I posted this in another thread, but thought I'd start a new one,
to hopefully gather all the feedback in one place, in it's own thread:
This topic basically springs from all the confusion/questions about how to deal with Situational Attack/ Defense Bonuses and how they interact with the Maneuver System (they largely did apply somehow under 3.5)
The basic philosophy behind this proposal, is that using the EXACT same systems already present in Melee Combat (Attack & AC) re-uses player & DM knowledge, and is easy to use. Any system where Maneuvers were NOT 100% compatable to Melee Attacks, but had it's own sub-set of which bonuses and penalties applied, would be a huge headache to track how it differs and how it's the same as the common Melee system.
So, here it is:
Maneuver Attack Rolls = Melee Attack Rolls (& all Modifiers)
Maneuver AC = Touch AC (& all Modifiers) + 2?* +BAB +STR
(* )
Size Modifiers are no longer calculated into Stat Blocks, but are applied situationally,
based on the net size difference between opponents (+/-1 per Size Tier difference),
applying it to whomever they favor depending on the type of attack (melee/maneuver) being attempted.
Example:
[#] halfling attempting melee hit vs. knoll: BENEFIT halfling +2 Attack
[#] knoll attempting grapple vs. halfling: BENEFIT gnoll +2 Attack
[#] knoll attempting melee hit vs. halfling: PENALTY knoll -2 Attack)
This change is caused by Maneuver AC being based off of, and using the same Modifiers as Touch AC. Separating out the Size Modifiers to be "Situational" Bonuses just allows Maneuver/Touch AC to be more compatable, and allows using the exact same Attack Bonuses for Melee/Maneuvers, which is largely the point of this proposal.
This has NO mechanical difference to the current system, it's just a matter of "presentation", or how the Size Bonuses are tracked. Of course, using legacy 3.5 NPCs takes slightly more effort, but that's also the case in Beta. In those cases, PC's Size Mod's can be applied "unilaterally" to their Attacks/AC (using 3.5 era Size Mod #'s if aiming for parity with the published NPCs' #'s)
Note:
Weapon Finesse (Feat) now combines the offensive aspect of Dextrous Maneuvers.
Specific Bonuses CAN apply to ONLY Maneuvers (or only SPECIFIC Maneuvers) or even ONLY Melee,
but general Attack Bonuses apply to all of them. (Shield Bonus->Bull Rush is a unique example)
DEX and STR Penalties apply to Maneuver AC just like Bonuses do.
Magic/ Masterwork Weapon bonuses DO apply, as do any Defensive bonuses that apply to Touch AC.
...I think that's pretty much it. It's really VERY VERY simple.
Getting some more feedback on this (game-play, player/DM learning curve/enjoyment) would be great!
The only aspect I find might be a bit iffy is the Size modifier. But not for the reason you'll likely expect (or hear from others).
I don't mind the tracking on a situational basis. Rather, I'm a bit iffy on the application.
In 3.X, performing a Combat Maneuver had a minimum of two rolls.
First the check to make contact with the target. This was a regular attack roll, with all the trimmings. So size modifiers were applied normally (small = easier to attack, harder to hit).
The second check was the opposed roll. This is the skill and str thing, and where size modifiers were applied in opposite (larger = higher bonus).
.
Now in Pathfinder, we have a single roll that is meant to encompass both aspects: the landing the hit AND the maneuver perfomance.
Most modifiers can simply be slapped together. Add up all the attack bonuses (BAB, etc) and Strength modifiers, and voila.
However, the size modifiers are now at odds with each other.
So while a Large creature should have a harder time landing the attack, he should have an easier time performing the actual maneuver itself.
This basically makes it a wash. No more size modifiers to Combat Maneuvers.
.
We have a couple options here...
1. Ignore on aspect of Size in the equation. So Larger creatures get a hand-up in that they no longer suffer a penalty to landing the attack, or Smaller creatures get a bonus in no longer having the penalty to the maneuver.
It seems the common trend here is to screw over the little guy and remove the "to hit" factor of size.
2. Call it a wash and make it so size modifiers don't affect the actual outcome of maneuver. Yeah, an Ogre should be able to push over a Halfling easily... he's bigger and has the leverage! IF he could get his hands on this little squirt properly...
3. Same as Option #2, except for any maneuvers that have continued effects after the initial roll (such as Grapple), you start to factor in the size modifiers in favor of the Larger creatures.
So to initiate a Grapple, size doesn't matter (an Ogre starting a grapple can get a good grip, as long as he can catch his target). Once the grapple is ongoing, the Ogre no longer has to try and grab the target, so he retains his size advantage.
.
If anything, I think option #3 would make things even more simpler (while keeping believability for grappling), so for the moment it's my preferred choice in all this.
Thanks for your feedback about this, that's actually an interesting issue.
BUT, since it's NOT actually particular to the proposed change at all
(also applying to Beta Maneuvers AND Melee),
I'd rather respond to that subject in another thread: here.
For clarity's sake, I'd prefer to keep this thread focused on play test reports, or at most,
for QUESTIONS about this proposal, from people who aren't familiar with it, but would like to playtest it. Thanks.
Now in Pathfinder, we have a single roll that is meant to encompass both aspects: the landing the hit AND the maneuver perfomance.
FWIW I believe this is the rationale behind the reduced size modifiers in PRPG Beta CMB. The system was normalized with zero bonuses, and then the size bonuses were additionally normalized. In a perfectly even 3.5 match-up, the touch attack is a 50% roll, meaning the Strength check is only applied half the time (and thus counts for only half toward the CMB). So we convert from 3.5e:
Large = +4 Size
+4 x 50% = +2
Combine with Hit modifier on same roll: +2-1 = +1.
Likewise, the reduction of the feats to +2 is because the original +4 only applied to half of the process. This same process leads to the 25% base success chance (15+CMB) because two 50% rolls is a 25% roll. It would be sound reasoning if only naked level 1 commoners ever performed or suffered combat maneuvers...
Because it does apply directly to this mechanic, Quandary, I hope you don't mind if I post my own solution to the size modifier issue here. Simply double the CMB size modifier (so e.g. Large +2, Small -2) and apply it to CM attacks and AC without having to change anything at all on the character sheet. This cancels the Large penalty or Small bonus already worked into the attack/AC, and adds the inverse. The difference between doing it this way and Quandary's difference-based method is that it preserves certain outliers in the 3.x size modifiers: a Large creature vs. a Colossal one, for instance, has a +6 RAW attack/AC bonus but only a +2 Quandary bonus. Not going to venture an opinion at this moment on whether or not that's how it really ought to be. ;)
Please understand I wasn't advocating for the +/-1 Tiers of Beta, I'm just focusing this proposal on one area (Maneuvers as Attacks vs. AC). Tejon's point is GREAT, but it's really a tangential issue to the main point of this proposal, even though it clearly affects Maneuvers just as much as every other part of Melee.
