|
I have run a couple of CMB scenarios where I ran CMB at the same party again and again. Here are the two things I think would make it work.
1) Add Dex to the CMB. This allows dex based fighter types (and rogues and rangers and even some wizards and sorcerers but not those pesky gnomes, we don't want them CMBing the place up) to get into the act. It harms the big fella's just a bit, however they didn't seem to notice the power drop when we tried it.
B) Go back to opposed rolls. d20+CMB vs d20+CMB for all the maneuvers. No touch attack, make a nice little list of order 1st declare your maneuver, 2nd if there is an AOO then take it (and prevent said maneuver with a hit) if there is no AOO or if it misses move on to 3, 3rd both sides roll d20+CMB High side wins Ties reroll or they should go to the defender (don't care which just make sure to state it clearly and obviously) 4th Resolve the maneuver, 5th Eat the cookies
If the opposing rolls are to much (and I can imagine the hate mail I'll get over it but no worries I am leaving town soon and won't be back until the next section of the playtest is up) then please consider dropping the 15 down to 12 or even 10 (I prefer 10).
Thanks for your consideration, oh and for all the effort you at Paizo are putting into this and letting us all try to muck it up for you.
|
The reason I hate the opposed roles for maneuvers is that it breaks the concept of regular combat.
The idea is that regular combat is defended with AC and maneuvers is defended with CMB+15.
Opposed roles means that the defender gets TWO attempts to defend against an attack. This implies that during a sword fight the defender is not making any active attempts to avoid being hit and is just standing still.
IF opposed rolls are added back into maneuvers they really MUST be added into standard combat as well. so that an attacker makes a roll against AC then the defender makes their opposed roll and then you see if you deal any damage.
Opposed roles just do not make sense.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I also wouldn't want to go back to opposed rolls.
I do agree though that the 15+CMB DC is a bit too hard. Instead of changing the base formula though, I'd prefer to have a broader set of modifiers as to what affects the roll (like a bonus if your opponent is flat footed for instance), as well as the Improved _____ feats providing a +4 bonus again instead of +2. (I know this isn't the feat section, but it's hard to discuss CMB without involving those feats.)
|
|
I also wouldn't want to go back to opposed rolls.
I do agree though that the 15+CMB DC is a bit too hard. Instead of changing the base formula though, I'd prefer to have a broader set of modifiers as to what affects the roll (like a bonus if your opponent is flat footed for instance), as well as the Improved _____ feats providing a +4 bonus again instead of +2. (I know this isn't the feat section, but it's hard to discuss CMB without involving those feats.)
Another thread had a great idea (to me) to have CMB defense be a kind of CMB AC. It scales nicely, and is generally a couple of points lower than normal. Just enough to make that difference.
I agree with including dex into CMB it should not cost a feat to build a dextrous grappler as opposed to a strength based one. It makes no sense as a simulation of reality or as a fair and balanced game rule that taking advantage of being agile is a tougher path to follow than taking advantage of being strong.