Your opinions, please.
Can you use Weapon Focus (Weapon of choice that can be used for Combat Maneuvers) for purposes of increasing the CMB of the particular maneuver?
For example, you can do Weapon Focus (grapple), I assume you can also do Weapon Focus (trip). You can also do Weapon Focus (spiked chain). Can your bonus to spiked chain count towards CMB made with the weapon? Could they stack? Should they?
Consider a more extreme example, where you can do Weapon Focus (Unarmed Attack). Do you then get a +1 bonus to performing grapples, disarms, and trips, so long as it's with an unarmed attack?
Thanks.
|
The Prerequisites for the feat Weapon Focus are: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Grappling, Tripping and the like are actions, not weapons and there is no mechanic in place to stating that one has proficiency with them as weapons so they cannot be selected as such for the weapon focus feat. That's what the feats Improved Grapple, Improved Trip and the like are for after all.
This doesn't mean you never could potentially get a weapon focus bonus to your CMB just because you can't take Weapon Focus (Grapple)!
When we look at the rules for Combat Maneuvers we find that:
"A combat maneuver is an attack and gains all of the benefits (and penalties) a creature might gain on attack rolls from spells, feats, magic items, and conditional modifiers."
So if you were choosing to trip someone with a spiked chain and had Weapon Focus (Spiked Chain) you should certainly get the +1 in that situation as it is a feat that grants a bonus to an attack roll. The same would be true with disarm, sunder, etc where you were using a proper weapon and had the right feat.
Your opinions, please.
Can you use Weapon Focus (Weapon of choice that can be used for Combat Maneuvers) for purposes of increasing the CMB of the particular maneuver?
My overall opinion is no. In fact I posted that last night and deleted it because I wanted to ponder it and read about it some more (it was 1 am).
However, it's going to depend on how the Weapon Focus is going to be written in the final rules.
Do I think the Weapon Focus to CMB applies in the Beta Rules? No.
Might it apply in the Final Core Rules? Maybe.
Let's look at the expanded definition of CMB from the Bonus Bestiary (which is a peek at the final rules).
A creature’s CMB is equal to its base attack bonus + its Strength modifier + a special size modifier. Creatures with the Agile Maneuvers feat and creatures of size Tiny and smaller use their Dexterity bonus instead of their Strength bonus. A combat maneuver is an attack and gains all of the benefits (and penalties) a creature might gain on attack rolls from spells, feats, magic items, and conditional modifiers.
Emphasis mine. And as Morgen pointed out, there is a clause in there for feats.
The problem is we don't know how the final core rule feats are going to be written, specifically Weapon Focus.
For example, you can do Weapon Focus (grapple),
You can? Because I'm reading the Beta Rules right now (page 97), and it says Weapon Focus unarmed strike. That is not the same thing. And I'm not trying to be a wiseguy or dismissive, I'm just walking back your argument to see where it might or might not hold water.
Again, the final core rules may revise that.
I assume you can also do Weapon Focus (trip).
Only if the assumption above is correct.
You can also do Weapon Focus (spiked chain). Can your bonus to spiked chain count towards CMB made with the weapon? Could they stack? Should they?
That's tricky, because right now the Spiked Chain offers a +2 bonus to CMB with no Weapon Focus (per the equipment description. In Beta, I would say no and they wouldn't stack, based on the description on the Weapon Focus Feat. In the Final Core, I am prepared to have that be wrong.
On a side note, I do know from reading elsewhere on the boards that Lisa Stevens and Vic Wertz personally went over the description of the Spiked Chain during the final edits with a fine tooth comb to make sure it is absolutely clear and straightforward.
Consider a more extreme example, where you can do Weapon Focus (Unarmed Attack). Do you then get a +1 bonus to performing grapples, disarms, and trips, so long as it's with an unarmed attack?
Thanks.
In Beta, no.
In Final? Maybe.
One last thing. On May 20th, in the Paizo Blog- there was write-up on the Iconic Fighter Valeros using the final core rules. From that we know that the Fighter's Weapon Training does apply to CMB.
You might notice a new statistic in Valeros' stat block. CMD, which stands for Combat Maneuver Defense. This statistic is the DC for anyone else to perform a combat maneuver, such as bull rush, disarm, or grapple, against Valeros. This statistic is derived from his CMB +10 plus a number of other modifiers (Dexterity and deflection bonuses in this case). Note that Valeros adds his weapon training bonuses to his CMD whenever anyone tries to disarm or sunder weapons from those groups (he also adds these bonuses to combat maneuver checks made using weapons from those groups).
So that is an example of another rule coming into the CMB equation. However, we have to be cautious about drawing too many assumptions from that. It might be part of how they're improving the Fighter class.
BUT!!!!
Tomorrow they're posting a write-up on the Monk. We might get some clues there.