I posted a response to this issue HERE in this other thread
(which is also a better place to abstractly discuss different "Base" DCs/ACs or the size of Maneuver Feat bonuses)
Anyhow,
I look forward to any playtest feedback on this proposal, whatever Size Modifier scale you prefer :-)
Actual playtest comparisons to your experience with Beta, and with 3.5 are great, as well as just everyone's sentiment about the new "Maneuver AC" system.
Thanks.
()
It's alt-162. ;)
We tried the Maneuver AC for the first time tonite. I used the touch AC + str bonus/penalty. All combat mods applied where it seemed appropriate, although in reality, we mostly encountered grapples. On to the story...
I am running Rise of the Runelords, they are on "The Skinsaw Murders."
The fight in the cornfields around Hambley's farm, vs the ghoul pack. Most of the maneuvers were grapples by ghouls emerging from the corn, or ghouls dropping down from their scarecrow positions. In each case, the MAN AC, worked quite intuitively. The monk with his mage armor was very difficult to grapple, right up until he was paralyzed, and his touch AC (and MAN AC) was without dex and wis. The dwarf fighter was also hard to grapple because of a high str, and when he was engaged, he was able to break free fairly easily with his high str bonus on his CM check. The weaker and less dextrous PCs stayed well into the middle of the group until ghouls emerged out of the corn, grappled and paralyzed a few (shouldnt have used that mage armor on the monk, dontcha know), and dragged them into the corn.
The PCs then got to use their CM rolls vs ghoul MAN ACs. Mostly to rescue the ones dragged off. As expected, the melee types, and especially the monk (to his immense pleasure) were very effective at grappling ghouls.
If I missed the proper formula as discussed, forgive me, I didnt write it down before the session, and I went from memory. Also, I had a 13 PC group tonite (I average 10) so there were many more ghouls than in the written scenario, making for a longer combat.
I am giving the narrative account here. If there are specific questions, I believe this is the place to ask, as it applies to the playtest of the MAN AC. Quandary, check me if I am wrong on that point.
We tried the Maneuver AC for the first time tonite. I used the touch AC + str bonus/penalty.
...+BAB, right?
If there are specific questions, I believe this is the place to ask, as it applies to the playtest of the MAN AC.
What's the party level? 1st, or slightly higher?
Anyone with a size modifier? If so, which method(s) did you try?
Plan on running anything around level 10? :)
I did not include BAB. This was intentional, I wanted to try it in a very simple format for a few sessions. Thinking back, I'm not sure it would have made any difference the way it played out. The ghouls would have been a bit harder to break from, but the PCs would have been a bit harder to grapple. I'll play it this way for a another 2 sessions, then add BAB.
There was one very interesting side effect: PCs actually were actively contemplating Combat Manuevers for the first time. Especially grapples to free paralyzed/abducted compatriots. I dont know if this is because the mechanic became easier to comprehend, thus making it seem more feasible, or because the new AC had CMs in front of their faces. Will see how that works out as well.
The party APL is 3. No size modifiers came up this time around. I plan to run up as high as the Adventure Path will take them. Shackled City took us to 19.
Sounds like it worked out very nice, which given you had 13 player(!!!) is a decent accomplishment!
One question about the specific Mechanics you were using:
You weren't using BAB, but were you using the "+2*" on top of Touch AC?
The +2 was intended to simulate a higher difficulty, but not quite as much as CMB's 15 given the DEX and Dodge Bonuses - Though that's a provisional number that should be adjusted based on playtesting. It sounds like it worked out fine for you & the players, and not including those factors probably made the Maneuvers quite a bit easier, which sounded like it was fun. Ultimately though, Monsters are using the same formula, and you don't want it to become TOO easy for high STR/high BAB Monsters w/ Maneuver Bonuses - Though as came up in your playtest, if Maneuvers are easier, it's also easier to ESCAPE from Grapples...
That sounds like it would have made the Monk EVEN harder to Grapple, though it sounds like he did pretty good as-is... Which, given it seems Monks are intended to almost be the "Maneuver Specialists" of ALL the Classes, seems pretty reasonable (and good to hear he WAS taken down eventually, presumably after dominating enough that he became the biggest target).
...One more question:
A unique benefit of the Maneuver AC system I might not have mentioned is you can easily discern whether an Attack hit Touch AC, but not Maneuver AC. Did this come up in play at all, and did you or the players appreciate it for it's descriptive quality, i.e. they "Connected" but didn't pull off the Maneuver? One could always "fake" this under CMB, say if you simply failed by a small-ish amount, but I think it's interesting that you can do this 100% accurately with Maneuver AC... And if you're fighting Monsters with Acid Skin or Contingency Spells (on Attacks), it could even be important.
...Anyhow, I look forward to hearing more playtest feedback, certainly if you run such large games regularly, that's a better "pool" to minimize statistic irregularities.
As mentioned, higher level playtests would be valuable, but also ongoing feedback from the same players, particularly if they're able to compare Maneuver AC to Beta's CMB or 3.5's Maneuvers.
If you're inclined, you might even discuss with the players bringing in the +BAB and +2 Base DC, and that without those factors Maneuvers would tend to become more and more "automatic" at high levels (including for Monsters).
Also, I'd love to hear about how Situational Modifiers affect things, and how tactics are influenced by that (it sounded like Flanking could have applied in your last game, with masses of Ghouls...?). If the BAB and +2 are included, that's a major motivation to look for Flanking/ Flat Footed/ etc, to gain advantage.
Anyhow, it sounds like everyone enjoyed it, which is the main purpose!
I do want to add the BAB in eventually (sooner rather than later) to test it out. I will be leaving out the +2. As I said before, I think its an arbitrary number, and I'd rather not add numbers just to increase difficulty. BUT, I will be keeping eye on the maneuvers to see if/when the +2 may be necessary.
Situational modifiers certainly came into effect.
<Warning: off-topic background approaching> I try to "run by example" as it were. I am a firm believer in using tactics in rolplaying games, so my adversaries tend to teach by the beat-downs they lay on the PCs at times. My group is large, and diverse. 2/3rds of the group is "experienced", (meaning we are 40+) and the other 1/3rd are sons and daughters of the first group. We have been playing a long time, and the older crowd is very quick on the uptake, the younger ones, not so much. (One of them led the group in characters killed in Shackled City with 12).
Ghouls breaking free from their scarecrow perches were given the height advantage bonus for their grapple, while ghouls appearing from the corn would catch PCs flat-footed, unless the PC coould make a (listen) Perception Check. Flanking did come up only on occasion, as I used 5' wide footpaths through the cornfields to limit how many PCs could be brought to bear on the the Pack. When the ghouls did draw them into a small clearing, it was to bring down the monk (who was devastating them), and the paladin, (who was Aldern's obsession).
Well, it's not arbitrary, it's meant to be easier than CMB 15DC but harder than Touch AC (@ 0 BAB/0 stat mod), also taking into account that high DEX is rarely seen with high STR.
Other posters did a numeric test finding 12 to be closest to 3.5's success chances (The 15DC MATCHES 3.5 for low-level 0-stat mod characters, but doesn't scale for higher STR/BAB characters).
