I like simpler. I didn't like the way it worked in 3.5. ; )
Charlie, my group is finding that the MAC as presented here is actually easier to fathom than the CMB system. Once the Maneuver AC number is set up, they know exactly which mods apply to all of their attacks and their AC number. And they know it based on all of the experience (everyone who plays already has) with ACs and what constitutes the numbers that go into the AC.
That the numbers may change is ok, they change for AC, flatfooted, and touch anyway as a combat rages on. What I found when I intially presented it was that it was "new", and thus "difficult". Once they tried it out, it became intuitive.
As stated before, any and all feedback is appreciated. Your responses give me a chance to step back and make sure I am seeing the big picture.
(sidenote: CharlieRock related to CharlieGuard?)
(sidenote: CharlieRock related to CharlieGuard?)
Nope =)
Quick question, as Ive been trying to keep up with all 2 or 3 threads based on this, I like it, it does make things work smoother with alot less "well what about this this and that" and "that's not realistic or fantastic" questions from my players.
Question is about Grappling, what happens after you've succeeded in the grapple attack vs. MAC attempt, are there any further rolls required, and with pinning ?
One other thing, Ive already implemented, in regards to a home brewed called shot system with my group, play tested and tried and true, based but improved upon the Game of Thrones system, where ac is no longer based on armour or the standard AC10+ ; but on defense bonus from class + dex bonus + any other modifiers typical to 3.5 AC improvement + D20 roll.
Touch AC is calculated as all of the above -8. So how would I come to the same or around the same equivalent as you have above with the MAC system.
One other thing, Ive already implemented, in regards to a home brewed called shot system with my group, play tested and tried and true, based but improved upon the Game of Thrones system, where ac is no longer based on armour or the standard AC10+ ; but on defense bonus from class + dex bonus + any other modifiers typical to 3.5 AC improvement + D20 roll.Touch AC is calculated as all of the above -8. So how would I come to the same or around the same equivalent as you have above with the MAC system.
It sounds to me like their "touch AC" is different in concept from the one we're using here. I see what they're going for with Touch AC -8, but it differs fundamentally from the logic we used for the MAC method (and 3.5).
If your basic AC system is accounting for Dex and a Defense score, I wouldn't bother with Maneuver AC and just resolve it as a normal attack with the special size modifier for both combatants. That should be statistically very close to Maneuver AC (since armor is counting for DR in this case, I'm guessing) and it meets my conceptual requirements for a grapple.
If your basic AC system is accounting for Dex and a Defense score, I wouldn't bother with Maneuver AC and just resolve it as a normal attack with the special size modifier for both combatants.
Strength modifier should also be added to defense. Otherwise, yeah, sounds about right... assuming the class Defense attribute scales in a way similar to Base Attack Bonus (or equivalent).
Defense bonus does scale, scales just like base attack bonus progression for the different HP sets, however its backwards with the Fighter/ Rogue set. The more dexterous classes like Rogue/ Ranger/ Monk having the better Defense Bonus progression :
Rogue (ends at +20 at level 20)
Fighter (ends at +15 at level 20)
Wizard (ends at +10 at level 20)
I for one really enjoyed the simplicity of the new (PF BETA) combat maneuvers system. We playtested it and it came up in several situations. Players thought it was good. As others pointed out, perhaps lower the DC a bit (12 seems a good number), perhaps allowing dodge bonuses as well to add up (for some maneuvers at least). But most of what has been suggested in this thread seems a step back towards the complexity of 3.5.
MHO.
I for one really enjoyed the simplicity of the new (PF BETA) combat maneuvers system. We playtested it and it came up in several situations. Players thought it was good. As others pointed out, perhaps lower the DC a bit (12 seems a good number), perhaps allowing dodge bonuses as well to add up (for some maneuvers at least). But most of what has been suggested in this thread seems a step back towards the complexity of 3.5.
ummm. I appreciate your skepticism, I really do. Approval is the gauntlet any good rule must brave.
This method = CMB with dodge bonuses. The is one "new" number, we just named Maneuver AC (already existed), added dodge bonuses, and changed the instructions to read more like Attack vs. AC. The "new" number is actually a reversion to 3.5.
