|
I love Combat Maneuvers. The mechanics are simple and elegant. The first time we used it was in the first adventure of Curse of the Crimson Throne – someone tried to bull rush the gnome Hookshanks in the fishery in Edge of Anarchy – we called for a roll, told him he succeeded, and everyone sat around in stunned silence for a second realizing that was all the mechanic required – no touch attack, no opposed roll, just a target roll. Perfect.
However, I know there has been some argument on whether the CMB mechanic should be DC 15 or DC 10 plus opponent’s CMB, but aside from that, using Combat Maneuvers our group has run into numerous problems with circumstance bonuses or conditions more than the DC. Does being flat-footed affect a grapple? Does disarming someone who has cover deserve a modifier? How about tripping someone under the effects of a Tanglefoot bag, and nauseated? Grappling someone who is flanked? These things all came up in our regular game, and the rules are unfairly silent on this subject.
As well, the mechanic of a target equal to 15 + your opponent’s CMB was a bit clunky. We’d call out “I rolled a 26 – is that good?” It didn’t feel intuitive.
When Neceros put up a Pathfinder character sheet, it had a box on there for a CMB target number, which struck me – why not set up an Armor Class value for maneuvers?
We have Armor Classes in the game that are used in specific instances (being flat-footed, or touch), so adding a specific Armor Class for maneuvers isn’t unreasonable, or hard to work out.
If you took a base AC of 10, added in Dex and Deflection modifiers (like touch AC), added Size modifiers as a positive effect (not negative like touch AC), and then added Strength modifiers and Base Attack Bonus, you would have an effective AC number. By making it an AC value, you could apply most of the conditions that affect Armor Class (Dex penalties, being flat-footed, cover, etc), or effects that alter Strength or Dexterity.
If we did a Maneuver AC as above, here are some sample numbers that would replace the target CMB number currently in place (with the target 15 built in).
(CR 1) Wolf – CMBT 17, Maneuver AC 14
(CR 3) Ogre – CMBT 19, Maneuver AC 18
(CR 4) Otyugh – CMBT 15, Maneuver AC 11 (13 with Improved Grab?)
(CR 4) Pixie – CMBT 12, Maneuver AC 11
(CR 5) Troll – CMBT 26, Maneuver AC 23
(CR 6) Girallon – CMBT 29, Maneuver AC 27
(CR 7) Hill Giant – CMBT 27, Maneuver AC 26
(CR 11) Elder Earth Elemental – CMBT 46, Maneuver AC 40
(CR 16) Greater Stone Golem – CMBT 61, Maneuver AC 54
I am of the opinion that the existing CMB target is too high, but not radically so. If you look at my suggestion above, the Maneuver AC values are slightly below the current CMB target, which I think is fine. There ought to be some small hope that a 3rd level character could hope to escape from an Ogre’s grapple.
I originally discussed this subject at the thread below, and I’ve revised my argument based on that feedback …
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/combatManeuverIdeasDraft
|
I have to say I like this so far.
15+CMB seemed just a TAAAAAD too high.
10+CMB was a TAAAAAAD too low.A LOT of people have suggested 13.
that is only 2 points less.
Your CMB AC achieves a number very close to that.
We'll see if others find some real flaws but I like it.
I wonder if we get all complicated with a CMB for performing a combat maneuver and a CMDC for defending against one, if you get a better number that "makes sense."
So CMDC = 10 + BAB + DexMod + Dodge/Deflection/Moral AC buffs (things which would affect your touch ac) + circumstance values (like cover)
It because a little less smooth, but it is still 1 roll, and you can have that box on your character sheet and in the MM that keeps track of the non-situation value, and you just adjust on the fly as you would a targets AC.
This is more or less what I've been thinking.
The "Base" DC (you've suggested 10, I've seen 12 bandied about) is less important than "normalizing" CMB DCs into the NORMAL format for Combat to-hit DCs: AC.
This solves all the questions about "What (Offensive/Defensive) bonuses apply to CMB?",
because now Maneuver Attacks ARE just Attack Rolls (working with bonuses like Flanking),
and Defensive CMB is just another specific AC, which things like Cover or Fighting Defensively apply towards.
(I personally think it'd be absurd if Flanking or Fighting Defensively DIDN'T effect CMB)
The alternative is re-inventing the wheel by specifying how each and every Bonus type applies to Maneuvers. This change also makes it simpler because every character's "Defensive CMB" DC is now an AC number on their sheet, instead of needing to be continually "derived" by adding 15 to their CMB.
You mentioned how the Size Bonus/Penalty to AC is reversed for "Maneuver AC".
However, there's also a Size Bonus/Penalty to HIT (which is also reversed for Maneuvers)
Without other adjustments, Characters would need a separate Maneuver Attack Bonus factoring this in.
That's not so elegant, if we have a chance to make Maneuvers work (almost) the same as normal Melee Attacks.
Currently, each character's Size Modifiers are already "factored into" their Melee & Maneuver Attack Bonuses and ACs. When they're fighting equal-size opponents, these cancel out of course.
(even though the Bonus/Penalty is switched for Melee/Maneuvers, same-sized opponents always cancel out)
Instead, why can't we apply Size DIFFERENCE as a SITUATIONAL modifier,
applying the NET BONUS to whoever it favors depending whether it's a Melee or Maneuver Attack.