That said, your playtest feedback is excellent, I look forward to more!
Well, it's not arbitrary, it's meant to be easier than CMB 15DC but harder than Touch AC (@ 0 BAB/0 stat mod), also taking into account that high DEX is rarely seen with high STR.
Other posters did a numeric test finding 12 to be closest to 3.5's success chances (The 15DC MATCHES 3.5 for low-level 0-stat mod characters, but doesn't scale for higher STR/BAB characters).
That said, your playtest feedback is excellent, I look forward to more!
I was pretty sure that the number experiments you mention found 12 to be a good base for CMB without adding touch AC modifiers. (EDIT: wasn't this for keeping low-Str enemies from becoming too easy?) It's not uncommon to find good Str and moderate Dex, or vice versa, and both commonly associate with high BAB... of course, as you say, playtesting will be the ultimate test; I'm pretty sure it will turn out that basing it on touch is good enough, though, especially considering that whether they use yours or my method of adjusting size mods, creatures which have low dex due to bigness will not be unduly penalized.
The presence of BAB in the AC calculation is pretty important (counterintuitive though it may be). I wonder how it would have changed Old Guy's situation? The ghouls would have gained 1 CMD, but the monk would have gained 3!
Funny you should ask. I did some number crunching today. Here is the setup:
I used a random number generator to give my die rolls, and plugged it into an excel spreadsheet to tell me successes and failures. I used 4 tables:
Table 1: Monk vs Ghoul; Man AC = touch AC + Str
Table 2: Monk vs Ghoul; Man AC = touch AC + Str + BAB
Table 3: Ghoul vs Monk; Man AC = touch AC + Str
Table 4: Ghoul vs Monk; Man AC = touch AC + Str + BAB
I used 2 PCs as they existed Saturday for the baseline. The second was a wizard (just insert "Wizard" where it says "Monk" for the table breakdown. I guess these would be grapples only, there are no weapon/feat mods in these numbers. We only experienced grapples so far anyway. The stats were as follows:
Monk: Str14(+2), BAB+1, Touch AC 19
Wizard: Str7(-2), BAB 0, Touch AC 13
Ghoul: Str13(+1), BAB+1, Touch AC 12 (straight out of the MM)
I ran 4 trials, 100 rolls each. I ran 3 sets of each four: first set = no mods, second set = +1 (for height), third set = +2 (for flank)
This is what I got:
1st run, no mods
Monk vs Ghoul: "hit" 53% on table 1, 52% on table 2.
Wizard vs Ghoul: hit 28% table 1, 28% table 2.
Ghoul vs Monk: hit 12% table 3, 4% table 4.
Ghoul vs Wizard: hit 58% table 3 (no table 4, the wiz has no BAB)
2nd run, +1 for height
Monk vs Ghoul: "hit" 52% on table 1, 50% on table 2.
Wizard vs Ghoul: hit 31% table 1, 30% table 2.
Ghoul vs Monk: hit 16% table 3, 12% table 4.
Ghoul vs Wizard: hit 65% table 3 (no table 4, the wiz has no BAB)
3rd run, +2 for flank
Monk vs Ghoul: "hit" 71% on table 1, 60% on table 2.
Wizard vs Ghoul: hit 43% table 1, 38% table 2.
Ghoul vs Monk: hit 23% table 3, 12% table 4.
Ghoul vs Wizard: hit 68% table 3 (no table 4, the wiz has no BAB)
Remember Tables 1 & 3 are Man AC WITHOUT BAB, tables 2 & 4 have the Man AC with BAB. Results are based on 400 die rolls each (thank god for spreadsheets).
You guys tell me what you think we are seeing here. I will tell you what I thought once I hear from you.
OK, first off, I was amazed at the Monk's numbers,
but I presume he was heavily optimized and you were using a very high point buy/ very luck rolls.
(otherwise, I'm not sure how to achieve 19 Touch AC at that level)
That said, it's good to know what is achievable with that kind of a build.
So the Ghouls were basically only hitting the Monk on a 20 (including BAB w/ ManAC), which given his normal AC is 19, isn't so unreasonable. A STR/DEX optimized 2nd level (?) Fighter would likely have the same ManAC actually, and using Beta's CMB, would also present a 20+ DC (and not needing to optimize for DEX).
Not going into specifics, the chances for everyone else (I'm only looking at the numbers including BAB w/ ManAC), seem ballpark-ish reasonable. The results from the Flanking/Height Modifiers (both common tactical modifiers) also seemed reasonable: Enough to motivate "attackers" to seek them out and for "defenders" to avoid being subject to them. Catching that Monk Flat-Footed would definitely be a big advantage.
Honestly, I'd like to see some results from higher levels (say, ~7th and ~13th level) that also included characters who were competent Melee builds (say Cleric/Druid/Rogue), but WEREN'T 100% optimized in the STR+DEX(&/WIS) department, for comparison (perhaps also at ~2nd/3rd level). As well, I feel like that +2 "bump" WILL still be needed if the large, high Strength Monsters are not going to auto-succeed against any but the most optimized PCs. The sad fact is that reducing to one roll like either ManAC or CMB makes it difficult to balance at both low levels and high levels.
I have a system for rolling characters that makes for extraordinary PCs. That being said, I dont generally pull punches, so they need what they can get. (And they feel better being "heroic" in stature.)
This is obviously an early example, and I will wait until tejon chimes in to give my analysis, but I will say this: the gulf at higher levels looks like it will necessitate having solid melee types in front of you if you are a "squishy", or you will get run. I will try to lay out one of these every week or so, using the PCs as they are for that encounter. Some of them hit 4th level Saturday, so we shall see soon.
I have a system for rolling characters that makes for extraordinary PCs. That being said, I dont generally pull punches, so they need what they can get. (And they feel better being "heroic" in stature.)
The game's inherent balance point assumes the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8). This of course is why most GMs wind up feeling that all the CRs are too low... their players are overpowered. ;) And fudging around with this is fine on a per-game basis, but I think it's important when analyzing the numbers to work with the baseline.
Big fat "duh" about spreadsheets: I have one on Google Docs which I built to analyze 4E weapon balance (nutshell: it's quite poor), and it has code to produce a statistically perfect set of die rolls without actually randomizing, including auto-miss and auto-hit. I'll go adapt that and have some fun. :D
Meanwhile: please keep going. Dunno if you're running a module, but if you've got something handy with Improve Grab...
EDIT: Man, that's way easier when I don't have to keep track of crits and total damage. This will give you the percentage chance of making a d20 roll against a specific target number (replace C2 as appropriate), accounting for auto-hit and auto-miss on natural 20 and 1:
=(min(19,max(1,21-C2))/20)
Just wanted to check back in, because I felt it should be said that the most valuable part of playtesting this ISN'T necessarily the specific percentages or deciding what the "perfect" difficulty factor should be, but it's seeing how well it integrates into play, how well it matches PC/NPC "melee power", if any "corner scenarios" are strangely influenced, and mainly, how players and DMs enjoy using it (or not!)