Final opinion: Weapon Focus doesn't apply in Beta Rules. It remains to be seen if that holds true in the Final Rules.
It does seem like it applies, but you can only take Weapon Focus for weapons. You take Improved [insert maneuver here] for maneuvers. But Weapon Focus does grant a bonus to CMB for maneuvers using that weapon.
It does seem like it applies, but you can only take Weapon Focus for weapons. You take Improved [insert maneuver here] for maneuvers. But Weapon Focus does grant a bonus to CMB for maneuvers using that weapon.
This right here has the right of it, as things stand right now. Maybe there might be changes in the core rules, but I don't think we've yet been given any reason to expect this to change.
But Weapon Focus does grant a bonus to CMB for maneuvers using that weapon.
Please take this as a respectful post. Because if I'm wrong, I don't care, but I just want to understand where I made my mistake. So that I can learn and understand the rules better.
Having said that, please show me where you're drawing this conclusion from the Beta Rules.
I just reviewed the CMB rules in the Beta Book, and I'm not seeing it. I just reviewed the Weapon Focus rules in the Beta Book, and I'm not seeing the conclusion that you're reaching.
Weapon Focus (Combat)
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Now, where I'm drawing the distinction is that I do not intrepret an attack roll as a combat manuever roll. I have always read them as different things, particularly since the Beta description of the CMB does not take Feats into account unless the description of the feat specifically says it does (like Improved Trip). The
Now, as I said above, the Final Core Rules may throw all that out the window.
However, unless it says somewhere that Weapon Focus modifies the CMB, I say no, at least for Beta. I'm prepared to have the Final Rules reverse that.
|
Watcher, I don't think that he's suggesting it's true for the Beta, but rather for the Final, because of text that appears in the Bonus Bestiary. The Beta is remarkably unclear on this point, but the Bonus Bestiary specifically mentions that all bonuses to attacks, including feat bonuses, apply to CMB checks. Barring a huge rewrite of Weapon Focus in the Final, we have every reason to expect that WF will apply to CMB checks made with the relevant weapon (so grapplers will want WF: unarmed pretty much across the board!).
But Weapon Focus does grant a bonus to CMB for maneuvers using that weapon.Please take this as a respectful post. Because if I'm wrong, I don't care, but I just want to understand where I made my mistake. So that I can learn and understand the rules better.
Having said that, please show me where you're drawing this conclusion from the Beta Rules.
Weapon Focus (Combat)
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.Now, where I'm drawing the distinction is that I do not intrepret an attack roll as a combat manuever roll. I have always read them as different things, particularly since the Beta description of the CMB does not take Feats into account unless the description of the feat specifically says it does (like Improved Trip). The
Now, as I said above, the Final Core Rules may throw all that out the window.
However, unless it says somewhere that Weapon Focus modifies the CMB, I say no, at least for Beta. I'm prepared to have the Final Rules reverse that.
You yourself have quoted, in different posts in this thread, everything you need to know.
A creature’s CMB is equal to its base attack bonus + its Strength modifier + a special size modifier. Creatures with the Agile Maneuvers feat and creatures of size Tiny and smaller use their Dexterity bonus instead of their Strength bonus. A combat maneuver is an attack and gains all of the benefits (and penalties) a creature might gain on attack rolls from spells, feats, magic items, and conditional modifiers.
This right here says the CMB "is an attack roll" so I don't understand where you say "I do not intrepret an attack roll as a combat manuever roll." Clearly, CMB is an attack roll.
And the CMB roll "gains all of the benefits a creature might gain on attack rolls from feats".
Since Weapon Focus (Spiked Chain) is a feat that gives you a +1 bonus on attack rolls, and since a Disarm CMB is an attack roll that gains all the benefits you would gain on attack rolls from your feat, then the math is simple. This feat gives you a +1 bonus on your CMB roll to disarm.
It's really that simple.
Now, I get it, the BETA rules don't read this way. But the Bonus Bestiary that you yourself quoted does read this way, so it's evident that there has been a change in Core, and it's a change that we already have access to by simply downloading the free Bonus Bestiary.
So, by RAW BETA rules, you're right. Nothing says your Weapon Focus feat helps with a CMB. But throw in the Bonus Bestiary, and now it does help with the CMB.
Watcher, I don't think that he's suggesting it's true for the Beta, but rather for the Final, because of text that appears in the Bonus Bestiary. The Beta is remarkably unclear on this point, but the Bonus Bestiary specifically mentions that all bonuses to attacks, including feat bonuses, apply to CMB checks. Barring a huge rewrite of Weapon Focus in the Final, we have every reason to expect that WF will apply to CMB checks made with the relevant weapon (so grapplers will want WF: unarmed pretty much across the board!).