Since each Size Tier is now just +/-1, it's easy to calculate too!
"Legacy" published NPCs still have their Size factored in, but these would need to be adjusted anyways if playing strictly by Pathfinder rules. If you want to "gloss over" the 3.5/PF difference, then the PCs Penalty/Bonus (according to 3.5 if you want to be fair) can be applied to their Attack/AC and resolved vs. the NPC's Stats. A slight change to things, but I think it really makes Maneuvers work transparently with normal Combat Rules, which can only lead to one good thing:
People actually want to use Maneuvers more!
|
|
The more I think about this the more and more I like it.
It ties CMB into an old and familiar mechanic. Generally it seems to work. I am sure there are monsters and feats out there somewhere that will break it, but then they probably already broke CMB anyway.
By tying into AC it just about automatically lets us know when certain modifiers work and don't work.
You smart people keep refining this. I like it :)
Other Side Benefit of Maneuvers BEING "Attacks"/ Defensive CMB DC as AC:
Personally, I thought needing 2 Feats (Wpn. Finesse, Dex. Maneuvers) to get both benefits was too big a Feat Tax.
|
|
Hmmm... in my playtest campaign CMB has worked really well in practice, even though I was initially *very* skeptical of the DC 15 + CMB "formula". Now you really need to think twice about tripping or disarming an opponent...
I agree. The mechanic is simple and intuitive, but the DC is simply too high to make it worthwhile. I think that circumstantial modifiers, such as flanking or catching an opponent flat-footed would be enough to make the mechanic work, if the target number or attack number was modified to take those circumstances into account...
|
|
Hmmm... in my playtest campaign CMB has worked really well in practice, even though I was initially *very* skeptical of the DC 15 + CMB "formula". Now you really need to think twice about tripping or disarming an opponent...I agree. The mechanic is simple and intuitive, but the DC is simply too high to make it worthwhile. I think that circumstantial modifiers, such as flanking or catching an opponent flat-footed would be enough to make the mechanic work, if the target number or attack number was modified to take those circumstances into account...
I like that now the DC is high enough to make players think twice about going into 'Spiked Chain Tripper'-build! ;) Yet you're correct -- CMB should benefit from flanking and flat-footedness.
|
|
Why should the DC be static? Why not an opposed roll?
The whole idea of removing opposed rolls speeds up the game immeasurably. That part of the CMB mechanic is much much better.
As well, when you end up with two d20 rolls, you end up with a 38-number swing, which allows for some wierd mechanics. Imagine this -- two opponents, one with +1 CMB, another with +11 CMB attempt to grapple -- the first can roll as high as +21, the other can roll as low as +12 ...
I think Jason is set on the CMB mechanic staying in, but I think the target number doesn't need changing so much as taking into account combat modifiers...
On the character sheets I give to my players, I show the CM DC (combat maneuver difficulty class) right along with the AC, touch AC, and flat-footed AC. The CMB goes along with BAB, base melee attack, and based ranged attack. Makes it easy to keep track of.
As for the bonuses and penalties, I like them the way they are (15+). Combat maneuvers should be difficult to pull off. I would even make it more difficult; change the size modifiers to be what they were for 3.5 grapple rules to make backwards compatibility even easier.
|
I have to say I like this so far.
15+CMB seemed just a TAAAAAD too high.
10+CMB was a TAAAAAAD too low.A LOT of people have suggested 13.
that is only 2 points less.
Your CMB AC achieves a number very close to that.
We'll see if others find some real flaws but I like it.
mmm 13... a number i like
i will propose it in my next gamethey are begiinign to use it a lot... and so do i... they will thank itts a bit harder on me too :D
|
|
I have to say I like this so far.
15+CMB seemed just a TAAAAAD too high.
10+CMB was a TAAAAAAD too low.A LOT of people have suggested 13.
that is only 2 points less.
Your CMB AC achieves a number very close to that.
We'll see if others find some real flaws but I like it.
mmm 13... a number i like
i will propose it in my next game
they are begiinign to use it a lot... and so do i... they will thank itts a bit harder on me too :D
\
We've been playing with 12. It works better in our opinions that 15.
We've used 10, and 11; and both were a little too low. We got to 12 and it seemed the 'magic number'
Robert
|
|
I've been following this thread with considerable interest. I've always considered the 15 + CMB too high, so changing towards a (slightly) lower target is appealing. 12 sounds good, but I think there should be some accounting for other modifiers.
Cover, modifiers to touch AC (like from fighting defensively, combat expertise, deflection bonuses) are all very valid impediments to successfully performing a special combat action. I strongly believe that these need to be taken into account when figuring the DC/CMB.
Some conditions need to be taken into account too. Prone, sickened, shaken, dazed... really anything that affects a hit roll or AC should affect CMB.
Any suggestions?
|
|
I've been following this thread with considerable interest. I've always considered the 15 + CMB too high, so changing towards a (slightly) lower target is appealing. 12 sounds good, but I think there should be some accounting for other modifiers.