I think Jason and the the other Paizo monkeys are able to finesse the final numbers well enough, but if we can get a picture of it "in action", I think that'll be most productive.
Okay, doing some math. Will post some sample match-ups at a couple of CRs in a little while, but I just realized that the size modifier needs to be +/- 4 if using the static method. The reason is, AC is not being adjusted.
Using the beta CMB method, if someone receives an Enlarge Person they get a +1 size bonus to CMB. This applies to both attack AND defense. We're not going to make it match up precisely without going back to needing another number on the character sheet, but I think it's important to keep the same relative shift in "hitability" with a size change. So here's what we're looking at using CMB:
Presume two humans with all modifiers at 0. For the sake of argument we're going to set the CMB base to 10 as well. None of this matters because that's not the scaling we're looking at. In fact, we're even going to ignore Str and Dex shifts. All we care about is raw size mod.
+0 vs. 10 for success, right? Okay, now enlarge the attacker. Normal has CMB +0, and is now rolling against an 11 to hit. Enlarged has CMB +1, and is rolling against a 10. The net difference in their ability to use a maneuver is 2.
Now, our system using AC. When the human is enlarged, he takes a base -1 to hit, and his touch AC decreases by 1. We intended to compensate this by refunding his hit penalty (if we applied it), and then giving him the opposite: so now he's attacking at +1. But his AC is still 1 point low! So he hits his opponent on a 9, but his opponent hits him on a 9 as well. Net difference is 0, and we want it to be 2. If size modifiers are kept in place on the character sheet, this means that the CM special size mod needs to be 4!
In Quandary's system, size mods are only applied when appropriate; the normal human will apply a -1 bonus to his attacks, hitting on 11, and the enlarged one will apply +1, hitting on a 9: a difference of 2 exactly as it should be. That's a definite advantage in consistency, though it invalidates every non-Medium stat block ever printed. ;)
EDIT:
I think Jason and the the other Paizo monkeys are able to finesse the final numbers well enough, but if we can get a picture of it "in action", I think that'll be most productive.
To be honest, I thought it was obviously the most elegant and streamlined solution "in action," and we were just looking at how viable it was as a replacement for the existing system. Old Guy's first review tells me everyone loved it, if that's what you're looking for we're done! :D
As promised, here's some clean-room stats. I'll include what they'd be under the default CMB system, too.
I thought up three characters at level 3: one strong, one average, and one weak at CMs. Ran numbers against three core CR3 enemies with a similar spread (so this is a little hard on the PCs - even match would be lower CR). Then I advanced those same characters to level 12 (quick and dirty on the items, but hey) and did the same with CR12s. Enemies with Improved Grab are given a +2 bonus to both attack and defense. In each match up the player's chance to pull off a maneuver is given first, then the monster's chance on the same line. Following in parentheses are what it would be with Beta CMB. These are all grapples, just to keep the feats relevant.
Half-Orc Monk 3. Str16/Dex13/Wis17, Improved Grapple, W.Focus: Unarmed.
CM Attack: +9; CM AC: 20. (CMB: 8)
Human Cleric 3. Str13/Dex10.
CM Attack: +3; CM AC: 13. (CMB: 3)
Gnome Sorcerer 3. Str6/Dex16, Small.
CM Attack: -4; CM AC: 13. (CMB: -2)
Monk vs. Assassin Vine: 55%/70% (15%/45%)
Cleric vs. Assassin Vine: 25%/95% (5%/70%)
Sorcerer vs. Assassin Vine: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Ghast: 60%/30% (45%/15%)
Cleric vs. Ghast: 30%/65% (20%/40%)
Sorcerer vs. Ghast: 5%/65% (5%/65%)
Monk vs. Magmin: 80%/5% (60%/5%)
Cleric vs. Magmin: 50%/40% (35%/25%)
Sorcerer vs. Magmin: 15%/40% (10%/50%)
Half-Orc Monk 12. Str23/Dex16/Wis22, I.Grapple, WF:Unarmed, Agile Maneuvers, Defensive Combat Training, Dodge, Ring of Protection +2, Amulet of Fists +2, +4 Str/Dex/Wis items, Enlarge Person.
CM Attack: +33; CM AC: 47. (CMB: 25)
Human Cleric 12. +2 Dex item, Shield of Faith (+3).
CM Attack: +14; CM AC: 28. (CMB: 14)
Gnome Sorcerer 12. Ring of Protection +3, +4 Dex item, Reduce Person.
CM Attack: -1; CM AC: 26. (CMB: 3)
Monk vs. Purple Worm: 95%/85% (5%/75%)
Cleric vs. Purple Worm: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Sorcerer vs. Purple Worm: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Leonal: 95%/5% (45%/15%)
Cleric vs. Leonal: 10%/65% (5%/60%)
Sorcerer vs. Leonal: 5%/75% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Kolaryut: 95%/5% (90%/5%)
Cleric vs. Kolaryut: 65%/20% (45%/15%)
Sorcerer vs. Kolaryut: 5%/30% (5%/70%)
That monk at level 12 is an optimized grapple machine. He can stalemate a purple worm, as opposed to Just Get Swallowed. Everything else is likely to get pinned, which means he can eliminate himself and one enemy from any combat (not always a good trade), or deny a few squares if he takes Improved Trip and Combat Reflexes. And that's really his only trick; got a few Monk bonus feats left, but he won't be Spring Attacking. In other news, the cleric is slightly more capable and the sorcerer might actually survive being grabbed. It's hardly perfect, but look at the alternative...
And now I'll go hide in a corner with the numbers unless explicitly called out. :)
;-) Well sure, I probably was most interested in the "corner cases".
Honestly, I just didn't want to scare off anybody with walls of crunch,
who might want to just give conversational feedback from their weekend game.
Size Mods & Tejon's Analysis:
Well if Pathfinder is changing the Size Modifiers then those Stat Blocks are invalidated to begin with. It's slightly different if we use "Situationalizing", but 3.5 Creature Melee/Grapple Stats still need to be converted anyways. As far as I can tell, the Pathfinder Bestiary is being released BEFORE the main rulebook, so if the conversion is too problematic, you can just buy the Paizo Monster Manual :-).
Anyhow, about your "Clean Room" numbers (now that this is under spoiler):
The Attack Bonuses seem like they should be the same or better...?
(note: Wpn Finesse absorbs offensive use of Agi.Man., & everyone gains DEX->ManAC automatically)
Are you adding DEX on TOP of STR, instead of replacing it? ...???
The match up against Purple Worm (monk succeeds 95%, worm succeeds 85%) seem very strange since all "Core" (BAB +STR) attack bonuses also increase ManAC, therefore for BOTH parties to have such high success rates doesn't make much sense...!?!?
(the Monk has a bunch of 'fancy' Attack Mods, but the Worm supposedly only has the +2 Imp. Grab)
I looked up Purple Worm on SRD, which lists it as +40 Grapple, which adjusting for Size Mod scale change is +32 CMB (including Size), which needs 16+ to hit AC48(incl. Monk's Enlarged) , which is 25% chance of success, not 85%. (I'm assuming you didn't include Size Mod in his ManAC)
I'm not sure exactly how you got the Monk's Attack Bonus, but since you're listing Dextrous Maneuvers Feat (which SHOULD be suboptimal w/ STR>DEX) I assume you must have mixed it up and added DEX on top of STR, meaning the Monk's chance of success should be lower just from that.
