Bullrush was an opposed Strength check. There were no DCs to be modded. It was his roll+STR vs your roll+STR.
Exactly. In other words, the fact that your character was a 15th level fighter/rogue meant diddly; he was no more likely to stop the dragon's rush than a 1st level commoner with the same (magically augmented) strength score.
I guess that who the system favors depends on how old/large the dragon was. But in pathfinder, you can stop a dragon by being more skilled than it is, even if it is ten times your mass.
|
Exactly. In other words, the fact that your character was a 15th level fighter/rogue meant diddly; he was no more likely to stop the dragon's rush than a 1st level commoner with the same (magically augmented) strength score.
I guess that who the system favors depends on how old/large the dragon was. But in pathfinder, you can stop a dragon by being more skilled than it is, even if it is ten times your mass.
And it still means nothing until they fix the Bestiary. Because a CR 15 adult red dragon has a CMB of +35, CMD of 45. I forget Amiri's DEX mod, but she has a CMD of 34 before it. So the dragon two sizes larger/two levels lower than her is going to bull rush her on a 3-5 or better. And she still needs help to try ANYTHING to it.
I like the idea of the CMD. But I want a target number that gives me a chance to do something. I want those maneuver options. I don't want to be 'I attack, I attack, I move and Vital Strike attack, I attack...'
Guys, guys... relax.
Greek heroes were fighting the Hydra and the Medusa. please note the capitals. These are reserved for advanced and named monsters, paragons of their kind. They are the opponnts for demigods and not for your mid level fighters. And if I recall it correctly, then the medusa affair involved weapons enchanted by the gods themselves (possibly artefacts) with unique powers and unknown bonuses, so this fight should't be compared with our core mechanics. I'd also like to note that neithe of heroes was known for being humple or having any objection to drinking, so the stories about giants and other such stuf may be inflated more than just a little. Heck, You can tell that you've wrestled a giant after beating an ogre, or even a half giant as they both have a 'Giant' subtype and nobody else needs to know that they were't that big.
Aside from that I fully aggree that maneuvers don't need to be easy to do. If triping someone seems like a bad maneuver to you, then I'd like to say, than when I put someone on the ground (attack bonuses, ...), prevent him from moving away easily (AoO, wasted action to stand) and expose him to attack from the other party members, then the maneuver was cool with me.
No need to have another flashy munchkin bite.
And it still means nothing until they fix the Bestiary. Because a CR 15 adult red dragon has a CMB of +35, CMD of 45. I forget Amiri's DEX mod, but she has a CMD of 34 before it. So the dragon two sizes larger/two levels lower than her is going to bull rush her on a 3-5 or better. And she still needs help to try ANYTHING to it.
Yes, but her chances are proportionally better against dragons of a significantly lower CR than her. At the high end of large, a jouvenile red could easily be twenty or thirty times Amiri's mass, but has a CMB 9 points lower, giving her a roughly 50/50 shot.
Which I frankly think is ridiculous, but I'm willing swallow it in the name of "heroic fantasy". In action movies, epic skill counts for just as much as brute strength, even when a two-ton reptile is rushing you like a lineback.
However, if a medium-sized humanoid having a 15% chance of stopping a charging elephant in its tracks (and throwing it back into the last square it occupied) isn't good enough for you, I'm afraid I haven't much sympathy.
Actually, no, sorry. That's a 25% chance of stopping an adult red dragon (Amiri's CMB is 41, 42 while raging, but we should assume the dragon is charging). Not an elephant.
An (african) elephant is the same size and almost the same strength, but has significantly less BAB. A charging elephant has ZERO chance of pushing Amiri (or knocking her down, or running her over).
On the other hand, it would be nice if over-run were good for what it was originally intended- stampeding over a mook to charge someone more important. It's hard for me to see a situation where a character would want to use this manuver.Imagine a 5' wide corridor, an enemy blocking said corridor, and a rogue who desperately needs a flanking buddy to make mincemeat out of the enemy. Overrun starts looking pretty good right about now, doesn't it?
Not a chance.
If that rogue has even just one rank in Acrobatics he can tumble through that enemy's space. If he fails the Acrobatics roll, he still gets through the space but provokes an AoO. Unless he is truly worried that one AoO will kill him, he is 1,000% more likely to get behind the enemy with Acrobatics than he is with a puny Overrun.
Still not gonna use Overrun.