Cover, modifiers to touch AC (like from fighting defensively, combat expertise, deflection bonuses) are all very valid impediments to successfully performing a special combat action. I strongly believe that these need to be taken into account when figuring the DC/CMB.
Some conditions need to be taken into account too. Prone, sickened, shaken, dazed... really anything that affects a hit roll or AC should affect CMB.
Any suggestions?
there a conversation going on about this very thing here.
Robert
I like this idea. It's more complicated than the current set up, but not anymore complicated than normal AC rules, and once it's figured out, it does not change, except for circumstantial modifiers.
It could also help the case in the discussion in another thread where CMs can't be used in AoOs.
|
|
I like this idea. It's more complicated than the current set up, but not anymore complicated than normal AC rules, and once it's figured out, it does not change, except for circumstantial modifiers.
Well, Touch AC has a paragraph describing it, so I see Maneuver AC being pretty much the same thing. You have to define Maneuver AC, and then drop in a line here or there where Maneuver AC can be affected. Of course you have to add another AC value to each monster you encounter, but it's simple to add, and doesn't invalidate any existing 3.5 material...
Archade...
Yup, pretty much. I like it.
|
|
I like this idea. It's more complicated than the current set up, but not anymore complicated than normal AC rules, and once it's figured out, it does not change, except for circumstantial modifiers.Well, Touch AC has a paragraph describing it, so I see Maneuver AC being pretty much the same thing. You have to define Maneuver AC, and then drop in a line here or there where Maneuver AC can be affected. Of course you have to add another AC value to each monster you encounter, but it's simple to add, and doesn't invalidate any existing 3.5 material...
On top of "Maneuver AC" you would also need a bunch of explanation on Manuever Bonuses; if there are going to be a host of ways to improve ones defense of maneuvers, then there needs to be a host of ways to improve ones attempts with maneuvers.
EDIT (i.e. flanking, higher ground, morale bonus, luck bonus, weapon enhancment, weapon focus, weapon training, true strike, sacred bonus, insight bonus, circumstance bonus.....etc.)
How is this any different than the touch attack and opposed rolls with ad nauseum modifiers?
I'm simply afraid of the system just getting silly and convoluted with too many things to worry about adding - on both sides of the roll.
Robert
|
|
On top of "Maneuver AC" you would also need a bunch of explanation on Manuever Bonuses; if there are going to be a host of ways to improve ones defense of maneuvers, then there needs to be a host of ways to improve ones attempts with maneuvers.
EDIT (i.e. flanking, higher ground, morale bonus, luck bonus, weapon enhancment, weapon focus, weapon training, true strike, sacred bonus, insight bonus, circumstance bonus.....etc.)
How is this any different than the touch attack and opposed rolls with ad nauseum modifiers?
I'm simply afraid of the system just getting silly and convoluted with too many things to worry about adding - on both sides of the roll.
Okay
1) On the Maneuver AC, let it be modified by anything that affects Dex or Str modifiers, plus deflection bonuses, size bonuses, cover bonuses, dodge bonuses, and luck bonuses. Done.
2) On the Maneuver attack roll, you could leave it as-is, or allow attack modifiers -- any circumstance modifier that would affect an attack roll (higher ground, flanking, prone opponents) would affect it.
I agree allowing weapon bonuses, or weapon focus or weapon training (unless taken in unarmed) would be silly -- too much.
I believe in keeping it simple, but not to the point of ignorance. As I said in my original post, in playtesting we've run into a lot of circumstances that the players and I felt *should* modify the CMB roll, but the rules are currently silent on.
On top of "Maneuver AC" you would also need a bunch of explanation on Manuever Bonuses; if there are going to be a host of ways to improve ones defense of maneuvers, then there needs to be a host of ways to improve ones attempts with maneuvers.
EDIT (i.e. flanking, higher ground, morale bonus, luck bonus, weapon enhancment, weapon focus, weapon training, true strike, sacred bonus, insight bonus, circumstance bonus.....etc.)
I'm simply afraid of the system just getting silly and convoluted with too many things to worry about adding - on both sides of the roll.
OK, Since I've been a major proponent of Maneuver AC, I want to address these concerns:
Having Maneuver Attacks BE Attack Rolls and Maneuver Defensive DC BE Armor Class means:
You don't need to explain attack bonuses. All attack bonuses apply. Some don't like including Magic Enchantments, but I think they should be included, for the simplicity it allows (using your EXACT normal attack stats), and personally, I don't see a flavor problem with it: Weapons need to specifically grant the ability to use a Maneuver with them (i.e. Trip, Disarm), so Enchantments applying to those Maneuvers makes sense, since it's part of the intent of the Weapon design.
Having Maneuver Defensive DC BE Armor Class means:
You don't need to explain situational defensive bonuses. All Touch AC modifiers apply, so when your Touch AC goes up, so does Maneuver AC. BAB and STR bonus is the only difference between Touch/Maneuver AC (besides any higher base AC of Maneuver AC). The only other thing that could effect it are the Maneuver Feats, which are described in the Feat Chapter.
Maneuvers working exactly like Melee Attacks (vs. Touch AC most specifically) except for the one peculiarity of adding BAB & STR Bonus to the Maneuver AC means there ISN'T alot of new stuff to learn and track. Any Maneuver system that DIVERGES further from Melee vs. AC DOES imply separately re-inventing the wheel by defining how bonuses apply, offensively & defensively.