So I don't think the Monk numbers are valid at 12th level.
The other ones... Kindof make me think the +2 flat bonus to ManAC *COULD* be justified, since it would bring the numbers closer to CMB (which was "too high(difficult)" at high BAB/STR's, but since there's probably more Attack Mods than Dodge Mods, that would seem to balance it out...??? (i.e. besides Situational Mods, your Cleric could have a Maneuver-capable Weapon addding it's Enchant bonus for those, plus Bless, etc...)
EDIT: I believe the "20 always succeeds" rule DOESN'T apply to CMB/Maneuvers. Dragons no longer need be wary of swarms of House-Cats grappling it to the ground. :-)
I didnt want to scare off the casual reader with reams of numbers either, but after my playtest Saturday, and your questions, it prompted me to try it and see the breakdown over 400 grapples...something I wouldnt see in an entire campaign!
<btw, I'd like to know how to use the spoiler hide function, if someone can help, maybe offline?>
I used the characters as generated because they were "real-life". I understood the fact that they may skew the results. I would add though that PCs on the top of the stat tier might expose flaws in the system we are researching.
The one item that I find critical in the system as tested so far is that it flowed and was easy for my players. I believe in storytelling, and with my mob of players, they wont attempt anything they dont understand intuitively. Story flow and simplicity are key for me. The Man AC system has worked so far towards that effect.
Quandary, I think we may disagree on the +2, but I dont have enough play data to substantiate my point of view yet. But I would offer this argument: lets not add the +2 just to "get in line with 3.x". What we are doing here is a whole "new" system for Combat Maneuvers, lets break away from the mold. Jason took some chances in other areas of PF, and as I recall, the designer notes in the Beta itself mention this area is on the potters wheel so to speak.
Also, if you base the Combat Maneuvers on the standard combat system, you cant take out the auto 20/auto 1, hit/miss system. Its an integral part of the combat system. Even if that dragon is grappled by a miraculous crit grapple, the numbers suggest that he is down all of one round, when he busts free and creates cat flambe'(from the air, having learned a lesson).
Simply double the CMB size modifier (so e.g. Large +2, Small -2) and apply it to CM attacks and AC without having to change anything at all on the character sheet. This cancels the Large penalty or Small bonus already worked into the attack/AC, and adds the inverse. The difference between doing it this way and Quandary's difference-based method is that it preserves certain outliers in the 3.x size modifiers: a Large creature vs. a Colossal one, for instance, has a +6 RAW attack/AC bonus but only a +2 Quandary bonus. Not going to venture an opinion at this moment on whether or not that's how it really ought to be. ;)
This sounds great! Using the old special size mod, even if it is in a new way, is a good throwback for explaining the rule to 3.5ers. Being able to precalculate things makes all the difference... while I like Quandary's system, it would slow down play comparing modifiers (and I tend to automate my rolls as well).
I think I will try the following then:
Special Size Mod = -2 * Size Mod to AC
Maneuver AC = Touch AC + BAB + Str + Special Size Mod.
Maneuver Roll = Standard Attack roll + Special Size Mod.
This seems to be the most parsimonious method, since the Maneuver AC can be pre-calculated, and the Maneuver roll requires only a single bonus to modify an attack roll.
tejón, if you could plug those numbers into your spread and post them, I'd be most grateful.
OK.... I FINALLY understand that variation, thanks for laying it out that way Toy Robots...
Basically Melee Attacks DON'T need a Situational Mod, ONLY Maneuvers, which are the minority.
(although two halflings Grappling now need a Situational Attack Mod, vs. not needing one under my system - though one can precalculate this if you really want to.)
RE: comparing failed Maneuvers to Touch AC (to see if contact was made), and abilities allowing "free" Maneuver using same Attack Roll (Knockback)... It looks pretty workable. It definitely simplifies the majority of combat rolls.
Old Guy, I was going to write out some instructions, but just check under the text field / "Post As" menu when you're writing a new post, it says: "BBCode tags you can use: SHOW" which details all the markups including [spoiler]s.
Special Size Mod = -2 * Size Mod to AC
Maneuver AC = Touch AC + BAB + Str + Special Size Mod.
Maneuver Roll = Standard Attack roll + Special Size Mod.tejón, if you could plug those numbers into your spread and post them, I'd be most grateful.
Ahh... I applied -4x to only the attack, thinking it would be a bit silly to have a recorded number on your sheet which has two different size modifiers on it. It's the same power differential, but -2x to both attack and defense probably would work out differently in certain cases, e.g. Purple Worm and reduced gnome... yeah, I'll try it out.
@Quandary:
I think you're NOT using the +2* above Touch AC, correct?
Why the discrepancies between the Gnome's CMB and the Attack Bonus for Maneuvers? The Attack Bonuses seem like they should be the same or better...?
Why is the Half-Orc taking Agile Maneuvers if his STR is higher than DEX?
Same format. Monk's AC was missing two points in the earlier version (probably forgot to add his monk bonus), and no Agile Maneuvers this time. Repeating stat blocks because monk and sorcerer changed. And spoiling this time! :D
CM Attack: +9; CM AC: 20. (CMB: 8)
Human Cleric 3. Str13/Dex10.
CM Attack: +3; CM AC: 13. (CMB: 3)
Gnome Sorcerer 3. Str6/Dex16; Small.
CM Attack: -2; CM AC: 11. (CMB: -2)
Monk vs. Assassin Vine: 45%/60% (15%/45%)
Cleric vs. Assassin Vine: 15%/95% (5%/70%)
Sorcerer vs. Assassin Vine: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Ghast: 60%/30% (45%/15%)
Cleric vs. Ghast: 30%/65% (20%/40%)
Sorcerer vs. Ghast: 5%/75% (5%/65%)
Monk vs. Magmin: 90%/15% (60%/5%)
Cleric vs. Magmin: 60%/50% (35%/25%)
Sorcerer vs. Magmin: 35%/60% (10%/50%)
Half-Orc Monk 12. Str23/Dex16/Wis22; I.Grapple, WF:Unarmed, Defensive Combat Training, Dodge, Ring of Protection +2, Amulet of Fists +2, +4 Str/Dex/Wis items, Enlarge Person.
CM Attack: +28; CM AC: 51. (CMB: 25)
Human Cleric 12. Str14/Dex12; +2 Dex item, Shield of Faith (+3).
CM Attack: +14; CM AC: 28. (CMB: 14)
Gnome Sorcerer 12. Str4/Dex22; Small, Ring of Protection +3, +4 Dex item, Reduce Person.
