Look at the Monster Manual.
Practically none of the creatures have anything granting a Deflection Bonus.
Assuming any "budgetary"/ point-buy approach to stats + Equipment, it's extremely expensive to max out all these stats. Doing so (most likely done by a PC class character) implies forgoing other options which are probably MORE cost-effective (like Mirror Image or Displacement).
Likewise, why do you assume no other attack modifiers would apply?
Throw in Flanking, Weapon Enhancement, Morale/Luck Bonuses, etc... and that can add up to quite a bit. Not to mention the target loses their Dodge bonuses if they are caught Flat-Foot, like in the Surprise Round/ before they take their first Turn.
If it ends up being anything like the Maneuver AC system that many discussed on the boards here, it will be FAR more similar to the chances under 3.5 for high level characters than a "no attack modifier, no dodge modifier CMB vs. 15 + CMB" approach would have achieved. For low level/ low stat characters, it would be signifigantly EASIER than that approach. This was validated by EXTREMELY EXTENSIVE numbers modelling and play testing covering low, mid, and high melee capacity PCs vs. low, mid, and high opponents, at several level tiers.
I don't expect it to be easy to perform manuvers, but 5% to 15% is not worth trying IMO.
Then you should stay away from Palladium systems and their Death Attack...
(By the way, I feel the same way - especially about Palladium's Death Attack.)
I don't expect it to be easy to perform manuvers, but 5% to 15% is not worth trying IMO.
It should be more than that, but probably not against big opponents. During the playtest we looked at several models, as quandary has noted, and we found that in nearly every case it came out to be easier to pull off AND closer to 3.5 than the Beta version. IIRC the "strong grapplers" were looking at numbers around 40% or more, depending on the opponent.
I'll see if I can dig up the analysis for you, but I feel we were very thorough. Your example above is probably a little more optimized. In my opinion, grappling shouldn't be a mirror-match 50%-50% because grappling (especially when swords and armor are involved) is very risky. Once weapons enter into it, it becomes very hard for a person to initiate a grapple, even against an opponent of equal skill.
Grappling is best left for situations where it makes sense: a clearly weaker or less skilled opponent. Read: spellcasters.
Weapon enhancements I would imagine would only factor in for those feats that allow you to substitute your attack roll for the CMB roll. I bullrush you with my +3 dagger so I can get the bonus sounds a little silly does it not? :)
The Beta (and the SRD) isn't so obvious in it's wording/presentation in this area, but the fact certain weapons specifically grant the ability to attempt certain Maneuvers WITH THE WEAPON (some actually granting bonuses) heavily implies other weapons AREN'T allowed to be used for that Maneuver (Unarmed Attacks' unique quality is allowing ALL Maneuvers to be attempted.) Daggers don't allow Bullrush, so it isn't an issue.
In 3.5, this meant the Weapon's Enhancement applied vs. the Touch AC or opposed Attack Roll - both factors which have been rolled into CMD, so it makes sense for the Weapon Enhancement to continue functioning as well. It isn't really in the Beta or SRD, but I would allow Shields to be used for Bullrushes WITHOUT any special Feats - The Shield Feats just let you Bullrush AND Shield Slam for Damage with the same attack. That would be nice to see in the Final, along with more direct wording on how the weapon/maneuver exclusivity works.
We don't know what it will be, and that is why I think it would be nice if one of the preview characters was used to highlight manuvers for offence. So far all we've really seen is the defence.
I can definitely agree with this. :-)
The Beta never actually said attack bonuses didn't apply to Maneuver Attack Rolls (it didn't deal with it at all), and Jason asked people to playtest it with whatever variations they could think of, so I don't think there's any reason to make a default assumption that no, or few, attack bonuses will apply.
Given that allowing all Touch AC bonuses and all Attack Bonuses gave results closer to 3.5 than anything else, plus the simplicity offered by 100% complying with the Melee Attack/ Touch AC paradigm re: bonuses, I actually have quite good hopes we'll see something almost exactly like "Maneuver AC".
I think our best hope for a preview that explains how Maneuvers work lies with the monk.
I think our best hope for a preview that explains how Maneuvers work lies with the monk.
Once again, I'd be pleased if they got a bonus to maneuvers beyond the equivalent of a full BaB.
|
I think our best hope for a preview that explains how Maneuvers work lies with the monk.Once again, I'd be pleased if they got a bonus to maneuvers beyond the equivalent of a full BaB.
Oh you mean the "ha ha you don't really get a bonus" bonus? I suggested that on the design forums, hell I'd be fine with a simple your BAB is calculated as that of a fighter 2-4 levels higher. That way a monk is better at combat manuevers than a level equivalent fighter, instead of the current, you should've just used a sword, because then you would've been this good from level one instead of having to wait till level 4 to be as good as me.
I think our best hope for a preview that explains how Maneuvers work lies with the monk.Once again, I'd be pleased if they got a bonus to maneuvers beyond the equivalent of a full BaB.