One thing important to note if we want to use 100% normal attack bonuses here:
Size Bonuses/Modifiers are the only sticky thing here, since a Larger Size benefits or penalizes the Attacker or Defender differently, depending whether a Maneuver Attack or Melee Attack is involved.
My solution is to STOP applying Size Modifers "permanently" to Character Stats
(i.e Small Character +1 melee & AC, -1 maneuver & maneuver AC)
but instead apply the NET DIFFERENCE in Size Categories SITUATIONALLY,
according to whoever the Attack Type favors.
So, Large creature attack Small = 2 size difference: -2 to-hit melee, +2 to-hit Maneuver.
Same-size always cancels out as-is, and in this system, IS simply treated as a ZERO modifier.
On top of "Maneuver AC" you would also need a bunch of explanation on Manuever Bonuses; if there are going to be a host of ways to improve ones defense of maneuvers, then there needs to be a host of ways to improve ones attempts with maneuvers.
EDIT (i.e. flanking, higher ground, morale bonus, luck bonus, weapon enhancment, weapon focus, weapon training, true strike, sacred bonus, insight bonus, circumstance bonus.....etc.)
How is this any different than the touch attack and opposed rolls with ad nauseum modifiers?
I'm simply afraid of the system just getting silly and convoluted with too many things to worry about adding - on both sides of the roll.
Robert
Robert, I certainly share your enthusiasm for simplicity. But Archade's idea equates CMB to one of the most widely used mechanics in the game.
I think it's worth contemplating and figuring out its bugs.
At the very least, it should be listed next to the other ACs on one's character sheet. It's already a very similar mechanic.
|
|
Having Maneuver Attacks BE Attack Rolls and Maneuver Defensive DC BE Armor Class means:
What about bullrush, overrun and grapple which don't even use weapons. I think if a weapon is involved the + is involved, but not across the board.
your comment on size got pruned from the quote but it seems easier for characters and monsters to have size modifiers figured out in advance then doing so on the fly. Instead of having to account the size difference mid combat, including figuring out when the dragon goes full attack what the difference for the human vs the gnome ac is.
What about bullrush, overrun and grapple which don't even use weapons. I think if a weapon is involved the + is involved, but not across the board.
It would work the exact same if you're holding a Longsword, but decide to Punch someone (Unarmed Attack).
You use all Attack Bonuses that apply situationally.Bullrushes ARE usable with Shields, so if you have Attack Bonus from your Shield, those seem fair game.
your comment on size got pruned from the quote but it seems easier for characters and monsters to have size modifiers figured out in advance then doing so on the fly. Instead of having to account the size difference mid combat, including figuring out when the dragon goes full attack what the difference for the human vs the gnome ac is.
I understand where you're coming from, though I can say it's EASIER to calculate this sort of thing now in Pathfinder, since it's only +/-1 per Tier. Note that this isn't about changing the functional chances of Maneuver Success, but merely presentation. If we DON'T distinguish Size Modifiers on a Situational, Net-Difference basis, then we need to have a separate Maneuver Attack Bonus number instead of re-using the standard Melee Attack Bonus for each Weapon/Attack modality. Being able to share as much as possible with Melee Attacks/Armor Class is the point of this in the first place.
I am against the idea of a name change to Maneuver AC, too. AC carries too much connotation that has nothing to do with combat prowess (BAB) and strength.
As much as "connotations" might influence our perceptions, you have to look at system design.
3.5 included Attack & Touch AC Mods as factors to Maneuvers, & including at least some of them seems necessary, otherwise players will ask "why do Flanks help Melee but not Trips? why can't I Fight Defensively vs. Maneuvers?"We can make make Maneuvers fully compatible with the Melee/AC system, or re-invent a 20% different sub-system, which would be needlessly confusing to remember the differences, much less the waste of space.
The great part of Maneuver AC is that for descriptive purposes,
you can easily see if you beat their TOUCH AC even if you fail their Maneuver AC
(in 3.5 terms, made the Touch Attack, but failed the Opposed STR)
If Maneuver Attacks are NOT identical to Melee Attacks (vs. Touch), then you CAN'T make that instant comparison based on the same roll. (This isn't even just for descriptive purposes, there could be Contingency Spells, Touch Poisons/Acids, or other effects triggered by merely Touching an opponent.)
|
|
On top of "Maneuver AC" you would also need a bunch of explanation on Manuever Bonuses; if there are going to be a host of ways to improve ones defense of maneuvers, then there needs to be a host of ways to improve ones attempts with maneuvers.
EDIT (i.e. flanking, higher ground, morale bonus, luck bonus, weapon enhancment, weapon focus, weapon training, true strike, sacred bonus, insight bonus, circumstance bonus.....etc.)
I'm simply afraid of the system just getting silly and convoluted with too many things to worry about adding - on both sides of the roll.
