This alternative method of resolving combat maneuvers has been around for two months or more. While it underwent some changes early on, it has been stable for almost that long. It is a great rule, myself and other have been using it with great results. The original threads that spawned it didn't really convey the clarity of the end result (hard to find a rule spread over several posts in the middle of a thread), so I thought a new thread would be appropriate for reference and discussion of the rule as it is currently agreed upon.
I actually do not consider myself to have authored any part of the maneuver AC method, but I like it so much I will try to popularize it.
----------
As you can see, this method is virtually identical to CMB, only it takes into account already calculated attack factors. Simply resolve all maneuvers as attack rolls with the above modifier (usually 0) vs. the maneuver AC.
The actual changes are two:
----------
Here is some analysis provided from one of the other threads (by Tejón):
So here are the results of Troll vs PC
Troll : STR 23 BAB +4 Size L
Case 1 Troll vs Human Cleric 5
Cleric : STR 14 DEX 13 BAB +3 Touch AC 12 ( ring of protection +1 )
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
Druid : STR 10 DEX 22 ( belt of DEXT ) BAB +3 Touch AC 17 ( ring of protection +1 )
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
Wizard : STR 10 DEX 16 BAB +2 Touch AC 13
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
Rogue/Monk : STR 14 DEX 20 ( belt of DEXT ) WIS 14 BAB +3 ( +4 for maneuvers ) Touch AC 18 ( Dodge feat )
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
Fighter : STR 20 DEX 10 BAB +5 Touch AC 10 ( 14 vs giants )
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
Fighter : STR 20 ( Belt of STR ) DEX 16 BAB +5 Touch AC 15 ( ring of protection +1, Dodge feat )
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%
----------
This thread is for continued discussion and analysis of this method. I'm especially interested in more mathematical analysis.
To be clear, the Special Size Mod for Maneuver AC uses the 3.5 modifier, not the Pathfinder Beta Modifier. This turns out to be the same result as the Pathfinder Beta modifier, since the difference in bonus simply counteracts the Size penalty that was factored into Touch AC for being large.
If your Touch AC is 15, your CMB and your defensive DC from maneuvers are actually the same as they would be in Pathfinder Beta. For example, if you have a Dex +3 and Deflection +3, and are Large (-1) (and nothing else) your Touch AC is 15.
Thus, in many cases, Maneuver AC method and Pathfinder Beta's CMB method are the same, except for the inclusion of Touch AC and standard attack modifiers. It's the differences that make Maneuver AC Great. For example, in 3.5, agile characters were much harder to grapple because of the Touch Attack required to establish a hold. With PFBeta's CMB, even highly agile characters can be easily snagged by a very strong, large character. With the Maneuver AC method, agile characters are once again well defended against maneuvers — which makes sense.
How does this work with the CMB version of Grapple? Do you still gain the +5 for success each round?
I suppose you could apply it, but I don't really like that at all... I don't see why grapples should gradually become impossible to escape over a few seconds. I haven't ever used this yet and I feel the outcome has been fair and exciting, I daresay adding a +5 to the DC each turn would be frustrating and unfair.
According to the popular application of Maneuver AC, the +5 should be applied on subsequent rounds, since we use the Rules-As-Written. But I won't be using this.
I was thinking about the meaning of the "additional +5 for each subsequent round." Because the grappled state already penalizes Dexterity and therefore Touch AC, the penalty in inherent after the first round.
What's more, I like this better because the DC doesn't become impossibly hard for no reason, but it does get harder. That said, this is an interesting inquiry and I'd like to see everyone else's opinion.
|
I beleive what is ment by +5 for each subsequent round, means after teh first enitial round you gain a +5 bonus. And you keep that ONE +5 bonus to grapple for the rest of the grapple. so 5 rounds in you still only have a +5 to grapple.
I still say that a upper and a lower posistion should be added to see who gets the bonuses.reversing an opponent is vital. Any UFC fan knows that.
I beleive what is ment by +5 for each subsequent round, means after teh first enitial round you gain a +5 bonus. And you keep that ONE +5 bonus to grapple for the rest of the grapple. so 5 rounds in you still only have a +5 to grapple.
I still say that a upper and a lower posistion should be added to see who gets the bonuses.reversing an opponent is vital. Any UFC fan knows that.
If that is indeed correct, thanks for the clarification. The language needs to be cleared up there for the final.
I too think that there is a need for separate grapple states (akin to the stages of fear), but that might go against the mandate for making grapple simpler.
Here's what I have been doing, and it has worked to address the issue of control and reversal:
This is my house rule, and I don't think it deserves the same "agreed upon" status that Maneuver AC has. We're discussing details, where I believe the basic method is sound. Most of this applies to CMB method as well
The attacker initiates a grapple, and makes his attack roll with vs.
I use the rest of the grapple rule text as printed in the Beta.
These are really the specifics of Grapple not Maneuver AC. It's worth noting that the grappled condition lowers your Touch AC and so with the MAC Method it lowers you Maneuver AC and makes you easier to grapple on subsequent rounds. So that +5 bonus could be reduced to +3 to be mathematically identical to the CMB method, but I think it could be dispensed with altogether.
To Arnim's question,
other than the details of how DCs are calculated (15+BAB+STR vs. Touch+BAB+STR),
Maneuver AC works identically to Beta's CMB:
If something gave a bonus to Maneuver Attacks, they still do.
If something gave a bonus AGAINST Maneuver Attacks, it still does (to Maneuver AC).
I really see Maneuver AC not as a different 'system' from CMB, but merely a SLIGHTLY different implementation of the same concept (1 roll, BAB+STR scaling Defense, Large Size benefits instead of penalizes as in Melee).
The only thing different you'll notice is that in the Beta, there were a number of things that gave a bonus to "CMB", both offensive & defensive - these will generally need to be specified as both offensive & defensive bonuses. Anything that gives a bonus to STR checks will automatically apply both to Attack Rolls and Maneuver AC.
About Grapple...
If 'simplicity' is the aim of the new Grapple, I think it still has some way to go - splitting up the rules between Combat Chapter and the Glossary certainly doesn't help. Personally, I'm in favor of 'Controller' and 'Controlled' sub-tiers of "Grappled", which seem fairly intuitive (and which probably would negate the reason for the +5 "2nd Round of Grapple" bonus)... Though I think they (along with removing +5 completely) would tend to lead to very long Grapples (barring Imp. Grab), unless Grapple Attack Equivalency (i.e. Iterative Compatability) is adopted. Options, Options...
...But in any case, I think having a 'mini-table' laying out the Grappled States in a clear, programmatic way, would work better than the current prose-centric approach. Prose description would still remain of course, but a table clearly showing the sequence of Grapple progression - especially if Controller/Controlled is adopted - would instantly convey the overall 'structure' of Grapple, which I feel Beta doesn't do the best job of. Consolidating the Glossary info (Grappled/Pinned conditions) is pretty important too. (If it's preferred to maintain them in the Glossary, AT LEAST condense the relevant information on one line of a mini-table along with the other attack penalties: -DEX, no AoO, etc)