|
Does being behind cover affect the target's CMD? It says under "Combat Maneuver Defense" that circumstance bonuses do, but is being behind cover a circumstance bonus?
If not, that means that when I use a reach weapon to disarm someone from behind cover, it's no harder than if the target didn't have cover, correct? (I'm confused because that's what the rules seem to say, but it doesn't make sense that a normal attack would be penalized by cover, but a combat maneuver wouldn't be.)
It says that anything besides armor, shield, natural, and size are added to CMD, this would include circumstance, dodge, monk bonuses and deflection to mention a few.
It says that anything besides armor, shield, natural, and size are added to CMD, this would include circumstance, dodge, monk bonuses and deflection to mention a few.
This isn't quite right. From the PRD:
"A creature can [in addition to the special size bonus] add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD."
So the monk bonus wouldn't count, if it weren't for this line in the monk class description:
". . . the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD."
So it isn't quite 'anything except x, y, and z' it's more like "a, b, and c, and no others unless they say so."
So for instance, the Duelist can't use their Canny Defense ability to improve their CMD, but they would get help from Elaborate Defense because that's a Dodge Bonus.
I . . . think?
Does being behind cover affect the target's CMD? It says under "Combat Maneuver Defense" that circumstance bonuses do, but is being behind cover a circumstance bonus?
The rules don't appear to give a type to cover bonuses, so I would think that it doesn't have a type, or else its type is "cover". Therefore it wouldn't apply to CMD because the rule that defines CMD doesn't say that untyped nor cover bonuses to AC also apply to CMD.
If not, that means that when I use a reach weapon to disarm someone from behind cover, it's no harder than if the target didn't have cover, correct? (I'm confused because that's what the rules seem to say, but it doesn't make sense that a normal attack would be penalized by cover, but a combat maneuver wouldn't be.)
Yeah I kind of agree that the rules as written may be mistaken in this case. I may house-rule it in the game I'm GMing so that unnamed bonuses to AC also apply to CMD unless I rule otherwise, or that cover grants a deflection bonus. I mean that's what it does, right? Your weapon or projectile bounces off the wall or parapet instead of striking the enemy.
Yeah I kind of agree that the rules as written may be mistaken in this case. I may house-rule it in the game I'm GMing so that unnamed bonuses to AC also apply to CMD unless I rule otherwise, or that cover grants a deflection bonus. I mean that's what it does, right? Your weapon or projectile bounces off the wall or parapet instead of striking the enemy.
Treat CMD as touch AC - size modifier + CMB and all the headaches vanish.
|
Treat CMD as touch AC - size modifier + CMB and all the headaches vanish.
Doesn't the Touch AC already have the size subtracted from it? So you're subtracting it twice?
I just ask because your formula is the one we use for our Beta campaign and we like it a lot -- very simple and easy to figure. And the rules that cover when you receive a Dodge bonus, a monk's Wisdom bonus, and so forth are fairly clear.
Treat CMD as touch AC - size modifier + CMB and all the headaches vanish.Doesn't the Touch AC already have the size subtracted from it? So you're subtracting it twice?
No... the system we proposed was slightly different than final. Mathematically identical, but the size modifiers were pre-built to be non-confusing, because I predicted exactly the question you just asked. ;)
Let's say you're Large. Ignoring other factors, your base AC is 10 + (-1) = 9.
In the final version, to convert this to CMD you would first subtract the AC size modifier: 9 - (-1) = 10.
Then, you would add the CM size modifier: 10 + 1 = 11.
One of my main proposals in the beta thread was, why bother with the extra steps and potential add/subtract confusion? Just specify the CM size modifier to be +2 for large, etc. Add it directly to your touch AC: 9 + 2 = 11. Mathematically identical, and allows you to say "CMD is a modified touch AC" instead of having to describe it as a whole separate mechanic.
It also completely negated the need for CMB. Just add the same CM size modifier to a regular attack.
Overall, I think it would have saved half a page of text (and despite the book's size, that would have been quite valuable). To be honest, I suspect the Paizo folks never read the culmination of that thread (which didn't really settle on a good mechanic for several pages) and just happened to come up with a functionally equivalent idea themselves, which got written up as an adjustment of the beta system (which couldn't be directly modeled as modified attacks and touch AC).