OK, Since I've been a major proponent of Maneuver AC, I want to address these concerns:
Having Maneuver Attacks BE Attack Rolls and Maneuver Defensive DC BE Armor Class means:
You don't need to explain attack bonuses. All attack bonuses apply. Some don't like including Magic Enchantments, but I think they should be included, for the simplicity it allows (using your EXACT normal attack stats), and personally, I don't see a flavor problem with it: Weapons need to specifically grant the ability to use a Maneuver with them (i.e. Trip, Disarm), so Enchantments applying to those Maneuvers makes sense, since it's part of the intent of the Weapon design.Having Maneuver Defensive DC BE Armor Class means:
You don't need to explain situational defensive bonuses. All Touch AC modifiers apply, so when your Touch AC goes up, so does Maneuver AC. BAB and STR bonus is the only difference between Touch/Maneuver AC (besides any higher base AC of Maneuver AC). The only other thing that could effect it are the Maneuver Feats, which are described in the Feat Chapter.Maneuvers working exactly like Melee Attacks (vs. Touch AC most specifically) except for the one peculiarity of adding BAB & STR Bonus to the Maneuver AC means there ISN'T alot of new stuff to learn and track. Any Maneuver system that DIVERGES further from Melee vs. AC DOES imply separately re-inventing the wheel by defining how bonuses apply,...
I'm sorry - I know I seem to be of the minority here; but this is the very reason why I liked it when I had no modifiers to apply. This just is way too much (again) to worry about. I would be much happier - despite the lack of realistic measures - if most of this was never even considered.
That being said - IF there is a mechanic that is to be inserted; using the "touch AC" modifiers is probably the best starting point.
Robert
|
|
2) On the Maneuver attack roll, you could leave it as-is, or allow attack modifiers -- any circumstance modifier that would affect an attack roll (higher ground, flanking, prone opponents) would affect it.
Leaving it as is would be silly IF the CMB becomes officially modified by any number of defensive standpoints.
otherwise, no attempt would ever succeed - if all defense is applied and no offensive modifiers to off-set them.
Truthfully - at the end of day; most people have about the same modifiers for all their offensive capability as they do for their defensive (on average).
It would be like starting a football game at both teams having 0 points, or both starting with 20. The end score may be different in each case, but it won't really make a difference relatively speaking - the end result comes out the same.
Robert
This is only the stuff that you have to deal with for ALL NORMAL MELEE/RANGED ATTACKS, which are generally much more common than Maneuvers. So if this stuff is a hassle, it's much more of hassle for regular attacks. If you want to make the case for reducing the number of Situational Melee Bonuses/Penalties, that's it's own issue.
(+They probably could be simplified, cutting out corner-cases that rarely make a difference)
The problem is that by making a non-compatable new sub-system (Maneuvers/CMB),
EVEN IF BY ITSELF IT'S "SIMPLER", the over-all effect is adding COMPLICATION to the game,
because you now have to track the different subsystems of Melee and CMB.
And yes, Offensive and Defensive Mods should GENERALLY balance out,
but Players already understand Melee Combat pretty well. WHY NOT let them apply this knowledge easily and transparently, so that they can use TACTICS like Flanking, etc, to fluidly use Maneuvers in situations where they are most likely to succeed at them? Using a unified Attack Roll/AC system seems an easy way to make Maneuvers fun, simple, and not overly imposing or un-necessarily difficult.
|
|
The problem is that by making a non-compatable new sub-system (Maneuvers/CMB),
EVEN IF BY ITSELF IT'S "SIMPLER", the over-all effect is adding COMPLICATION to the game,
because you now have to track the different subsystems of Melee and CMB.
But I don't have to, if the sub-system (CMB) doesn't have any situational modifiers to concern themselves with.
If the DC is always 15+opposing CMB, then the DC is always 15+opposing CMB.
Not 15+opposing CMB + opposing touch AC which "oh yeah I have Haste on this round, I used combat reflexes.....I have the shield spell on...no that doesn't count....i thought shield spell affects touch attacks cuz it's a force spell....no, only INCORPOREAL touch attacks.....oh yeah....so where were we +12 so far?
Thats the extent of my point.
Like I said - regardless - if the simplicity of no modifiers is not to remain implemented, then your idea of tying in to touch AC seems the most logical means of figuring out modifiers for the defender.
For the offender....well thats another matter; but they need to come out to the same otherwise, if you're including ALL modifiers that MAY help touch AC, then you need to consider ALL modifiers that help attacks, otherwise you now skew the balance of the CMB sub-system.
For instance:
If you say that the defenders TOUCH attack is used AS IS: including his current Dex which has been elevated thanks to Cat's Grace, Haste spell, Fighting Defensively, and that handy Shield of Faith deflection bonus of +3 that the cleric casts as a normal buff every day.....the DCs go from 15+CMB to more like 22+CMB.
The on the attackers side if you say that we'll ONLY include the situational modifiers: then it'll only make a difference if Haste, flanking and/or higher ground is in effect; its going to come up short. If we add all bonuses - as you would when making a 'touch attack' against the 'touch AC' that is being utilized in the above mechanic, then the luck, morale, enhancement bonuses etc soon add up to way too much and DC goes more like 10+CMB.
So if your Attacking modifiers will NOT include everything you would ordinarily include in a touch attack.....then you've got that seperate mechanic sub-system that you're trying to avoid anyway!