I gotchya, I guess when I read the Bonus Bestiary I didn't see the all inclusivity of everything applying to the CMB.
But, I did just go back and re-read it again.
A combat maneuver is an attack and gains all of the benefits (and penalties) a creature might gain on attack rolls from spells, feats, magic items, and conditional modifiers.
Eeeh. What can I say? That word "All" just wasn't jumping out at me.
I concede the point. Weapon Focus should apply to CMB in the final version of the rules.
Thanks Shisumo!
You yourself have quoted, in different posts in this thread, everything you need to know.
Yep. I see that now. We cross posted. See my reply to Shisumo.
PFRPG final is gonna be a great change to the game...this new system is excellent!
The misunderstanding above aside, I am pretty excited by the changes. During my own Beta Testing, players were unwilling to do any Combat Manuevers at all. Which was a disappointment because the CMs (like grapple) went from being too complicated to bother with in 3.5, to being too much of a risk for the potential payoff in Beta.
I'm hopeful that all of the changes (like allowing Weapon Focus to modify) will bring CMs back as viable options for the players.
While it's unclear in the BETA rules, I think the intention was that things that added to attack roles would add to CMB checks.
|
|
During my own Beta Testing, players were unwilling to do any Combat Manuevers at all. Which was a disappointment because the CMs (like grapple) went from being too complicated to bother with in 3.5, to being too much of a risk for the potential payoff in Beta.
I'm hopeful that all of the changes (like allowing Weapon Focus to modify) will bring CMs back as viable options for the players.
One thing I have noticed in making some preliminary moves toward converting my Pathfinder Society pregens is that CMDs generally suck relative to AC at 1st level, while CMB is usually pretty close to the typical attack bonus. (Monks are, at least at this point, the notable exception, since they add three ability score modifiers to CMD instead of two like everybody else.) At low levels, a character focused on combat maneuvers will be quite effective, I think. I have no idea how things will play out at higher levels, however.
At low levels, a character focused on combat maneuvers will be quite effective, I think. I have no idea how things will play out at higher levels, however.
I am hoping it's not too effective. I would rather not see every boss fight end with a monk or barbarian fast-moving over to the boss and locking him down with a grapple while the rest of the PCs mop up the minions.
During my own Beta Testing, players were unwilling to do any Combat Manuevers at all, to being too much of a risk for the potential payoff in Beta.
Just yesterday we were faced with a fight that was going horribly wrong.
Our wizard went first (his 1st mistake) and walked into a trap. He made his REF save and jumped forward to avoid it (his 2nd mistake). The trap included a mechanism to block the entire 5'wide hallway. Then the boss appeared with two minions and our poor wizard had to confront him alone (our druid summoned a dire badger to help the wizard).
When the trap finally reset (after 3 rounds), my paladin bravely leapt over the 5' pressure plate to join the fray, but there was a 4-legged beast (the enemy boss came with a couple pets) where I wanted to land, so I declared it an Overrun CMB.
First, I had to make my jump (Acrobatics) check (at -4 because of my armor). On an 8 or less I would end up in the trap, but I rolled a 12 and I made it.
Then I had to make the Overrun attempt. The beastie got an AoO but missed. Now we looked up the rule and I needed to roll a d20+7 and I had to beat a 23! I would fail on a 15 or less! Grrrrrrr.
Fortunately I rolled a 19 on my d20 and succeeded by 3, so I successfully overran the beastie into the next empty square, where I was flanked by the boss and his beast. But at least the wizard wasn't alone.
What were my chances? Turns out I had a 15% chance to succeed, and an 85% chance to just end up in the trap.
So yes, I would like to see CMB become just a bit more user-friendly than it currenly is.
From the Bonus Bestiary preview, the Final CMB/CMD looks to be functionally identical to "Maneuver AC" as discussed during the playtest (minor 'presentation' differences aside, i.e. using 'CMB' instead of applying a Maneuver Size Mod to normal Attack Rolls, including Iteratives)
Which means Weapon Focus, Enhancement Bonuses, Flanking, all apply to Maneuver Attack Rolls. Weapon Focus (Spiked Chain) applies to all Attack Rolls the Spiked Chain is capable of attempting (i.e. Trip, not Bullrush). Weapon Focus (Unarmed) should potentially apply to all Maneuvers, which is sort of a unique advantage/flexibility of Unarmed Combat specialists.
As somebody mentioned, for low-level/ low-stat characters facing equal opponents, Maneuvers will be somewhat easier than Melee Attacks vs. ARMORED Opponents for zero BAB/STR/DEX mod characters (facing equal opponents, CMB vs. CMD should tend towards 50% success for such characters: the same as Melee Attacks vs. UN-ARMORED). This seems a great way to introduce players to Maneuvers (since without a decent chance of success, they aren't very attractive), as well as making NON LETHAL combat viable for "commoner" types - It would seem to make typical "bar room brawls" amongst commoners better simulated by the rules.