However most my rogues would prefer the fighter or barbarian overran the enemy and went into the room so that any other opponents in there didn't make mincemeat out of the rogue.
|
|
However, if a medium-sized humanoid having a 15% chance of stopping a charging elephant in its tracks (and throwing it back into the last square it occupied) isn't good enough for you, I'm afraid I haven't much sympathy.
And I guess that's the baseline for us. Neither of us is particularly willing to let go of our positions. I can at least see now that I've taken the time to look over a little more that not every monster is weighted against the PCs. I still have to say I don't care for the formula however. Again, maybe it will get better in playtesting.
This comment pretty much destroyed the OP's argument. I"m still laughing over people actually complaining that their character can't trip a storm giant. Our characters are supposed to by heroes not demi-gods like Hercules and.....Drizzt LOL.
Just because I'm feeling froggy, how did that destroy the argument that the individual maneuvers are worthless now? He showed that tripping could be done. Whoop-de-doo, it was still a wasted action.
interesting... because from where I am standing the manouevres, especially tripping look much more capable now, especially against large(r) foes. Starting with the much reduced boni for size.... I truly wonder why that change was made.
In 3.5 one was usually loath to even try tripping an opponent because you first had to hit (possibly suffering an AoO), and then win a straight Str vs Str check. Far more random and less-predictable than it is now. hence players were less likely to try it, unless exceptionally desperate.
Now, you can both stack the modifiers on your CMB and the D20-roll is proportionally far less of a factor than in 3.5 Hence, the player is more likely to enter into nonsensical manouevres, say tripping fire-elementals, large snakes, fish.... the list is long. Leading to little but debates at the table whether that stunt is possible, simply because by the RAW it is possible.
Grappling, atm looks more feasible than in 3.5 (and thank god, in BETA), so do bullrush and disarm, but tripping ? Omg.... what a can of worms !
Because, once players encounter an opponent which unexpectedly uses the stuff on them (instead of the other way round), there will be tears and mournful wailing.
As an aside, tales of mythic feats of grappling are just that, mythic, read "religious propaganda", tales made to out-exaggerate the claims of other religions.... clerical "that fish that got away" tales... and be regarded that way. They never touch the core-beliefs of religion anyway.
Even if one wanted them to be .... possible, in a campaign they should stay rare and monumental, even amongst great heroes and impossible for the most dedicated and focused PCs. After all, I do imagine people will complain if the wizards or clerics start killing enemy armies "en gros" by splitting the seas, which would be a fair magical equivalent of outwrestling angels, titans or who-knows.
Consider it epic stuff
On the other hand, it would be nice if over-run were good for what it was originally intended- stampeding over a mook to charge someone more important. It's hard for me to see a situation where a character would want to use this manuver.Imagine a 5' wide corridor, an enemy blocking said corridor, and a rogue who desperately needs a flanking buddy to make mincemeat out of the enemy. Overrun starts looking pretty good right about now, doesn't it?Not a chance.
If that rogue has even just one rank in Acrobatics he can tumble through that enemy's space. If he fails the Acrobatics roll, he still gets through the space but provokes an AoO. Unless he is truly worried that one AoO will kill him, he is 1,000% more likely to get behind the enemy with Acrobatics than he is with a puny Overrun.
Still not gonna use Overrun.
Rogue would sacrifice a full attack by doing so. Rogue's full attack with TWF is light years ahead of a rogue's single attack, and more damaging than a barbarian's full attack. If the barbarian could overrun the foe, and the rogue was right behind the barbarian (so that a 5' step would be enough to get into melee range), then overrun would be the better choise.
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
I'm just using the Pathfinder Conversion Guide right now until I can get a 2nd printing of the full rules. The calculations for CMB and CMD above are the same as in the Conversion Guide...
I don't understand why Strength AND Dexterity modifiers are used at the same time for CMD. If for CMD, why not CMB? Should it be Strength OR Dexterity, whichever is higher and/or appropriate for the situation?
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Well, if you want to push somebody or swipe his legs away or grab a hold on him with your hands you need raw muscle strength.
And if you want to avoid such move you need either muscles (stand firmly) or nimble moves (dodge away).
Exactly..."or" being the operative word.
But as far as Strength being *only* for CMB, what about the lithe elf who can feint and sneak a stab in (as a matter of speak; I know there are feint and sneak mechanics)?