Robert
Sure, and the base DC should certainly be "looked at" if "All Attack, All Dodge Bonuses" are allowed.
Though really, a 1:1 BAB->Maneuver AC ratio is the best scaling Defensive Feature in the game.
I've seen many a complaint here that AC becomes irrelavent vs. high level Full BAB/High STR,
but Maneuver AC is certainly NOT in the same category.
And about the Base DC (I prefer to deal with it distinct from these issues, though it is obviously related)
the current Beta (Base DC15) seems premised on having equivalent chances to 3.5 for +0 BAB +0 STR +0 DEX Characters, having the same ~25% chance for them. High-BAB Combatants get screwed, because vs. "Equal" high-BAB opponents, they had closer to 50% chance in 3.5. This is a problem inherent to dropping from 2 rolls to 1, but I think the balance should be shifted more to keeping the high-level Melee types' chances more equivalent with 3.5. Having it be relatively easier for Commoners to push each other around just doesn't really seem as problematic to me, and actually, good for some comic relief.
|
|
Truthfully - at the end of day; most people have about the same modifiers for all their offensive capability as they do for their defensive (on average).
It would be like starting a football game at both teams having 0 points, or both starting with 20. The end score may be different in each case, but it won't really make a difference relatively speaking - the end result comes out the same.
That's where my playest data differs.
It looks to me like the conditional modifiers would have made all the difference in the world, because our group didn't try to use CMB in a sterile environment -- they were trying to use it in conjunction with spell effects, cover, tanglefoot bags, terrain, clouds of disease, and other horrible things that can only happen to PCs.
The problem is that by making a non-compatable new sub-system (Maneuvers/CMB),
EVEN IF BY ITSELF IT'S "SIMPLER", the over-all effect is adding COMPLICATION to the game,
because you now have to track the different subsystems of Melee and CMB.
Let's keep in mind, that this new subsystem is derived from 3.5's subsystem for special attacks. It is a far smoother system than than of 3.5, which didn't even have a single mechanic that ran through all special attacks.
Just thinking out loud....
Multiple modifiers do plague high level play and slow it down oh so much. I think the trick is to find those ones that really should apply to maneuver rolls, if we iron out this method.
An important distinction between a so called Maneuver AC vs. all other ACs, is that no direct damage is done on a Maneuver check, whereas there is for the other 3 ACs. Also, the maneuver AC takes into account the defender's fighting skill as his defense whereas, the other ACs take into account the defender's skill at dodging and armor.
|
|
The problem is that by making a non-compatable new sub-system (Maneuvers/CMB),
EVEN IF BY ITSELF IT'S "SIMPLER", the over-all effect is adding COMPLICATION to the game,
because you now have to track the different subsystems of Melee and CMB.Let's keep in mind, that this new subsystem is derived from 3.5's subsystem for special attacks. It is a far smoother system than than of 3.5, which didn't even have a single mechanic that ran through all special attacks.
Just thinking out loud....
Multiple modifiers do plague high level play and slow it down oh so much. I think the trick is to find those ones that really should apply to maneuver rolls, if we iron out this method.
An important distinction between a so called Maneuver AC vs. all other ACs, is that no direct damage is done on a Maneuver check, whereas there is for the other 3 ACs. Also, the maneuver AC takes into account the defender's fighting skill as his defense whereas, the other ACs take into account the defender's skill at dodging and armor.
QFT.
Good insight, Anthony.
Robert
I'm throwing this out to aid the discussion...
Here's the current formula for CMB DC:
CMB DC = 15 + the target's CMB
Here's the current formula for CMB:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Special size modifier
Here's what I think a Maneuver AC should be:
Maneuver AC = 10 + BAB + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + Special size modifier
I like Archade's original intent to get rid of the base 15 score, yet still give the defender an edge in avoiding a combat maneuver through strength and dexterity. The base 15 score seems to represent an approximation of this.
Let's look at the list of bonus types from the DMG and whether or not they should apply (to CMB and Maneuver AC):
1) Alchemical - nope
2) Armor - nope
3) Circumstance - yup
4) Competence - yup
5) Deflection - hmm... you're not really damaging your opponent...
6) Dodge - yup
7) Enhancement - hmm... I'd rather it not, because it wouldn't apply to all CMB checks. But...
8) Inherent - this is already factored into the basic formula
9) Insight - yup
10) Luck - yup
11) Morale - yup
12) Natural Armor - nope
13) Profane - hmm...
14) Racial - really doesn't apply... usually for skill checks
15) Resistance - nope
16) Sacred - hmm...
17) Shield - nope, but maybe with a feat
18) Size - it's already factored in
19) Unnamed - depends... the dwarf's hatred ability for instance should (it's not racial anymore)
There are a few more that I haven't listed, such as the fighter's combat training and those from feats. But this is a good start.
You know, after looking at the chart I made above, the heart of the CMB change is still a very simple formula. I predict that you will only have problems at higher levels of play, when the types of bonuses start stacking up.
Sure, so 16th-20th level Fighters or Barbarians might actually start having
DECENT chances of Maneuver success against SOME opponents? Sounds about right to me...
