|
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.
Though I see the logic for a "shield" to apply to some CMBs (but not others), and apply only to the first round (but not subsequent), from a simulationists perspective; I have to say that I am in favor of leaving MOST of these 'circumstantial' modifier out of the CMB check altoghter - all the time.
I firmly believe that 3.5 convoluted the whole maneuvers checks with multiple rolls of dice, rules, modifiers, circumstantial modifiers, more modifiers to apply to the modifiers, and opposed rolls.
PF I feel created the CMB to be seamless and easy to implement; sure it's not the most precise or accurate system, but I feel it's simplicity is its advantage.
Due to there being no official clarification all along (my gut tells me that the reason for this is that they weren't sure themselves exactly what to include in the math mechanics), we have been playtesting 'NO MODIFIERS' of any kind. And the simplicity - the no math, has been fabulous and easy.
CMB = Str mod (or dex w/ agile maneuvers feat) + BAB - Size mod. DC = 15 + opposing CMB.
Thats all were using. I feel re-convoluting the system with a bunch of modifiers of Divine Favor, and Bless and True Strike, and Flanking, Flat-footed, Heroism, and Bard song, and Two-handed, and Spiked Chain, and Shield bonus, and Sickened, etc etc etc......is simply going backwards from the design goal of simplification.
These over-convoluted potential modifiers and circumstances is what drives DMs nuts for high-level games as it is. - too much math, too much to worry about; for my money, I'll take the gamists perspective on this one, and not worry about the practicality of it all - if it means it'll remain this simple. We've got few complaints at all doing them as we are.
Robert
However William has a good point, said modifier would only apply to initiate the grapple, once grappling shields are pinned aside.
Actually, I realize there is already a mechanic for this that can be extended. There is already a -4 to CMB if one hand is full. Have a weapon give -4 to CMB on initiation, but the shield bonus applies. Then write into "grappled" that the shield gives a penalty to CMB checks. I would argue that it should be bigger than the penalty for a weapon since it is more unwieldy; perhaps -6? This way, the shield is a bonus until a grapple has succeeded, and then it is a penalty, yet we have changed no overall mechanic.
Which would kill the Shield-Fighting Style. Enemy has a shield? Grapple the idiot! It might seems realistic but brings up balancing issues.
Which would kill the Shield-Fighting Style. Enemy has a shield? Grapple the idiot! It might seems realistic but brings up balancing issues.
It will already give you a penalty as written, -4 for having a hand full, I'm actually making them more useful by having it apply to CMB to begin with. You can always drop the shield anyway. Besides, grapple isn't the fastest way to kill people anyway, the damage output is pretty low. If you want to kill shield guy, its better to just use a sword.
Ah, sorry, I misread your post. (it's late in the night here...)
|
|
Which would kill the Shield-Fighting Style. Enemy has a shield? Grapple the idiot! It might seems realistic but brings up balancing issues.It will already give you a penalty as written, -4 for having a hand full, I'm actually making them more useful by having it apply to CMB to begin with. You can always drop the shield anyway. Besides, grapple isn't the fastest way to kill people anyway, the damage output is pretty low. If you want to kill shield guy, its better to just use a sword.
Though i'm not advocating using the circumstantial modifiers - but if this is being considered, I think it would be much simpler to state "Humanoids without 2 free hands suffer a -4 penalty on their grapple check (as written on pg 151)....the defender does not receive this penealty however, if one hand is wielding a shield."
Regardless, I'm still not a fan of finding more means of complicating the math.
IF there was anything to consider altering/modifying the CMB rolls, i would say it should be limited to Fighting Defensively / Full Defense, maybe Combat Expertise.
For the record, I don't think Flat-Footed should alter the CMB check to defend - since Dex is not a factor in the normal CMB equation. If said defender has Agile Maneuvers - then it can be argued that since Flat-Footed denies Dex to AC, and your CMB is based off your dex, you're just resorted to using Str again when flat-footed - but thats another complication that I'm not sure I'm interested in.
I like the CMB to be as simple as possible.
"I try to pull the rug out from under the persons feet making him fall...."
DM: "Make a CMB check; his CMB is 10; DC is 25
Player: I add 14, I rolled a 12; 26!
DM: "Success - he falls"
variant
"I try to pull the rug out from under the persons feet making him fall...."
