty inflicted by the grappled condition means you're worse at grappling once you've been grappled.
I would have to disagree with the shield spell affecting grapling, it is an armor bonus, unless you also allow fighters with shields to apply their shield bonus to the CMB you are doing melee a diservice by unfairly advantaging the spellcasters.
Actually the Shield spell is a shield bonus, not armor bonus, but Indeed I apply the same bonus to warriors with shields, as you're interposing a large object between you and your attacker.
However William has a good point, said modifier would only apply to initiate the grapple, once grappling shields are pinned aside.
My thoughts on CMB:
1. I really like it
2. It doesn't work well for sundering. But that is no problem of CMB, it is the maneuver itself. I don't get the logic in: It's a halfling, it's small, it's harder to hit, but sundering his ring on his pinky is the easiest thing ever. Please, give creatures smaller than middle a bonus against sunder, and add points to difficulty for sundering small objects.
It should be almost impossible to break Saurons ring, I think.
3. You have invented a new system for these maneuvers. Why not exceeding it's use, the spell rusting grasp or warp wood comes in mind, which is quite a sunder attack. Make it a CMB attack with a bonus depending on caster level (ok it's for the opening of the spell section but it fits here as well)