(and re: your list, I don't see a problem with Deflection applying vs. Maneuvers (which if we're making ManAC based off of TouchAC, is necessary), visually I would imagine some kind of "Energy" deflecting their perfect positioning as they try to hook around your leg, or "Shift" their blow just as it's about to strike the Sweet Spot to disarm your Weapon, etc, etc...)
Very interesting thread, I'll be following this closely and I intend to test these rules and see how it goes
Basically if I have followed so far the formula can be simplified to this
Maneuver AC = Touch AC + CMB
So the modifiers that affect touch attack just affect Maneuver AC. Then, it seems fair to allow modifers on CM rolls
Since we still have the problem of size because the modifiers negate themselsves in maneuver AC, why not just throw in a size modifier again ? This would make the formula
Maneuver Ac = Touch AC + CMB + size modifier
Hi Sharen,
it looks like you got the basic gist of things, but there a few more details:
(Maneuver Attack Rolls = Melee Attack Rolls)
Maneuver AC is best described as: Touch AC + 2?* + BAB + STR
(* To represent difficulty, but <15CMB since we're allowing new Defense bonuses (DEX/Dodge)
You noticed the Size Modifier issue, though it's slightly more complicated than that:
Because Maneuver Size Bonus/Penalties are "reversed" from Melee
,
we have a problem if we want to use normal Attack Rolls, not to mention linking the ACs.
The solution I came up with is:
NOT calculating Size Modifiers into Attack/AC stats, but applying them situationally, based on the net size difference between opponents (+/-1 per Size Tier difference), and applying them to whoever they favor depending on the type of attack (melee/maneuver) being attempted. This isn't mechanically different than the current set-up (still net zero modiifier both melee & maneuver w/ same-size opponents), but facilitates using the EXACT same attack rolls, instead of needing a separate "Maneuver Attack Bonus" just for this one issue:
|
|
I'm throwing this out to aid the discussion...
Here's the current formula for CMB DC:
CMB DC = 15 + the target's CMB
Here's the current formula for CMB:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Special size modifier
Here's what I think a Maneuver AC should be:
Maneuver AC = 10 + BAB + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + Special size modifier
I like Archade's original intent to get rid of the base 15 score, yet still give the defender an edge in avoiding a combat maneuver through strength and dexterity. The base 15 score seems to represent an approximation of this.
Let's look at the list of bonus types from the DMG and whether or not they should apply (to CMB and Maneuver AC):
1) Alchemical - nope
2) Armor - nope
3) Circumstance - yup
4) Competence - yup
5) Deflection - hmm... you're not really damaging your opponent...
6) Dodge - yup
7) Enhancement - hmm... I'd rather it not, because it wouldn't apply to all CMB checks. But...
8) Inherent - this is already factored into the basic formula
9) Insight - yup
10) Luck - yup
11) Morale - yup
12) Natural Armor - nope
13) Profane - hmm...
14) Racial - really doesn't apply... usually for skill checks
15) Resistance - nope
16) Sacred - hmm...
17) Shield - nope, but maybe with a feat
18) Size - it's already factored in
19) Unnamed - depends... the dwarf's hatred ability for instance should (it's not racial anymore)
There are a few more that I haven't listed, such as the fighter's combat training and those from feats. But this is a good start.
Good lord, there are just too many modifiers available anyway. This really needs to be reduced... *sigh*
I really like where you guys are taking this. It looks fantastic so far. I just hope the powers that be are not too resistant to changes to their CMB system cuase this is awesome.
Hi Sharen,
it looks like you got the basic gist of things, but there a few more details:
(Maneuver Attack Rolls = Melee Attack Rolls)
Maneuver AC is best described as: Touch AC + 2?* + BAB + STR
(* To represent difficulty, but <15CMB since we're allowing new Defense bonuses (DEX/Dodge)You noticed the Size Modifier issue, though it's slightly more complicated than that:
Because Maneuver Size Bonus/Penalties are "reversed" from Melee
,
we have a problem if we want to use normal Attack Rolls, not to mention linking the ACs.The solution I came up with is:
NOT calculating Size Modifiers into Attack/AC stats, but applying them situationally, based on the net size difference between opponents (+/-1 per Size Tier difference), and applying them to whoever they favor depending on the type of attack (melee/maneuver) being attempted. This isn't mechanically different than the current set-up (still net zero modiifier both melee & maneuver w/ same-size opponents), but facilitates using the EXACT same attack rolls, instead of needing a separate "Maneuver Attack Bonus" just for this one issue:
Sure, I see that the formula Maneuver AC = Touch AC + CMB + size modifier has a flaw in the way that in the case of 2 characters of similar size, similar CMB and dex bonus of 0, the Target would be 10...
Now let's see the case of one of the Fighters in my campaign. He has DEX bonus of +2, STR bonus +5, BAB +5, dodge feat and a ring of protection +1
If we keep to current Pathfinder rules, the CMT would be 25
If we keep to Maneuver AC = Touch AC + CMB + size, his maneuver AC would be 24
If we keep to your formula his maneuver AC would be 26
Another fighter with 20 STR and BAB +5 would have 25%/30%/20% of success depending on the formula used
Add in a +1 weapon would get 25%/35%/25%
Add in an improved maneuver feat and it would build up to 35%/45%/35%
Now I see in you case that The fighter attempting to maneuver spent 2 feats and only gets 35% of success with a +1 weapon, which is roughly what we get with the Pathfinder rules. Seems a bit unfair to me. Sure, maneuver are powerful because they can disable an ennemy, adding a +2 in the formula just kills the chances in my opinion.