DM: Make a CMB check; his CMB is 10; DC is 25
Player: I add 14, I rolled a 4; darn - only 18.
DM: "Did you add 1 for haste?
Player: No.
Player 2: Don't forget were blessed.
Player 3: And I cast heroism on you a moment before.
DM: the guy on the rug power attacked last round....should that lower his CMB?
Player: No, but he is flat-footed, so he should have a minus.
Player2: Anyone else have a modifier that we forgot?
DM: He has +8 in balance - should that give him a bonus?
Once again, I think Paizo did a great thing in simplifying the whole combat maneuevers with a universal CMB mechanic that can be used in so many ways; by re-instituting a bunch of circumstantial modifiers we go right back down the slippery slope of time consumption, big math, lots of modifiers, headaches, stacking power creep, rememberinga ll the nuances and rules etc.....
So far in our games we've used CMB to resolve (aside from the usual):
Pulling rug out.
Slamming a castle door into someone and shoving him back into a room.
Knocking a floor standing statue onto someone
Tipping over a table someone was standing on
Pushing a fruit cart into someone to knock them over
Pushing said fruit cart to make the person standing up on it fall.
Swinging from a street banner like tarzan to knock a person down.
Two people climbing on the same rope - each trying to get the other to fall.
Thats all I can come up with at the time - but we started using CMB and playtesting the minute the Alpha 1 rules came out back in March. And we didn't use any modifiers ( except applied appropriate Improved Feat-based +2s)
The options for using CMB is pretty limitless and easy to use - anytime one person pits his size/strength against another. Its not elegant or completely believable mechanic - I'll assure you - but it's worth the lack of elegance for its sheer simplistic and easy adjudication.
Robert
IF there was anything to consider altering/modifying the CMB rolls, i would say it should be limited to Fighting Defensively / Full Defense, maybe Combat Expertise.
Up to now, the only bonus that I applied to the CMB (apart those granted from specific Feats like Improved Grapple or Improved Sunder) has been that from Weapon Training.
But Fighting Defensively and Total Defense are a good idea.Combat Expertise, I don't know... probably yes.
Other bonuses... I should stay clear from them.
|
How do we use CMB:
* You can use a maneuver in place of an attack. We also allow more maneuvers than the ones listed (using "Book of Iron Might" as an inspiration).
* Modifiers which could apply to attack/CA are also applied to the CMB roll. Exceptions are modifiers based on equipment (weapon, armor, shield).
* If the maneuver substitutes an iterative attack, it also suffers the penalty to such attack (-5 if 2nd, -10 if 3rd, etc).
|
|
I think is almost essential to include conditional modifiers to CMB, otherwise you're seriously stretching the credibility of the new mechanic.
Example: An attacking character is sickened (penalty to normal hit rolls) and the target is behind cover (+4 cover bonus to AC) and has is fighting defensively (+2 Dodge Bonus); does this have no effect on the outcome of the roll? That's not even considering concealment!
I see a lot of potential for skirting penalties to normal attacks by resorting to CMB. If I had a character that's suffering lots of conditional penalties to their attack rolls and the opponent has a ridiculous AC and has concealment, then I'm going to switch over to CMB checks because it's easier!
Am I wrong here, or just completely mad?
Am I wrong here, or just completely mad?
It should definitely be clarified which modifiers apply.
|
|
I think is almost essential to include conditional modifiers to CMB, otherwise you're seriously stretching the credibility of the new mechanic.
Example: An attacking character is sickened (penalty to normal hit rolls) and the target is behind cover (+4 cover bonus to AC) and has is fighting defensively (+2 Dodge Bonus); does this have no effect on the outcome of the roll? That's not even considering concealment!
I see a lot of potential for skirting penalties to normal attacks by resorting to CMB. If I had a character that's suffering lots of conditional penalties to their attack rolls and the opponent has a ridiculous AC and has concealment, then I'm going to switch over to CMB checks because it's easier!
Am I wrong here, or just completely mad?
Okay - I'll concede that you make a valid arguement. One that I see validity in.
I like the simplicity that we've been using; but I suppose 'stretching the credibility' may be exactly what that does.
Here is the another perspective:
Once you begin to factor in "bonuses"....(boni?)