Given 1-2 melee hits are easily lethal for such characters, not taking a melee hit for a round, but being tripped/bullrushed/etc instead, doesn't seem remotely over-powered/out of line. Assuming that attempting a Maneuver without Improved Unarmed/ Improved Maneuver Feats still provokes an AoO (if the opponent is armed), Maneuvers still have a signifigant penalty compared to 'normal' Melee Attacks.
This change is exactly what I was hoping to see for Maneuvers. Can't wait to see it in dead trees, though!
Fortunately I rolled a 19 on my d20 and succeeded by 3, so I successfully overran the beastie into the next empty square, where I was flanked by the boss and his beast. But at least the wizard wasn't alone.
Great job! (love that trap!)
It seems the rules analysis here is pretty spot on. There's wide agreement that CMB are attack rolls and are modified appropriately. I think this is entirely correct.
If this was not the case, you'd be faced with the opposite proposition. Do you take non-proficiency penalties for using weapons in CMB in combat? This was my biggest problem with beta CMB. You could make a character who carried a whip and bolas around without bothering to take the Exotic Weapon Feats, and maybe throw in a second monk character with a Guisarme to trip people at range, just because he could. Hella battlefield control for no feat cost.
|
During my own Beta Testing, players were unwilling to do any Combat Manuevers at all, to being too much of a risk for the potential payoff in Beta.Just yesterday we were faced with a fight that was going horribly wrong.
Our wizard went first (his 1st mistake) and walked into a trap. He made his REF save and jumped forward to avoid it (his 2nd mistake). The trap included a mechanism to block the entire 5'wide hallway. Then the boss appeared with two minions and our poor wizard had to confront him alone (our druid summoned a dire badger to help the wizard).
When the trap finally reset (after 3 rounds), my paladin bravely leapt over the 5' pressure plate to join the fray, but there was a 4-legged beast (the enemy boss came with a couple pets) where I wanted to land, so I declared it an Overrun CMB.
First, I had to make my jump (Acrobatics) check (at -4 because of my armor). On an 8 or less I would end up in the trap, but I rolled a 12 and I made it.
Then I had to make the Overrun attempt. The beastie got an AoO but missed. Now we looked up the rule and I needed to roll a d20+7 and I had to beat a 23! I would fail on a 15 or less! Grrrrrrr.
Fortunately I rolled a 19 on my d20 and succeeded by 3, so I successfully overran the beastie into the next empty square, where I was flanked by the boss and his beast. But at least the wizard wasn't alone.
What were my chances? Turns out I had a 15% chance to succeed, and an 85% chance to just end up in the trap.
So yes, I would like to see CMB become just a bit more user-friendly than it currenly is.
What kind of Beasty was it? since 15+8=23, I assume it was strong, but possibly not very dextrous? so under the new CMD it would be 10+8+?=XX
making it easier to Overrun.
The misunderstanding above aside, I am pretty excited by the changes. During my own Beta Testing, players were unwilling to do any Combat Manuevers at all. Which was a disappointment because the CMs (like grapple) went from being too complicated to bother with in 3.5, to being too much of a risk for the potential payoff in Beta.
I'm hopeful that all of the changes (like allowing Weapon Focus to modify) will bring CMs back as viable options for the players.
You took the words right out of my mouth. :-)
Then I had to make the Overrun attempt. The beastie got an AoO but missed. Now we looked up the rule and I needed to roll a d20+7 and I had to beat a 23! I would fail on a 15 or less! Grrrrrrr.
Fortunately I rolled a 19 on my d20 and succeeded by 3, so I successfully overran the beastie into the next empty square, where I was flanked by the boss and his beast. But at least the wizard wasn't alone.
What were my chances? Turns out I had a 15% chance to succeed, and an 85% chance to just end up in the trap.
So yes, I would like to see CMB become just a bit more user-friendly than it currenly is.
What kind of Beasty was it? since 15+8=23, I assume it was strong, but possibly not very dextrous? so under the new CMD it would be 10+8+?=XX
making it easier to Overrun.
Well, no spoilers here. But it was a medium 4-legged critter with 3 HD and a STR of 17, so it had a CMB of 6, + 2 for having four legs, so my DC was 15 + 6 + 2 = 23.
Heck, I had a higher CMB than the critter did (7 vs. 6) so it wasn't that it's CMB was ridiculously high or anything. Even getting +2 for its four legs only put it one point higher than me.
No, it's the fact that the base was 15 that made this attack so likely to fail. Nobody really has much chance of success against relatively even foes when the base chance of success is only 25%.
Yes, the new Core rules look much more practical for executing combat maneuvers with a reasonable chance of success.