Now, for the size matter, I don't see a real problem. Don't make maneuver attack rolls to be melee attack rolls because the size bonus would mess up. Just keep it the CMB way ( BAB + STR mod + size mod ) and add in the melee bonus you could get such as flanking, higher ground...
The modifiers in Touch AC and CMB are reversed so they negate ( a small size bonus to AC negates the small size penalty in CMB ). Put in a size modifier again and you'll get what you want I guess ? Or is it because more than 1 tier in différence could make it different ?
I just thought the Touch AC + CMB + size modifier was easy enough to calculate ( because you have both score already calculated ). Now I'll have to test this further to see if it goes well...
I like this concept alot. My group is not fond of the current system, mostly because they feel the +15 mechanic is too high to make Maneuvers practical. I had several maneuver-builds in 3.5, namely the "spiked chain tripper", and the "bull rush dwarven shield wall". Both were very viable in 3.5, but now..no-ah-ah. I like the concept of a MAN AC, it fits very smoothly into the current system.
I don't see issues with modifiers making it more complex. A current combat is already complex with mods at higher levels, and that includes attacks and AC. It should be easier to trip an enemy from a flank, it should be more difficult to disarm someone with a deflection bonus, and on and on. In the system proposed here, you are just adjudicating MAN AC like you would any other AC. As such, it WILL be more complex as mods are added by the PCs, but we're doing that with "regular" ACs anyway, aren't we?
I am going to try this out with my current group. We'll see in a couple of weekends how they shake it out.
I really like this idea.
The only thing that I need to peg down, personally, is the weapon factor: do your various weapon attack roll bonuses modify your attack roll?
Hmmm...
Let's look at the Maneuvers and whether an item can be used with it:
Bull Rush: Unarmed (natural weapon?), Shield
Disarm: Unarmed (natural weapon), Weapon (inc shields as weapons)
Grapple: Unarmed (natural weapon?)
Overrun: Unarmed
Sunder: Weapon (inc shields as weapons)
Trip: Unarmed (natural weapon?), Specific Weapons
So right off the bat, you can see that it's highly situational whether you can have a Weapon as part of the attack or not. Also, if we do decide to allow weapon factors, Monks get a nice CM niche boost by increasing most attacks from increasing his unarmed.
.
While the CMDC (Combat Maneuver Difficulty Check) would only need two entries, tops (one normal, one flatfooted), and could even be lined up next to the regular AC spots, CMB for attacking will end up being a bit more specific.
Perhaps it would be easiest to simply stat out your CMB as Strength + Size + Feats, and then add that number to whatever attack you are using, be it unarmed or with a weapon or sheild.
Yes, this would basically eliminate the Size bonuses. This, I'm not sure, is much of a problem.
We are already taking what used to be two rolls, one an opposed check, and combining them into one single DC check. So where the Large creature used to have a -attack on the touch attack, but then +attack on the maneuver check... it's now a wash.
Also, large and small creatures already have a modified Strength score. Large creatures already have a bonus to Strength, and Smaller creatures already have a penalty to Strength. This already quite adequately emulates the differences in power between a large and a small creature.
A Half-Orc attacking a Halfling already has a +2 difference (+2 Str vs -2 Str). I guess there's the matter of leverage on top of Strength scores...
Perhaps a blanket "+2/-2 circumstance modifier to your CM roll if you are larger/smaller than your target"?
However.. I'm not sure I feel the need to penalize the Halfling Barbarian any more than we already have.
.
I might check some numbers here on some common character builds to see what this looks like.
|
I've been following this thread with considerable interest. I've always considered the 15 + CMB too high, so changing towards a (slightly) lower target is appealing. 12 sounds good, but I think there should be some accounting for other modifiers.
Cover, modifiers to touch AC (like from fighting defensively, combat expertise, deflection bonuses) are all very valid impediments to successfully performing a special combat action. I strongly believe that these need to be taken into account when figuring the DC/CMB.
Some conditions need to be taken into account too. Prone, sickened, shaken, dazed... really anything that affects a hit roll or AC should affect CMB.
Any suggestions?
I'm for CMB at 12 also. Have been since the beginning.
In addition Those races that get an AC bonus vs. Giants, yeah I give it to their CMB as well...no point in having good AC vs a giant if they just pick you up and squeeeeeeeze you...you need to be able to avoid that attack, and to be able to trip them easier as well...
Modifiers should add to CMB as well though. Especially flanking. Also, if something is flat-footed they should be easier to perform a maneuver on, as they can't react.
If I'm reading this right,
Quandary's idea of using the difference in size as an attack modifier is starting to resemble "Reach" from Shadowrun 3e. That's a good thing.
I like this a lot — especially the fairly simple calculations for Maneuver AC. Does everyone agree enough that we can get a definitive rule written centrally that we can use in playtest?
(and a reminder, Shield Bonuses should count toward CMB for Bullrushes and overruns)