Lets take Dodge Bonus - you have a +2 Dodge Bonus for Fighting Defensively - so that makes it harder to trip you per se.
Now how about Sunder or Disarm? In 3.5, doing this actually made it EASIER To have your weapon sundered - as it was an "opposed attack roll" with all modifiers applied to both.
On the other side of the equation - if you were "power attacking" as the defender, it would make it easier to do these as well - or if you were the attacker and power attacking, it was harder to succeed; should someone who was power attacking now find it harder to trip someone (lets say for example that CMs are indeed allowed as an AoO - another discussiong taking place on another thread).
So now do we complicate the system by:
"add all modifiers to a CMB check that would bolster/hamper your AC for the defender, and all modifiers that would bolster/hamper your attack bonuses affect the outcome of your CMB check. Except in the case of dodge bonuses that are applied by use of Combat Expertise and/or Fighting Defensively or when taking the Full Defense - these bonuses/penalties do not apply to CMB checks made to disarm or sunder when you are the defender, but you do apply the penalty to the check when you are the attacker in order to benefit from their AC....."
Etc etc.
I'm not being difficult, I'm just trying to put feelers out as to where do we draw the line? Where should the CMB start, and the modifiers finish?
I see the validity in your concern - but I wholeheartedly wish to not overcomplicate this basic and simple mechanic to the point that we haven't really progressed much at all from the 3.5 number crunching!
Robert
|
|
I'd lean towards modifying the CMB DC by anything that affects the touch AC of the target and the attacker's roll by anything that affects their hit roll. A simple text entry could clear that easily.
As for concealment, just say it applies as normal. That should go away for grapples after the first round though.
|
I'd lean towards modifying the CMB DC by anything that affects the touch AC of the target and the attacker's roll by anything that affects their hit roll. A simple text entry could clear that easily.
As for concealment, just say it applies as normal. That should go away for grapples after the first round though.
I'd leave off everything except cover, cover applies as normal. with grapple it only applies to initiating a grapple, not grappling itself.
This is why, more and more, I like going to an existing mechanic. If CMB were an "attack," it would be clear which bonuses applied. If it were opposed by a Maneuver AC, it would be clear which bonuses applied. No new mechanics, no opposed rolls that people seem to hate, all the detail some crave.
|
|
I'd leave off everything except cover, cover applies as normal. with grapple it only applies to initiating a grapple, not grappling itself.
So, a deflection or luck bonus will turn away an attempt to hit you with a sword or ray attack, but not a trip or grapple? That doesn't seem right to me. What about displacement?
|
|
So, a deflection or luck bonus will turn away an attempt to hit you with a sword or ray attack, but not a trip or grapple? That doesn't seem right to me. What about displacement?
I'd leave off everything except cover, cover applies as normal. with grapple it only applies to initiating a grapple, not grappling itself.
Something that we might be losing track of is some context -- we're thinking about two guys wrestling it out, when it also needs to deal with Evard's Black Tentacles, Bigby's Grasping Hand, Telekinesis, the Ring of the Ram, Entangling Rope, and so on.
If I had a bunch of black tentacles emerge from the floor and attack me, I'd really hope my blur spell or shield of faith spell might protect me, never mind my ring of protection or taking a full defense action ...
I'd leave off everything except cover, cover applies as normal. with grapple it only applies to initiating a grapple, not grappling itself.
Since after a successful Grapple, it says your opponent is moved adjacent to you, that would seem to nullify the Cover issue for ongoing Grapples because there shouldn't BE any more Cover.
Seriously, I don't get what's so difficult to understand about saying:
"ALL Attack Bonuses apply, ALL Touch AC Bonuses apply."
Anything BUT that will inherently be MORE complicated.
As I see it, this option will result in the smallest possible amount of space needed to describe Maneuver Attacks.
It uses melee attack numbers AS-IS, and sets a Maneuver AC easily derived from Touch AC (& BAB/STR)
Re: to-hit penalties -> Maneuver AC (in the context of Disarm)
This WOULD make certain sense, even applying vs. ALL Maneuvers, since BAB & STR is factored in universally.
BUT...
On the other hand, it complicates things by giving you variant Maneuver ACs
(besides any Maneuver Feats vs. specific Maneuvers)
Realistically, I think we should drop this aspect.