It was mentioned int he playtest that because they rock the unarmed damage, they have a good interest in performing maneuvers. I suspect we may see class features reinforcing this type of play.
Personally I think it's a bit odd to refer to monks as masters of unarmed combat when several other classes can do it better. Still, it would be nice if they finally found their niche with combat maneuvers. Thing is, they'd have to be VERY good at combat maneuvers to put up with some of the drawbacks of the class. I don't think they're going to get enough of a bump because for whatever reason developers always shy away from improving monks. *shrug*
Monks have a lot of nifty stuff, without going to a splat book you have to be a monk to get decent hand to hand damage as a medium sized creature, however their nifty stuff is spread out and gives them no real clear role in the group. They're a support class, check; they're combatants, check; they can maneuver and fight but can't fight much better than a rogue. However they don't get that nifty sneak attack thing that makes up for a rogues lack of combat, nor do they get the spell buffs a cleric can have to make up for their moderate BAB; I heard once that they were meant for battlefield control, keep enemies from fleeing and take care of spellcasters which I suppose means if they're built towards Combat Maneuvers and Attacks of Opportunity they can be pretty good at that tiny little miniscule niche.
I'll tell you this much, I've seen an expert power gamer have an easier time building a powerful bard than a powerful monk, that has to say something. At least about the PFRPG Beta bard and monk.
As for CMB, I guess it would depend, I imagine an 8th lvl fighter built for combat maneuver fighting would be able to handle an 8th lvl Barbarian who isn't. Let's face it, unless your DM is cheap every melee combatant won't be running around with their feats focused on grappling. Sure it won't be as easy to min/max as other builds but I think a grapple focused fighter could do fine provided they don't go up against anything larger than them or anything with tentacles :P
Yeah, no complaints on their damage dice; but any class can do the same by using Superior Unarmed from the ToB.
Oh, and man, Bards can get wild. I'd never have the patience for it, but I've got a friend who swears by them. Lots of sonic damage combined with... creaking cacophony I think? There's also a prestige class somewhere that will let a Bard gain access to much higher level spells. Craziness.
I've actually got a build worked out for a grappling, unarmed fighter I'm hoping to use in the Crimson Throne AP. I'll need some assurance that I'm not going to be boned the first time we run into an ogre though.
Heh, Tome of Blood should hardly be used in this debate, there are far too many DM's who won't allow a damn thing from that book :P That and if a monk takes the same feat they still have the edge damage wise. Their damage increases to that of a monk 4 levels higher.
Amulet of Mighty Fists bonus adding to CMB for maneuvers, perhaps? That, or else drop the Str mod for CMD.
This made me think of something not quite related to this thread.
If, and I have to stress if, Agile Manuevers (or something like it) exists in the final, does that mean a person can double their Dex for CMD, while ignoring Strength?
Heh, Tome of Blood should hardly be used in this debate, there are far too many DM's who won't allow a damn thing from that book :P That and if a monk takes the same feat they still have the edge damage wise. Their damage increases to that of a monk 4 levels higher.
I don't let the house rules/requirements of strangers impact the examples I give. People are free to take or leave my posts.
Monks gain some benefit from the feat, but the damage tops out at level 16, and by level 20 they have a feat that provides no benefit. Not worth it.
Let's make one thing clear.
Tome and Blood: 3.0 splatbook for wizards and sorcerers.
Tome of Battle: 3.5 book for blade magic.
Tome of Blood: Not a book for 3rd edition D&D as far as my Google-fu can tell me.
You are correct, there's no such book. I think he just misremembered it.
Tome of Battle, my apologies. Either way the example given is an extreme in that it relies solely on the possibility that someone allowed a splat book notorious for being over powered, it's rather irrelevant. Anyone with enough splat books can make just about any class obscene. That being said, at least via the core rules, an optimized monk will out damage an optimized fighter in hand to hand. It's simply how they're made.
I don't let the house rules/requirements of strangers impact the examples I give. People are free to take or leave my posts.
I say this in all earnestness Kuma. I've found that if one insists on not letting the requirements of strangers impact you, one will find your posts 'left' far more often than not.
As for Monks, in my 3.5 epic game I found the Monk to be both the hardest to kill, and the biggest damage monger in the group (far more than the spellcasters) - Core Rules Only.
Monks are the most enhanceable characters in the game. They have MAP - Multiple Ability-score Power - meaning they get benefit from almost every kind of increase imaginable. Potentially the most attacks, best saves, and natural Spell Resistance.
As for "do they get something special in Pathfinder" - consider this. It currently seems that CMD is based on BAB + Touch AC... who nearly *always* has the highest touch AC in the game, based on two stats and a class bonus? The Monk.
I'm really fine with that.
It's far easier for me to assume that people have access to most of the published material for 3.5 (and are willing to use it) than to worry about whether someone doesn't have/like x book.
And multiple attribute dependency isn't commonly considered a strength.
No, not 'commonly'.