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
I'm just using the Pathfinder Conversion Guide right now until I can get a 2nd printing of the full rules. The calculations for CMB and CMD above are the same as in the Conversion Guide...
I don't understand why Strength AND Dexterity modifiers are used at the same time for CMD. If for CMD, why not CMB? Should it be Strength OR Dexterity, whichever is higher and/or appropriate for the situation?
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
You do know about the PRD right?
Dex factors into CMD because in 3.5 there was a touch attack in Grappling. It was part of making the numbers come out where we wanted them for different opponents. The result is like 3.5: hyper-agile characters can be hard to pin even if they are not particularly good at pinning people themselves. Ever tried to catch a squirrel? Low CMB, high CMD! Hope this helps!
But as far as Strength being *only* for CMB, what about the lithe elf who can feint and sneak a stab in (as a matter of speak; I know there are feint and sneak mechanics)?
There's the feats Agile Maneuvers and/or Weapon Finesse for that.
As mentioned above, the boring answer for "Why CMB = Str and CMD = Str + Dex?" is that that's basically the way it was in 3.5 -- you needed to make touch attack (essentially Str + BAB vs. Dex, unless you have Weapon Finesse) and then an opposed check (essentially Str vs. Str). Dex and Str were always involved for the defender, and Dex was never involved for the attacker unless he had Weapon Finesse.
A random analogy:
Tribesmen used to trip ELEPHANTS for god sake. Apparentley if you irritate an elephant and make it start stomping .. THEN run between its legs .. then jab the back of its legs with your spear you had better get away fast as it collapses .. Something to do with the limited strength inherent in the structure of muscles, the great weight upon the fibres, the massive witheld tension etc and other body physics stuff i never got into that a mere jab or two for puny puny damage makes the tendon rip appart like a cut bowstring. I often wonder about it when i go to the zoo. If anyone tries the irritate to stomping, leg dive, stab, dodge combo elephant manuver let us know how it goes!
I am going to file this under exceptional cases that should never crop up unless the GM is feeling generous. It's an elephant! A player who offered that exact description might have a chance in my game, but one who just wants to roll CMB and get away with it shouldn't stand a chance.
The whole point of Maneuvers is to give the GM a whole class of attack where size is a benefit rather than a hindrance. I love Shadow of Colossus as much as (or more than) the next guy, but there does come a point where CMB/CMD is a poor tool for resolving this type of action if it is meant to favor the little guy. We tend to resolve this kind of creative "giant grappling" with skill checks, as is well portrayed in SotC. It's fun, and it doesn't explicitly break the rules!
Ah, I'm glad to hear that the PF CMB rules work just fine...as long as you just replace them with a completely different set of rules that do something else entirely.
Bravo, sir! That is probably the best intentional misinterpretation of an argument I have ever seen!
Ah, I'm glad to hear that the PF CMB rules work just fine...as long as you just replace them with a completely different set of rules that do something else entirely.
Ummm. That's not really what I was saying AMiB.
The PF CMB rules are working just fine. I said that I use special rules for arbitrating "Shadow of the Colossus" type encounters. I'm not sure if you have played the game, but Pathfinder grapple rules should never allow that sort of thing unless the GM is specifically aiming for it. Seriously, never. The system works for normal games just fine, in that you can't grapple things that you can't reasonably put your arms around.
Just to be perfectly clear: The poster gave an exceptional example of grappling a huge creature, to which I responded by describing how I handle such situations when they are appropriate. I don't think the RAW is broken in the least. CMB/CMD has worked extremely well in my games as a fast system for resolving any attack-like thing that favors size over accuracy.
For people who don't know the game Shadow of the Colossus, it involves a human woman killing various monsters who would be Colossal+ to Colossal++ in D&D terms. She doesn't "fight" them in the conventional sense ... it's as much a puzzle-solving game as it is an action-adventure game because the creatures are just so huge that it's not really possible to hack away at them and get anywhere.
For people who don't know the game Shadow of the Colossus, it involves a human woman fighting various monsters who would be Colossal++++ or so in D&D terms. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of feet tall.
I think the biggest is about 500 feet, actually...
They're saving thousands for the sequel*.
*not true.
Heh, yeah, I exaggerated a bit. You caught it just before I edited.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm not the author of this quote, but I find this argument compelling. Is anyone else finding issues with CMB vs CMD in particular situations?
Well, I (for one) pretty much reject that view.