Pathfinder ISN'T 100% simulating 3.5's multiple Maneuver sub-systems, and that's OK.
|
|
So, a deflection or luck bonus will turn away an attempt to hit you with a sword or ray attack, but not a trip or grapple? That doesn't seem right to me. What about displacement?
I'd leave off everything except cover, cover applies as normal. with grapple it only applies to initiating a grapple, not grappling itself.
well, I'm open to miss % chances working, because they don't actually modify a roll, but as for luck and deflection, I'm fine with those only applying to attacks. basically they deflect weapons not people. the only wierd instance you get into is with things like bolas. But I'm sorry I agree that I'd rather not have eight billion stacking mods on CMB because I deal with a group that's regular attacks sound like Robert's description of the stacking CMBs.
|
|
Seriously, I don't get what's so difficult to understand about saying:
"ALL Attack Bonuses apply, ALL Touch AC Bonuses apply."
Sounds like a brilliant distillation of the rule. I hope that this is seriously considered in the final draft.
To LKL: If the above rule is applied, it would also be on the character sheets, so only temporary modifiers will have to be calculated on the fly. No more difficult than rolling to hit, really. Your group just has to make sure it has is boop together.
|
|
To LKL: If the above rule is applied, it would also be on the character sheets, so only temporary modifiers will have to be calculated on the fly. No more difficult than rolling to hit, really. Your group just has to make sure it has is boop together.
Yes and no......
The more you include a bunch of "combat" specific hit and miss modifiers to ones attack rolls and AC, the LESS the mechanic can be used to unvisersally resolve and adjudicate a number of potential maneuvers one person tries to perform on another.
Thinking outside the box (i've made other posts containing such info), CMB can be used to adjudicat ANY one-on-one physicality that is not a "attack vs AC" damage-dealing weapon swing.
Pulling a rug out from under someone
Swinging a chandalier against someone on a ledge trying to knock him off
Slamming a door on someone knocking him back into a room
Lifting up a table someone is standing on to drop him to the ground.
kicking a chair out from under someone
Barreling over someone with a cart/fruit-stand wagon
swinging on a rope to knock someone downThis was the main reason that got me so excited about CMB when it was first suggested. It doesn't have to remain as the text rules for only those scenarios; the possibilities are endless.
And the more we turn them into an attack and defense (which already has it's own mechanics), the more it begs to question and pose each individual type of scenario as to just what modifiers should be included in THIS instance.
IF as I've said - that typically most offensive modifiers usually balance out the defensive ones - then can't we just use the system as is - with no other modifiers - and make it a simple concise, and streamlined means to establish a "winner and loser" for so many varied options.
Combats in my playtesting have become SO much more lively and fun since implementing the CMB mechanic (as is), and players have used MORE terrain/obstacle-based cinematic fun in the 6 months of play-testing than at time I've been with them. Due because of the sheer simplistic nature of this mechanic - it was easy to adjudicate on the fly.
Robert
By that logic we can just get rid of all Attack/Defense modifiers for Melee as well.
(after all Melee Touch Attacks are used for non-Combat things, like tossing Grapple Hooks)
Most of your examples I could easily imagine how SEVERAL Att/Defense modifiers might apply.
WHAT DO I SAY to a Player who asks why their Fighting Defensively doesn't help their "Defense" against Maneuvers at all?
All of these DID apply to the Touch aspect of 3.5's Maneuvers.
And for my favorite Maneuver-to-Hate (because it just seems too much like a regular attack):
Why in God's name would normal Attack Modifies not apply to SUNDER ARMOR?
Basically, yes. I see the Current CMB as attempting mostly the same thing,
except that it veers off into vague undefined land, drops the Dodge Bonus to Maneuver AC part (inexplicably)... Besides making it impossible to rule whether you TOUCHED the Opponent (when you Fail), and so many more issues.
Personally, I'm fine with the old 2-roll system, though it could be "standardized" instead of each Maneuver having slight variations. But I'm suggesting this as the best way to achieve the "simplification" goal of CMB (which I think is staying in Pathfinder), since without ANY modifiers I don't think it's acceptable.
|
|
Basically, yes.
Then how do you account for maneuvers that didn't require the touch attack: Disarm, Sunder, Bull Rush, Overrrun.