CM Attack: +3; CM AC: 22. (CMB: 3)
Monk vs. Purple Worm: 35%/25% (5%/75%)
Cleric vs. Purple Worm: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Sorcerer vs. Purple Worm: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Leonal: 80%/5% (55%/5%)
Cleric vs. Leonal: 10%/65% (5%/60%)
Sorcerer vs. Leonal: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Kolaryut: 95%/5% (95%/5%)
Cleric vs. Kolaryut: 65%/20% (45%/15%)
Sorcerer vs. Kolaryut: 10%/50% (5%/70%)
I think we have a winner. These numbers look really good. I especially like that the Monk vs. Worm fight has turned into a difficult match-up (hard to grab, hard to escape) rather than the constant back-and-forth from before. The sorcerer has to worry about big things more, but small things less. (I really don't know why I doubled up on attack instead of spreading the size bonus between attack and AC. I think I just forgot that CMAC would be written down, and didn't want to apply dynamic modifiers in too many places.)
Seems nice. I don't have time to play with spreadsheets but I made some quick statistics calculations for the party I run in Nightbelow.
Actually they did encounter trolls and defeated them. The little playtest I wrote can be read HERE. One of the reasons I advanced was that it seemed too difficult for the trolls to grapple the enlarged fighter.
For the calculations here I made everyone lvl 5. I'll give rate of success in 3.5, Pathefinder and the version metionned below
Special Size Mod = -2 * Size Mod to AC
Maneuver AC = Touch AC + BAB + Str + Special Size Mod.
Maneuver Roll = Standard Attack roll + Special Size Mod.[/b]
So here are the results of Troll vs PC
Troll : STR 23 BAB +4 Size L
Case 1 Troll vs Human Cleric 5
This is a pretty balanced character
Success rate
In 3.5 : 68%
In PF : 60%
actual test : 70%
Case 2 Troll vs Elf Druid 5
This is a High DEXT character
Success rate
In 3.5 : 52%
In PF : 70%
actual test : 55%
Case 3 Troll vs Elf Wizard 5
Low BAB but good DEXT.
Success rate
In 3.5 : 69%
In PF : 75%
actual test : 80%
Case 4 Troll vs Half Elf Rogue 4 / Monk 1
High DEXT, decent STR and Monk bonuses
Success rate
In 3.5 : 43%
In PF : 55%
actual test : 35%
Case 5 Troll vs Dwarf Fighter 5
STR Fighter type, but interesting case for the +4 AC vs giant
Success rate
In 3.5 : 52.5%
In PF : 35%
actual test : 35%
If the grappler wasn't a giant but had the same stats then
Success rate
In 3.5 : 66.5%
In PF : 35%
actual test : 55%
Case 6 Troll vs Human Fighter 5
High STR, Good DEXT Fighter
Success rate
In 3.5 : 49%
In PF : 35%
actual test : 30%
Now if the fighter is enlarged
Success rate
In 3.5 : 38%
In PF : 25%
actual test : 25%
The outcome is satisfying in the overall. Overall balanced characters ( between DEXT STR and BAB ) tend to match 3.5, whereas high dext str and bab tend to match PF. But it's now easier to provoke situations where you can gain a bonus to maneuvers.
The +2 difficulty doesn't seem necessary in this case. But I guess at higher level, with many bonuses stacking, it could be different. We'll definitely have to explore this further.
As for the mechanics itself, It's easy to handle and smooth ( as long as there aren't too much bonuses/penalties ), and the size bonus will not have to be calculated situationnaly, which makes it faster.
Now I'll have to test other maneuvers ( mostly those relying on a weapon bonus ), and get a look at the common bonuses that add to offense and defense to find out if these won't break the flow.
But congratulations, it seems we are getting something.
Thanks for the writeups, tejón and sharen.
Anyone else getting a warm fuzzy feeling?
I'm contemplating the best way to explain this method to someone, and the best I can come up with is along these lines:
Unlike standard attacks, combat maneuvers favor larger creatures. If you aren't simply attempting to hit a target — but trip, push or grapple them — it is advantageous to have more weight and stability. When calculating Maneuver Class and Maneuver bonus, you reverse the size bonus to Armor Class; a +1 from Small size becomes a -1, a -2 from Huge size becomes a +2.
Interesting ideas guys. I just happened to notice this:
I am running Rise of the Runelords, they are on "The Skinsaw Murders."...
The monk with his mage armor was very difficult to grapple, right up until he was paralyzed...
The weaker and less dextrous PCs stayed well into the middle of the group until ghouls emerged out of the corn, grappled and paralyzed a few (shouldnt have used that mage armor on the monk, dontcha know).
Mage Armor shouldn't be added to the Monk's Touch AC (as a force effect it applies to incorporeal attacks, which use the touch rules, but it doesn't apply to other "touch" attacks). So I think that's where the Monk's super high "touch" AC was coming from.
When calculating Maneuver Class and Maneuver bonus, you reverse the size bonus to Armor Class; a +1 from Small size becomes a -1, a -2 from Huge size becomes a +2.
I don't think that's the right way to explain it. The whole point of the -2x modifier is to not have to change ANY modifiers on the existing +attack and touch AC, and the way you wrote it sounds like a halfling needs to subtract his existing bonus and then add the new one. Some people are easily confused. ;) Waxing loquacious, I'd go with:
To use a combat maneuver, you make an attack roll with an additional special size modifier against your target's Maneuver AC (CMAC). A creature's CMAC is equal to:
touch AC + base attack bonus + Str modifier + special size modifier
The special size modifier for combat maneuvers is: (...), Small -2, Medium +0, Large +2, (...). As an exception to the normal stacking rules, this modifier stacks with (does not replace) any existing size modifier on AC and attack rolls.
Combat maneuvers provoke attacks of opportunity. Certain feats and abilities, as well as certain weapons, allow specific combat maneuvers to be used without provoking an attack of opportunity. If you take damage from an attack of opportunity (or are otherwise physically interrupted) while performing a combat maneuver, it fails and the action is lost.
If the Concentration skill hadn't been merged with Spellcraft (seriously, what? does nobody else force rogues and monks to make concentration checks all the goddamn time?) I'd suggest a check to keep the action if struck by an AOO. Beta's method of adding damage to the hit roll, though... just say you lose the attack. It comes out the same. :P
EDIT: Still not 100% sure of how to handle the "when does it provoke" question. I really like IUS allowing certain maneuvers to be performed without provoking, but maybe that should be handled as the exception... either built into the IUS text or maybe just part of a monk's Maneuver Training ability. Can't just say you provoke as normal, because then sunder/disarm become way too good.
...okay, I'm done editing. Sorry if anyone's been trying to read this in the past 20 minutes. ;)
Summary of the various Size Modifier Options with the Maneuver AC system:
the only controversy is HOW to deal with the variant Maneuver Size Mods:
...For a moment, I thought I had the perfect solution, but then it went away :-)
Anyhow, I would still be interested to hear playtest feedback, preferably from a range of players/DMs, on how my original proposal (Situational NET Size Bonuses) plays out. It seems the simplest to understand and explain (as well as being a unified system rather than a "hack"), so I'd like to hear if many people DO actually find it hard to use, or not. I think Pathfinder's "Scale Change" (each Size Tier = +/-1) makes it simpler to manage (and only DMs really have to track it.)