I don't think the CMD's are too hard, in fact I think they are too easy.
I don't like his view of the 3.5 version (because I believed by RAW that they matched the FAQ/RotG articles.)
Does it mean that true strike works on maneuvers ? If yes, my Duskblade player will be happy !
I didn't know Duskblade had True Strike as a class spell.
For people who don't know the game Shadow of the Colossus, it involves a human woman killing various monsters who would be Colossal+ to Colossal++ in D&D terms. She doesn't "fight" them in the conventional sense ... it's as much a puzzle-solving game as it is an action-adventure game because the creatures are just so huge that it's not really possible to hack away at them and get anywhere.
Human male. With longish hair, and a grip of steel.
Coulda sworn it was a woman in the story, but I never played it so I bow to experience.
|
|
Since this thread got rezzed, I'll take a moment to add to it. My issue with CMD is mostly grapple, the same as most people. Grapple with big monsters has been 'ha ha, no more turns for you!' It seriously irritated me as a DM when I grappled a PC and he literally had nothing to do but hope the monster rolled low and he rolled high. The problem is, there is no opposed roll in PF, so now instead of hoping for luck, that PC is out of the fight permanently. And that is no fun for me. I'll give up on the 'CMs for PCs' fight, but not this one.
Since this thread got rezzed, I'll take a moment to add to it. My issue with CMD is mostly grapple, the same as most people. Grapple with big monsters has been 'ha ha, no more turns for you!' It seriously irritated me as a DM when I grappled a PC and he literally had nothing to do but hope the monster rolled low and he rolled high. The problem is, there is no opposed roll in PF, so now instead of hoping for luck, that PC is out of the fight permanently. And that is no fun for me. I'll give up on the 'CMs for PCs' fight, but not this one.
I think being grappled is supposed to be a pain.... The monster can't attack party members, and often does less damage than it would through constrict than it would with a full attack. In 3.5 it could make multiple grapple checks if its BAB was high enough to make more than one attack plus constrict. I don't know how many DM's took advantage of that however. You had opposed rolls in 3.5, but the monsters had such high checks sometimes that rolling a nat 20 still did not help the PC's. At least now if the monster rolls a 1 it gets you out of the grapple(IIRC).
Since this thread got rezzed, I'll take a moment to add to it. My issue with CMD is mostly grapple, the same as most people. Grapple with big monsters has been 'ha ha, no more turns for you!' It seriously irritated me as a DM when I grappled a PC and he literally had nothing to do but hope the monster rolled low and he rolled high. The problem is, there is no opposed roll in PF, so now instead of hoping for luck, that PC is out of the fight permanently. And that is no fun for me. I'll give up on the 'CMs for PCs' fight, but not this one.
If by "out of the fight" you mean "mildly discomfited", then sure. Seriously, the PFRPG "grappled" condition is much less serious than the 3.5 version (e.g. you can still fight with weapons, cast spells, etc.). Also, don't forget that maneuvers always succeed on a 20 and always fail on a 1, so that element of luck is still there; in some cases you're better off than in 3.5, since the chance to escape could easily drop below 5%. (EDIT: somewhat ninja'ed by A Man in Black)
My two cents from my experience so far: combat maneuvers are easy to perform if you stack on a lot of bonuses (whether from BAB, Str, feats, enhancement bonuses to a weapon, flanking, whatever), and are hard to do if you don't. In that sense they're not much different from the 3.5 version (except size was the big bonus to try for in 3.5). That's both an advantage (yay! I get to use my specialty with almost guaranteed success!) and a disadvantage (boo! The bad guys gets to use his specialty with almost guaranteed success...) to the system.
I can't imagine why you'd want to specialize in grappling, either, to be honest. Anything that's scary in melee (most enemies) will just eat your face, barely inconvenienced. Spellcasters, setting aside the ones who who teleport or are made out of flame or whatever, get Dimension Door and Freedom of Movement at about the same CR-appropriate level as Greater Grapple falling into PCs' hands.
So few things are actually worth grabbing.
I'm playing a grappler now, at level 1. The important maneuver to remember is "Tie Up". Once the initial grapple has succeeded, it's basically all over for the enemy in two more rounds (one round to pin and one round for tying up); the +5 bonus to CMB in succeeding rounds (not to mention the -2 penalty to CMD for the "grappled" penalty to Dex) makes it quite difficult to escape. Once the character gets Greater Grapple, that can be reduced from 3 rounds to 2, or even 1 in theory (you can try to tie up a foe without pinning them first, but it's less effective).