As I see it - grapple and Trip were the only ones that required a touch attack first - before the opposed rolls.
All of the others automatically assumed it "hit"; just the opposed roll to determine its effectiveness.
Which is no different from a flat CMB opposed check that takes into account the most basic and important aspect of one's combat prowess: BAB, Strength (or Dex w/ appropriate feat), and one's size - because size does matter.
EDIT: what you're proposing is adding an extra element into the effect that wasn't already there in 3.5; the need to include a "touch attack" aspect to several of these maneuvers.
Robert
And CMB is currently adding BAB/STR elements that weren't part of all Maneuvers into them all.
If CMB is to be merged into the Attack/AC system for the simplicity that brings,
Dodge Bonuses will obviously apply (except when Flat-Footed).
Anyhow, I've been posting on this topic in several threads, so I'm taking a break :-)
This is why, more and more, I like going to an existing mechanic. If CMB were an "attack," it would be clear which bonuses applied. If it were opposed by a Maneuver AC, it would be clear which bonuses applied. No new mechanics, no opposed rolls that people seem to hate, all the detail some crave.
Yes please. Just 10 + Str/Dex + any and all bonuses that apply to AC.
Hit this and succeed, fail and fail. Simple.
This is why, more and more, I like going to an existing mechanic. If CMB were an "attack," it would be clear which bonuses applied. If it were opposed by a Maneuver AC, it would be clear which bonuses applied. No new mechanics, no opposed rolls that people seem to hate, all the detail some crave.Yes please. Just 10 + Str/Dex + any and all bonuses that apply to AC.
Hit this and succeed, fail and fail. Simple.
And there was much rejoicing!
Which would kill the Shield-Fighting Style. Enemy has a shield? Grapple the idiot! It might seems realistic but brings up balancing issues.It will already give you a penalty as written, -4 for having a hand full, I'm actually making them more useful by having it apply to CMB to begin with. You can always drop the shield anyway. Besides, grapple isn't the fastest way to kill people anyway, the damage output is pretty low. If you want to kill shield guy, its better to just use a sword.
Not if you use a buckler. While not useful as a bashing weapon, it leaves your hand free (though at a -1 penalty).
Combats in my playtesting have become SO much more lively and fun since implementing the CMB mechanic (as is), and players have used MORE terrain/obstacle-based cinematic fun in the 6 months of...
I 100% agree with Robert on this one. As it stands, with no modifiers, CMB works great. We've used it for a couple of 'cinematic' attacks as well, again being drawn to the mechanic because of the simplicity. While I could understand changing the DC (although I think it is okay at 15), I really don't want a bunch of modifiers dirtying up the water.
"Roll - Result" has a wonderful sense of simplicity. 3.X is complicated enough. And all of the extra modifiers being discussed here, are easily added with the simple positive situation (hasted? blessed?) gives +2, and negative situation (on fire? flat footed?) give -2.
Simple and easy.
Peace,
tfad
I 100% agree with Robert on this one. As it stands, with no modifiers, CMB works great. We've used it for a couple of 'cinematic' attacks as well, again being drawn to the mechanic because of the simplicity. While I could understand changing the DC (although I think it is okay at 15), I really don't want a bunch of modifiers dirtying up the water.
But as Quandary said before, if getting rid of all modifiers is good for CMB attacks, wouldn't it be even better to get rid of all modifiers for all attacks? (Frankly, that doesn't sound better to me.)
Nobody denies that bonuses and penalties would be more realistic and logic. But it adds an amount of complexity the CMB system tried to reduce. You can't tell me the "Oh I found *another* bonus I forgot"-syndrom makes you that happy...
But yeah, I agree that *some* conditions to alter the CMB should be included. Cover, fighting defensively, power attack and charge penalty unnamed bonuses/penalties come in mind. (And even that's too much, the last point isn't that fine)
Finally I vote for adding DEX as an alternative for calculating the CMB defense value. The mage should have at least a chance to resist grapple...
|
|
Nobody denies that bonuses and penalties would be more realistic and logic. But it adds an amount of complexity the CMB system tried to reduce. You can't tell me the "Oh I found *another* bonus I forgot"-syndrom makes you that happy...