Tejon: I feel like I'm with you on the Maneuver AoO thing (I think there shouldn't be AoO's as long as you are "armed"), but since it's not really specific to ManeuverAC (vs CMB), do you think it should be a separate thread? I just hate wading thru threads where every other person seems to be debating a different topic only vaguely related to the others. ;-) Thanks
(Toy Robot's proposal) Instead of applying [4(SizeMod)] to one stat (ManeuverAC), a "Special Maneuver Size Mod" = [-2(SizeMod)] (would be on Table right next to Normal Size Mods), is added to ManeuverAC AND Maneuver Attack Rolls (REVERSING the normal SizeMods) - even for same-sized (non-Medium) Maneuver opponents (unlike original "Situational" proposal).
For the record, I support this one. It's far better than my attack-only solution.
Tejon: I feel like I'm with you on the Maneuver AoO thing (I think there shouldn't be AoO's as long as you are "armed"), but since it's not really specific to ManeuverAC (vs CMB), do you think it should be a separate thread?
It's an entirely separate issue, and after thinking it through, Parry and Sunder absolutely shouldn't be non-provoking for everyone with a weapon. So now it's just a petition to give AOO-free combat maneuvers to Improved Unarmed Strike, or as a monk class feature... so yeah, separate topic!
Anyhow, I would still be interested to hear playtest feedback, preferably from a range of players/DMs, on how my original proposal (Situational NET Size Bonuses) plays out. It seems the simplest to understand and explain (as well as being a unified system rather than a "hack"), so I'd like to hear if many people DO actually find it hard to use, or not. I think Pathfinder's "Scale Change" (each Size Tier = +/-1) makes it simpler to manage (and only DMs really have to track it.)
Well I discussed this issue with a player/DM and he would tend not to use this method. Why ?
- He is too used to include size calculation in Attack and AC, so this gets him confused. SizeMod has always been handled correctly in 3.5 and it's simple. The issue here comes from Maneuvers, so we both think changing the whole system wouldn't be the best solution.
- This would make an extra calculation, which might slow down the game. That's what we think, but since this hasn't been tested, I can't say it for sure.
- This would need a recalculation in stats blocks, especially for MM.
- How would you explain your sizeMod system to players ? ( actually that's a question from me ). Can you just write it down as it would be in the rules ?
Pathfinder is based on D&D 3.5 and most of the players/DM used to play 3.5. Also, Pathfinder wants to be most compatible with 3.5. Though your size resolution system is clean and smart ( there's no doubt on it ), it tends to get a bit too far from the original way. This means more conversion work for DM, an extra editing work from Paizo guys, and we already have tons of things to do I guess...
Pathfinder is based on D&D 3.5 and most of the players/DM used to play 3.5. Also, Pathfinder wants to be most compatible with 3.5. Though your size resolution system is clean and smart ( there's no doubt on it ), it tends to get a bit too far from the original way. This means more conversion work for DM, an extra editing work from Paizo guys, and we already have tons of things to do I guess...
This is why I prefer the reverse/special size mod solution (Quandary called it mine, but I just repackaged Tejón's earlier post).
It feels like a 3.5 rule. Maneuver AC is like Touch or Flatfooted AC. THe Special size mod applied is not unlike the combat options in 3.5 like Fighting Defensively or Charging where you take a single penalty to gain some benefit. Even the modifier itself is the Special Size mod from 3.5.
There may yet be some tweaking needed, but I have high hopes for that method.
As for any of these systems being incompatible with 3.5 Statblocks, well... CMB already isn't! I don't see how it could get much worse.
Interesting ideas guys. I just happened to notice this:
Mage Armor shouldn't be added to the Monk's Touch AC (as a force effect it applies to incorporeal attacks, which use the touch rules, but it doesn't apply to other "touch" attacks). So I think that's where the Monk's super high "touch" AC was coming from.I am running Rise of the Runelords, they are on "The Skinsaw Murders."...
The monk with his mage armor was very difficult to grapple, right up until he was paralyzed...
The weaker and less dextrous PCs stayed well into the middle of the group until ghouls emerged out of the corn, grappled and paralyzed a few (shouldnt have used that mage armor on the monk, dontcha know).
Well, slap me on the a@@ and call me Shirley...cant tell you how long we've been doing that wrong. So much for Mister Monk and his high Man AC! muahahahaha!!!
Back on topic: I too, am getting a warm fuzzy on this system. I'll reiterate what I said earlier (somewhere), the system fits in easily because players and GMs already understand AC and the various mods that apply (my mage armor mistake notwithstanding). As far as the size modifiers, I already factor those for normal combat, so having a known value to apply to CMAC wouldnt be much extra work. The stat blocks for mobs already need work for PF, so once - and this is the critical point - we are comfortable with it, the changes necessary will be second-nature, like much of what we do now.
As for any of these systems being incompatible with 3.5 Statblocks, well... CMB already isn't! I don't see how it could get much worse.
Well "tejón/your"'s method is very easy to apply so for me it's highly compatible with 3.5. You just need to add a Man AC in the block and... that's all !
Whilst doing my own "analysis" — which for me is less math and more comparing PCs and fights we've already played — my brother and I realized that the Tejón-supported method makes high-dex characters hard to grapple, but not necessarily better at grappling. And that's just... too cool.
For clarity, I suggest we refer to the Beta printed Method as "CMB" — and the method currently under discussion as "Maneuver AC" or MAC. This is appropriate because performing maneuvers is treated as a combat option (like Charging or Fighting Defensively) rather than a separate stat. A CMB rating is pretty superfluous if it is actually just a single bonus to the normal attack; +0 on average!
Also, I think maybe Size should count for more. In my CMB playtests, I feel size is under valued (too easy to trip big monsters), and I see that being the same problem here. Big monsters tend to rely on natural armor, which rightly should not be counted against maneuvers... but I think an Ogre deserves more than a +2 vs a bullrush by a human. What if the formula was -3(Size)?
Cumulative Size mod to MAC (Size penalty plus special size mod)
Small -3
Medium +0
Large +3
Huge +6
Garg +12
Coloss +24
Less than 3.5 grapple, more than Pathfinder Beta CMB.
Size Mod Options:
Size is a factor which influences combat, but it is a relative measure:
A Large Ogre may be a dominating opponent to a Small Halfling, but would be a puny opponent to a Gargantuan Dragon (though slightly less so than a Halfling).
Examples:
Medium vs. Large Creature (1 Size Difference)
Medium Creature +1 Melee vs. Large Creature, Large Creature +1 Maneuvers vs. Medium Creature.
Small Creature vs. Huge Creature (3 Size Difference)
Small Creature +3 Melee vs. Huge Creature, Huge Creature +3 Maneuvers vs. Small Creature
Toy_Robots:
I agree that the Maneuver Size Bonus could be larger, perhaps +/-2 per Tier vs. Melee's +/-1.
I think the main advantage of equal modifiers is simplicity, certainly if we want to apply Size Mods Situationally based on Net Difference to Melee AND Maneuvers. For that reason, I'd ask anybody playtesting with Situational Mods (the original proposal) to use the equal +/-1 per Tier for both Melee and Maneuvers.
For clarity, I suggest we refer to the Beta printed Method as "CMB" — and the method currently under discussion as "Maneuver AC" or MAC.
I'd been using CMAC to be consistent with the Beta terminology, but yes. :)
I think an Ogre deserves more than a +2 vs a bullrush by a human. What if the formula was -3(Size)?
Yeah... the assumption that you can roll the strength check in with the touch attack by dividing its modifiers in half only works if the average touch attack hits on an 11. This is most certainly not the case against large opponents. But I'm not sure that's a problem; the old bonuses may well have been too large.
If you look at my most recent number wall, you'll see that with a grapple-optimized 12th-level monk matched against a purple worm (probably the best core grappler at CR12), each has great difficulty controlling the other. (Can't see those numbers from this page, but I remember something like 35%/25% monk/worm.) Changing the modifier to +3 would be an enormous shift: 15% in either direction, moving it to 10%/40%. So the question is, is this appropriate?
- The monk isn't going to solo the worm. Can't match it for damage, and some bad rolls will have him swallowed whole. This is a CR12 monster against a 12th-level party; the monk is basically tanking, trying to keep it busy while the rest of the party deals the damage. Having to roll a 20 every round would make this a poor tactic. A 16 is still pretty sketchy, but at the very least he can expect to distract the worm often enough to make a difference.
- Conversely, this really is the biggest baddest grapple monster you're going to see for several levels in either direction. Maybe it should be a situation where you don't even try? The monk, too, is the best grappler available by core rules... but there are always monsters which specifically counter otherwise solid tactics (and this is a good thing).
EDIT: Whoops, forgot the monk was enlarged! Corrected the numbers above. Worm is slightly less favored.
Worth noting that even moving to a +4 bonus you'd only be up to a 55% success rate for the worm trying to eat the monk... whereas it has a 75% chance with CMB. Heading home from work in a little bit, I'll run the spreadsheets again with alternate size modifiers.
monk, worm, size, etc.
Yeah, I think combat maneuvers need to be a viable option, but not vs. every opponent. It should probably be one of the last options any PC would explore when fighting a purple worm... I should say a Medium PC should have to specialize heavily in maneuvers to even think about such a stunt. Anyone else agree?
Also, I think maybe Size should count for more. In my CMB playtests, I feel size is under valued (too easy to trip big monsters), and I see that being the same problem here. Big monsters tend to rely on natural armor, which rightly should not be counted against maneuvers... but I think an Ogre deserves more than a +2 vs a bullrush by a human. What if the formula was -3(Size)?
Cumulative Size mod to MAC (Size penalty plus special size mod)
Small -3
Medium +0
Large +3
Huge +6
Garg +12
Coloss +24Less than 3.5 grapple, more than Pathfinder Beta CMB.
Well... size counts for +2 but Large creatures tend to have better strength and that counts in the calaculation
A standard Ogre per 3.5 has these stats
STR 21 DEX 8 BAB +3 Touch AC 8
This would make his ManAC 18 which doesn't seem too low. After all it's a CR 3 creature.
A lvl 5 human fighter with STR 16 would basically have 50% chance to succeed, but hey, he's 2 levels above the CR ( and could take the Ogre 1 on 1 fairly easily in a fight )
A lvl 3 human fighter with STR 16 trying the same would have 40% chance to succeed. In 3.5 the success rate of such an attempt is around 66% ( yup I added the +4 for size ) and even higher if the attacker is charging ( +2 to the opposed STR check )
So my conclusion is ( at least for this case ) : ManSizeMod being double of SizeMod is enough ( and your bullrushing character might just have a tremendous strength ^__^ )
EDIT : Whoops made wrong calculations... Modifying them right now ^___^'
Yeah, I think combat maneuvers need to be a viable option, but not vs. every opponent. It should probably be one of the last options any PC would explore when fighting a purple worm... I should say a Medium PC should have to specialize heavily in maneuvers to even think about such a stunt. Anyone else agree?
To be fair, the monk was Large at the time. ;) But yeah, I do agree. The big question is whether this will hurt the small characters too much. Home now, spreadsheets soon!
Well... size counts for +2 but Large creatures tend to have better strength and that counts in the calaculation
A standard Ogre per 3.5 has these stats
STR 21 DEX 8 BAB +3 Touch AC 8This would make his ManAC 18 which doesn't seem too low. After all it's a CR 3 creature.
A lvl 5 human fighter with STR 16 would basically have 50% chance to succeed, but hey, he's 2 levels above the CR ( and could take the Ogre 1 on 1 fairly easily in a fight )
A lvl 3 human fighter with STR 16 trying the same would have 40% chance to succeed. In 3.5 the success rate of such an attempt is around 66% ( yup I added the +4 for size ) and even higher if the attacker is charging ( +2 to the opposed STR check )
So my conclusion is ( at least for this case ) : ManSizeMod being double of SizeMod is enough ( and your bullrushing character might just have a tremendous strength ^__^ )
EDIT : Whoops made wrong calculations... Modifying them right now ^___^'
I'll just reply to myself because I messed up quite badly ( well I'll put it on the fact that it is past 2 am )
So lvl 3 human fighter with STR 16 has 40% chance of success.
In 3.5 it's around 23% ( not counting the +2 on opposed STr check from charge )
Well... Now my opinion has to be different XD. But sorry I'll post that later as I need some urgent sleep ^__^'
Yeah, I think combat maneuvers need to be a viable option, but not vs. every opponent. It should probably be one of the last options any PC would explore when fighting a purple worm... I should say a Medium PC should have to specialize heavily in maneuvers to even think about such a stunt. Anyone else agree?
I agree, and that SEEMS to be Jason's intent.
I think the numbers for the Purple Worm & Monk bear that out, the chance was about 30% (for both), which is nothing you can depend on, and that was pretty much as specialized as you can get for Maneuvers. The Purple Worm has Imp. Grab so doesn't give up anything, while the Monk has to give up Melee Strikes (including special Monk Unarmed Debuffs) to attempt a Maneuver (at 30% chance).I was actually feeling a +2* to Maneuver AC across the board was necessary, but at this point, just +1 or even nothing seems like it's fine. Low-level combatants will have a relatively easier time (vs. each other), but that doesn't really seem like the worst thing in the world.
I agree, and that SEEMS to be Jason's intent.
I think the numbers for the Purple Worm & Monk bear that out, the chance was about 30% (for both), which is nothing you can depend on, and that was pretty much as specialized as you can get for Maneuvers. The Purple Worm has Imp. Grab so doesn't give up anything, while the Monk has to give up Melee Strikes (including special Monk Unarmed Debuffs) to attempt a Maneuver (at 30% chance).
That is, unless we adopt that awesome rule that lets monks deal Unarmed Damage on successful maneuvers...