If your standard for simplicity is the , Maneuver AC has the same simplicity as CMB. That's pretty good for a system that makes more technical sense and requires less rules text (since much of the standard attack text applies).
As you can see, this method is virtually identical to CMB, only it takes into account already calculated attack factors.
The actual changes are two:
Sorry, and yes I very much appreciate how you guys summed that up for me, gonna try it later today in the session.
I still have 1 more question, with Grappling and the MAC, how many rolls are being made to grapple, pin, or do you have you have to continually make the MAC roll to keep someone grappled or what?
|
I sumed that up for my group, i will get it in a minute. you only make one roll. the first is to grapple. on the next round(if your opponent fails to break the grapple) you gain a +5 to grapple checks. if you succeed, do one of the following.
*move 1/2 speed then place you opponent in any adjacent square.
*do unarmed damage. (for the monk this is massive)
*Pin opponent, effectively nuetralizing him.(i beleive they take a -10 to rolls)in subsequent rounds you can tie up, or do damage to pinned opponents. Getting the rope is the hard part.
You can take a -4 to grapple if you want to use a light weapon in the grapple. I figure you can use the weapons damage if you do so.
Is this what you were asking for?
I sumed that up for my group, i will get it in a minute. you only make one roll. the first is to grapple. on the next round(if your opponent fails to break the grapple) you gain a +5 to grapple checks. if you succeed, do one of the following.
*move 1/2 speed then place you opponent in any adjacent square.
*do unarmed damage. (for the monk this is massive)
*Pin opponent, effectively nuetralizing him.(i beleive they take a -10 to rolls)in subsequent rounds you can tie up, or do damage to pinned opponents. Getting the rope is the hard part.You can take a -4 to grapple if you want to use a light weapon in the grapple. I figure you can use the weapons damage if you do so.
Is this what you were asking for?
adding also that the grappled character gets a -2 to lots of stuff, as per the grappled condition, including Standard, Touch and Maneuver AC.
This method = CMB with dodge bonuses.
It is also an extra step added to you when you use older material since CMB was directly equal to old grapple bonus. As it stands all I have to look at in the MM or adventure mod is the grapple. With this I need to stop play while I tally up their MAC.
I'd prefer the CMB over the MAC just for this simple reason alone. I don't feel the work, minimal as it is, is warranted. i.e. I don't miss the trip-fighter.
For non-Medium NPCs, 3.5 Grapple DOES NOT equal CMB,
because the Maneuver Size Modifier has changed.
One simple addition (on par w/ recalculating Grapple for new Size Mods) seems a reasonable adaptation for a Maneuver system completely consistent with the rest of the combat system.
Of course, all new material published FOR Pathfinder (incl. new Monster Manual) doesn't need conversion.
All in all, I doubt it takes much more time to mentally add up a BAB, STR & Touch AC,
than it would to roll an opposed STR or BAB check per 3.5 rules.
I've been using 11 from the start.
15 was too high. But I use the following size mods...
.
Medium >> 0
Large >> +2
Huge >> +4
Gargantuan >> +8
Colossal >> +16
The PF size mods were a little too weak using a base 11.
As you can see, this method is virtually identical to CMB, only it takes into account already calculated attack factors.
The actual changes are two:
Replace the arbitrary 15 from the maneuver DC with Touch AC.
Replace CMB with a standard attack roll plus the Special size modifier from 3.5.
Hey guys
This seems to be the most recently updated thread on the CMB vs MAC thing.
I was trying to wrap my head around the whole CMB thing. It seemed confusing and where it is spread out in the books in a few places didn't help. (I'm coming from 2E so I'm even more lost).
The Maneuver AC concept here is a LOT better IMO and it makes sense to me. I'm going to test it out when I start running my PF campaign (this weekend hopefully).
As you can see, this method is virtually identical to CMB, only it takes into account already calculated attack factors.
The actual changes are two:
Replace the arbitrary 15 from the maneuver DC with Touch AC.
Replace CMB with a standard attack roll plus the Special size modifier from 3.5.
The Maneuver AC concept here is a LOT better IMO and it makes sense to me. I'm going to test it out when I start running my PF campaign (this weekend hopefully).
Welcome to our little club!