It happens with regular hit rolls and saving throws too. That is more of a group organization factor, not rules complexity. The basic target and modifiers can be calculated an noted on a character sheet, just like AC, Saves, Weapon stats etc.
I agree with you about the Dex thing though. One or the other, choose whichever is highest.
Nobody denies that bonuses and penalties would be more realistic and logic. But it adds an amount of complexity the CMB system tried to reduce. You can't tell me the "Oh I found *another* bonus I forgot"-syndrom makes you that happy...
But yeah, I agree that *some* conditions to alter the CMB should be included. Cover, fighting defensively, power attack and charge penalty unnamed bonuses/penalties come in mind. (And even that's too much, the last point isn't that fine)
As mentioned, this isn't added complexity, it's complexity that's already happening for the majority of Combat,
so if someone ISN'T able to deal with it, they're f*+@ed.If you want to advocate reducing the number of Attack/Dodge modifiers, that's a distinct issue on it's own, and if you do so, Melee Combat also benefits from reduced # of modifiers to worry about.
(note: it's an easy house-rule to ignore certain situational modifiers)
Once you go into "Some Conditions" territory, you've created a non-compatable sub-system that needs MORE space to describe and MORE "head-space" to track parallel to the Melee Combat system. Even 3.5's several Maneuvers were actually all built UPON already existing mechanics, i.e. Attack Rolls, Touch AC, Strenth Checks, so one already knew exactly how each of the sub-components worked.
Agreed. The huge variety of bonus types is a problem itself, not of CMB.
Something that was mentioned earlier (by Xuttah I think) is that, when you don't have a chance to hit it normally you do a maneuver instead, because it is easier. I don't think that's a bad thing, since the combat maneuvers do not result in hit point damage (presuming I interpreted the combat maneuver rules correctly), but in changing the situation by reducing AC (Grapple, Trip), by moving the foe (bullrush) etc.
So it's an tactical alternative that is easier to do but only results in hit point damage indirectly by giving your allies an opportunity to hit The Unhittable Sulk.
|
|
So it's an tactical alternative that is easier to do but only results in hit point damage indirectly by giving your allies an opportunity to hit The Unhittable Sulk.
It is possible to cause considerable damage via grapples, and it has potential to be a lot easier to do than hitting a high AC. This stinks of a rules exploit to me.
It is possible to cause considerable damage via grapples
Right, but grapple balances that by being a rather dangerous maneuver since the actual rules give the grappled one the first chance to hit or get out of harms way by having a high Escape Artist value.
But I agree that a specialised monk would kill the mage too easy by just grappling him.|
|
Once you go into "Some Conditions" territory, you've created a non-compatable sub-system that needs MORE space to describe and MORE "head-space" to track parallel to the Melee Combat system. Even 3.5's several Maneuvers were actually all built UPON already existing mechanics, i.e. Attack Rolls, Touch AC, Strenth Checks, so one already knew exactly how each of the sub-components worked.
But with your logic, we would already have to go into "some condition" territory - if were virtually combining the touch attack portion and opposed roll into one mechanic:
if you compare Sunder and Disarm 3.5 with you proposal.
IF ALL touch AC modifiers affect CMB across the board, disarm and sunder used to be EASIER to those using tactics that lowered their attack roll for the purposes of AC; now just the OPPOSITE would occur; since those modifiers are TOUCH AC applicable.
So IMO, using strict TOUCH AC modifiers accross the board is illogical to me. Thus a sub-set isn't necessarily already in place, and the whole system gets unnecessarily complicated.
Robert
|
|
Nobody denies that bonuses and penalties would be more realistic and logic. But it adds an amount of complexity the CMB system tried to reduce. You can't tell me the "Oh I found *another* bonus I forgot"-syndrom makes you that happy...
This is EXACTLY how I feel. I admitted the unrealism in keeping it the simple mechanic; I have been lobbying for gamist simplicity over simulationist complications on this issue; which is what I thought Paizo had created it for all along.
Robert
No. Maneuver Attacks use all modifiers applicable to Melee Attacks. Size Mods are kept distinct (and Situational). Maneuver AC *IS* "Touch AC (incl. Dodge Mods) + BAB & STR".