You are correct that at higher levels there are whole categories of enemies that it's useless to grapple, of course (demons, devils, a well-prepared spellcaster, really huge creatures). If the game gets that far, maybe I'll give up.
Coulda sworn it was a woman in the story, but I never played it so I bow to experience.It's a dude named Wanda, which could be the source of your confusion.
It is indeed a dude named Wanda, although it is told that "Wanda" was just a japanese-english mistake on "Wanderer", which is what you do for the majority of the game when you're not slaying giants.
I don't know, if people want grappling to be easier, they could drop the base CMB from 10 to 5. It's already easier (in most cases) than it was in the playtest. Grappling in real life is something that you never want to do against armed opponents, and it is complex and unpredictable even for professionals. I'm okay with it as-is — not an optimal technique compared to a pointy sharp metal stick, unless you have special concerns.
I imagine you need to hold that rope in a hand. That's a -4 to the check.
All the niggling BS modifiers sort of ruin the simplicity of the one-roll system, as well.
Okay, here I agree. The modifier situation could have been handled more elegantly. However, this is a game of niggling modifiers. It has a 400 page rulebook. I think on that every time I go to complain...
I'm playing a grappler now, at level 1. The important maneuver to remember is "Tie Up". Once the initial grapple has succeeded, it's basically all over for the enemy in two more rounds (one round to pin and one round for tying up); the +5 bonus to CMB in succeeding rounds (not to mention the -2 penalty to CMD for the "grappled" penalty to Dex) makes it quite difficult to escape.I imagine you need to hold that rope in a hand. That's a -4 to the check.
I asked a question about that a long time ago, but no one had an opinion. Even so, that's a net +3 bonus for the grappler instead of +7; maybe you could even avoid that if you had Quick Draw?
An even better criticism is: "I want to play a wrestler, not a hog-tier."
All the niggling BS modifiers sort of ruin the simplicity of the one-roll system, as well.
Sure; that's really a criticism of the d20 system in general (motto: "Stacking niggling BS modifiers is our specialty!").
Okay, here I agree. The modifier situation could have been handled more elegantly. However, this is a game of niggling modifiers. It has a 400 page rulebook. I think on that every time I go to complain...Damn straight it's a 400-page rulebook. All the more reason to cut out the niggling BS modifiers that contribute nothing to the game. Why do we need a -4 penalty for having something in your other hand? (Never mind the issues with grappling thri-keen/ettins/athaches/mariliths/centaurs, since "humanoid" and "other hand" are both quite vague.)
Well now, the real answer (IMO) is that these rules were added because "Use Rope needed a home somewhere" and the designer's perception was that it was only ever used for binding people (and evidently only in combat situations. I disagreed then, and I still disagree. My preferred solution was to fold Use Rope into Escape Artist (call it Ropework). Ah well, I'll still do it that way.
Trying to grapple in desperation is a problem (you will get eaten alive by a full-round attack) - but if you have the HP to burn, then goin for it is smart. At least my grappling monk (at level 7) has sky-high CMD and good CMB; if the grapple connects it is hard for the opponent to get out. Then if the pin connects (more likely after initial grapple) then its very hard indeed for the target to do much of anything.
But don't try it on low life... it's not going to happen. (My monk only barely managed to stabilize on -8 after being eviscerated by a nasty wererat with a silver rapier in Curse of the Crimson Throne.)
Edit - my monk's CMB is pretty good. Though I guess this is a relative term (around +15 at level 7). Then again I claim that trying to kill people using grapple-attacks is futile. Grapples are long-hand for saying "pin".
You can always hold the rope with your teeth :)
The idea had occurred to me. :-)
Also, the -4 penalty for having something in your other hand means that you'll never, ever kill anything in a grapple without a natural attack. (You're not going to do it as a monk because your CMB sucks.) It used to be grapplers grabbed you and then shanked you to death. Now, not so much.
Again, I think you're underestimating the effective +7 bonus (+5 for continuing to grapple, -2 to opponent's Dex) compared to the -4 penalty. You can always use armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet if you really want to avoid the penalty.
What fun is it to say, "Okay, I spend my turn sitting on this guy"?
Not very, which is why it's useful to have a rope or a chain handy, just in case.