The Situational Modifiers are the EXACT SAME as the ones which apply to Attacks/Touch AC
Sure, if NO modifiers are allowed, than CMB is "simple". (though still a new sub-system)
But few people seem to want that (from all the questions about "what modifier apply?"),
because it just seems common sense for most modifiers to apply. (as they did in 3.5)
An "in-between" exceptional sub-system would be counter to the aim of simplification.
If Zero-Modifers-No-Matter-What doesn't cut it, then the only other option is Melee/Touch Compatability,
which just defines a new BAB-scaling AC#, and that Size Modifiers apply situationally whether Melee/Maneuver.
(NO new/separate subsystem)
|
Since the CMB system is relatively simple, maybe we should keep any modifiers simple as well:
1. If the target of a CMB check is under a condition effect that puts them at a disadvantage (i.e.; flat-footed, nauseated), the target DC is reduced by 2. This modifier can be applied once.
2. If the target of a CMB check is under a condition effect that puts them at an advantage (i.e.; cover, hasted), the target DC is increased by 2. This modifier can be applied once.
3. Miss percentages chances (i.e., Blink spells) apply to this mechanic.
4. A target incapable of taking actions (stunned?, unconscious, paralyzed) has a DC of 0.
Keeps things relatively simple. A list of effect that grant advantage/disadvantage could be cooked up. The modifier could be higher or lower as well. Stacking modifiers is thought, but you could end making a very complicated system that way. (Which is what I think we are trying to avoid. Otherwise, why not just go back to the 3.5 version?)
Thanks for reading.
|
|
Points 1 and 2 make it a totally different mechanic from the rest of combat. For sanity's sake let's keep them the same.
Maybe there could be an optional rule box that says just keep the straight CMB with no mods.
The problem with optional rules is this:
Pathfinder Society is a "league" orginized play. Optional rules are usually discarded for the sake of universal implementation. Thus the optional rule may help those DMs and players who dont mind tweaking a bunch of things (as many of us do), but those wanting to play in the league would be relegated to playing RAW with little or no chance of playing with the other rules.
To that I say - let there be a sidebar optional rule that says: "All modifiers apply to CMB" and the official way without. :-)
Robert
|
|
Sure, if NO modifiers are allowed, than CMB is "simple". (though still a new sub-system)
true enough - but its a very simple sub-system as you call it, and it's one many have already seamlessly adopted - so it's not like trying to learn german algebra.
But few people seem to want that (from all the questions about "what modifier apply?"),
I think that's an unfair assumption. Sure many have asked - but could just for the sake of wanting to know if it's being done and playtested correctly.
I believe that Paizo was intentionally vague on this - and never gave a clear-cut answer so that everyone wound up testing it out with their own interpretations - thus allowing for a varied playtest response with a multitude of different perspectives.
I don't think just because people were asking simply meant its because it was the way they wanted it; i asked for clarification just to know that I'm doing it right - and I don't it.
Robert
I believe that Paizo was intentionally vague on this - and never gave a clear-cut answer so that everyone wound up testing it out with their own interpretations - thus allowing for a varied playtest response with a multitude of different perspectives.
Intentionally messing with people's heads... Yep, Evil for sure. ;-)
I don't think just because people were asking simply meant its because it was the way they wanted it; i asked for clarification just to know that I'm doing it right - and I don't it.
Sure, that's definitely true.
Truth be told, I came to my view on this not from thinking "+1 Swords MUST apply to Maneuvers" (though I don't see why not), but from the inexplicable reason one could Fight Defensively or use Full Defense Action to avoid (Dodge Bonus) melee attacks, but THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY WAY to similarly avoid Maneuvers, which just seemed absurd. Honestly, I *AM* expecting this revision to be adopted, though how it would influence the Base DC is greyer territory.Anyhow, thanks for sharing your perspective on this.
I think we've all given Jason a good perspective from all sides.
Director of Games
|
Hey there everbody,
Part of this was indeed allowing groups to find their way with a new mechanic. The RAW was meant to exclude most combat modifiers so as to make it the most restrictive choice as possible. Adding in any modifiers makes combat maneuvers easier and easier.
I am still working out some of the math behind this... to determine how, exactly, we want this to play out. Until then, keep playing, feel free to try out different levels of permissiveness (from no modifiers, to common sense modifiers, to all modifiers) and let me know how it goes.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing