I haven't seen it anywhere, but does Cover bonus to AC also apply to CMD? Sounds like it'd make sense it would.
I think it's just alot simpler to think of CMD as AC, specifically a Touch AC variant. If something (including Cover) modifies AC, it modifies CMD. (Except Armor/Shield/NaturalArmor bonuses, obviously)
Likewise, if something modifies an attack roll, it modifies CMB.
I haven't seen it anywhere, but does Cover bonus to AC also apply to CMD? Sounds like it'd make sense it would.
I disagree. Armor, shield and natural armor do not apply to CMD either. Cover is in the physical obstruction category of protection as the three former and should therefore not apply to CMD.
|
I haven't seen it anywhere, but does Cover bonus to AC also apply to CMD? Sounds like it'd make sense it would.I disagree. Armor, shield and natural armor do not apply to CMD either. Cover is in the physical obstruction category of protection as the three former and should therefore not apply to CMD.
+1.
PRD wrote:
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifierAND:
...A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.
So going strictly by the rules: no bonus to CMD because of cover, armor, shield or natural armor.
Personally however, I say that it would make sense to add a cover bonus to CMD.
|
I would agree with the other three replies that you do not get a bonus to CMD from Cover.
It doesnt make a great deal of sense to rule it that way, I could see a low wall making it alot more difficult to trip someone.
This is why I have house ruled that Cover is infact a circumstance bonus. This makes the most sense to me as hiding behind a wall is a circumstance.
Yeah,
I think Cover bonus's (and Concealment bonuses) are going to be highly fluid and should be treated as a circumstance bonus based on the situation.
For example :
Opponent behind low wall (3 feet high). He's got cover against a trip or an overrun (Circumstance) but not necessarily a Grapple attempt.
Opponent in a hedgerow (concealment, but not cover). Overrunning him is impossible (you can't push him back through the hedgerow, if it gets thicker), however, you could probably try to grapple him without issue. On the other hand, you can trip him, but it's harder because all the underbrush gets in the way (Circumstance bonus to CMD).
I honestly think Grapples will probably rarely if ever get cover/concealment modifications to CMD. But Trips are much more likely to get them.
I haven't seen it anywhere, but does Cover bonus to AC also apply to CMD? Sounds like it'd make sense it would.I disagree. Armor, shield and natural armor do not apply to CMD either. Cover is in the physical obstruction category of protection as the three former and should therefore not apply to CMD.
Actually, "A creature can add any circumstance, dodge, deflection, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to it's AC to it's CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to it's CMD. A flat-footed creature does not apply it's Dexterity bonus to it's CMD."
This looks to me like circumstantial bonuses such as cover would apply. If a ring of protection helps your CMD I would think physical object between you and your opponent would.
I haven't seen it anywhere, but does Cover bonus to AC also apply to CMD? Sounds like it'd make sense it would.I disagree. Armor, shield and natural armor do not apply to CMD either. Cover is in the physical obstruction category of protection as the three former and should therefore not apply to CMD.Actually, "A creature can add any circumstance, dodge, deflection, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to it's AC to it's CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to it's CMD. A flat-footed creature does not apply it's Dexterity bonus to it's CMD."
This looks to me like circumstantial bonuses such as cover would apply. If a ring of protection helps your CMD I would think physical object between you and your opponent would.
Except that a phisical obstruction can be bypassed, which the protection from a magic ring cannot.
|
Cover bonuses should indeed be included in the CMD. It is harder to do a manuever to someone who is behind a solid barrier or obstacle than it would be without.
Which is easier?
Making a tackle (read - grapple) against a running back?
Or making a tackle against a running back while he's using the full-back as a blocker (read - cover bonus)?
It's harder to reach, grab, wrap up successfully, etc. Same as trying to grab/grapple someone around a corner, or through a statue or over a bar in a tavern.
That's the whole concept of cover/obstacle/blocker - to give some sort of additional barrier or challenge to fight past to affect your target.
Cover would be part of the circumstances (bonuses/penalties) that affect both CMB/CMD.
Robert
Cover bonuses should indeed be included in the CMD. It is harder to do a manuever to someone who is behind a solid barrier or obstacle than it would be without.
Which is easier?
Making a tackle (read - grapple) against a running back?
Or making a tackle against a running back while he's using the full-back as a blocker (read - cover bonus)?
It's harder to reach, grab, wrap up successfully, etc. Same as trying to grab/grapple someone around a corner, or through a statue or over a bar in a tavern.
That's the whole concept of cover/obstacle/blocker - to give some sort of additional barrier or challenge to fight past to affect your target.
Cover would be part of the circumstances (bonuses/penalties) that affect both CMB/CMD.
Robert
Not quite.
The example you mention should be visualized on the battle mat.
If you have a blocker standing between you and the tackler, the tackler will not have sufficient reach to tackle you (cover rules are thus irrelevant).
If the tackler tryes to move past the blocker the blocker gets an AoO and may grapple or trip the tackler before he has a chance to tackle(again cover rules are not relevant).
You are indeed right that cover plays a part in combat maneuvers, just not in the way you think. The cover becomes an obstacle in these instances, but does not provide a CMD bonus as such.
Try looking at the rules as a whole and you will realize that they have been though through quite well.
Not quite.The example you mention should be visualized on the battle mat.
If you have a blocker standing between you and the tackler, the tackler will not have sufficient reach to tackle you (cover rules are thus irrelevant).
If the tackler tryes to move past the blocker the blocker gets an AoO and may grapple or trip the tackler before he has a chance to tackle(again cover rules are not relevant).You are indeed right that cover plays a part in combat maneuvers, just not in the way you think. The cover becomes an obstacle in these instances, but does not provide a CMD bonus as such.
Try looking at the rules as a whole and you will realize that they have been though through quite well.
Better example.
Sneaky Steve is crouched behind a wall, stealthing up to the castle. It's a 3 foot high wall. A guard is walking along the wall on the other side, a little bored. Now, the guard comes even with Steve, and Steve makes a surprise attack. He stands up, grapples the guard, and pulls him over the wall to choke him unconscious.
Steve can't trip the guard, can't overrun him. But he can grapple. However, grappling the guy over the wall is harder than grappling him if the wall wasn't there (obviously harder to sneak up on him though).
So the guard would get a circumstance bonus for the partial cover the wall generates to his CMD. Of course, he's surprised, so he's flat-footed and loses his dex bonus, so that's probably not going to help.
Not quite.The example you mention should be visualized on the battle mat.
If you have a blocker standing between you and the tackler, the tackler will not have sufficient reach to tackle you (cover rules are thus irrelevant).
If the tackler tryes to move past the blocker the blocker gets an AoO and may grapple or trip the tackler before he has a chance to tackle(again cover rules are not relevant).You are indeed right that cover plays a part in combat maneuvers, just not in the way you think. The cover becomes an obstacle in these instances, but does not provide a CMD bonus as such.
Try looking at the rules as a whole and you will realize that they have been though through quite well.
Better example.
Sneaky Steve is crouched behind a wall, stealthing up to the castle. It's a 3 foot high wall. A guard is walking along the wall on the other side, a little bored. Now, the guard comes even with Steve, and Steve makes a surprise attack. He stands up, grapples the guard, and pulls him over the wall to choke him unconscious.
Steve can't trip the guard, can't overrun him. But he can grapple. However, grappling the guy over the wall is harder than grappling him if the wall wasn't there (obviously harder to sneak up on him though).
So the guard would get a circumstance bonus for the partial cover the wall generates to his CMD. Of course, he's surprised, so he's flat-footed and loses his dex bonus, so that's probably not going to help.
I cannot imagine a 3' wall which would provide cover while stille allowing Sneaky Steve to reach the guard.
I think it would be so flimsy that it should be ignored.If however we assume that the wall does meet the requirements for cover and allows Steve to reach the guard I will conceed that a circumstance bonus might be in order, but not a cover bonus.
I think it is important not to comfuse the two bonus types. In part because of stacking rules and even more so because there needs not be a proportionality between the bonuses.
Would you let a player get a +4 circumstance bonus against bull rush attacks just because he hides behind a towershield?
I think it is important to keep in mind that cover will often be bypassed altogether by attackers making combat maneuvers.
Not quite.The example you mention should be visualized on the battle mat.
If you have a blocker standing between you and the tackler, the tackler will not have sufficient reach to tackle you (cover rules are thus irrelevant).
If the tackler tryes to move past the blocker the blocker gets an AoO and may grapple or trip the tackler before he has a chance to tackle(again cover rules are not relevant).You are indeed right that cover plays a part in combat maneuvers, just not in the way you think. The cover becomes an obstacle in these instances, but does not provide a CMD bonus as such.
Try looking at the rules as a whole and you will realize that they have been though through quite well.
Better example.
Sneaky Steve is crouched behind a wall, stealthing up to the castle. It's a 3 foot high wall. A guard is walking along the wall on the other side, a little bored. Now, the guard comes even with Steve, and Steve makes a surprise attack. He stands up, grapples the guard, and pulls him over the wall to choke him unconscious.
Steve can't trip the guard, can't overrun him. But he can grapple. However, grappling the guy over the wall is harder than grappling him if the wall wasn't there (obviously harder to sneak up on him though).
So the guard would get a circumstance bonus for the partial cover the wall generates to his CMD. Of course, he's surprised, so he's flat-footed and loses his dex bonus, so that's probably not going to help.
I cannot imagine a 3' wall which would provide cover while stille allowing Sneaky Steve to reach the guard.
I think it would be so flimsy that it should be ignored.
If however we assume that the wall does meet the requirements for cover and allows Steve to reach the guard I will conceed that a circumstance bonus might be in order, but not a cover bonus.I think it is important not to comfuse the two bonus types. In part because of stacking rules and even more so because there needs not be a...
Two different issues. Tower shield would give him total cover used in that manner, not cover. I would think you would target the shield for this type of bull rush manuever just like a spellcaster can't target the person but could target the shield in the case or certain spells.
Actually this is a core issue!
Even providing total cover the shield hinders the defender as much as the attacker during the bullrush and shuld thus not offer any advantage.
This is why I think cover rules are not appliable to combat maneuvers. Circumstance bonuses are a different matter, but cover bonuses and sandard cover rules are a no go.
Better example.Sneaky Steve is crouched behind a wall, stealthing up to the castle. It's a 3 foot high wall. A guard is walking along the wall on the other side, a little bored. Now, the guard comes even with Steve, and Steve makes a surprise attack. He stands up, grapples the guard, and pulls him over the wall to choke him unconscious.
Steve can't trip the guard, can't overrun him. But he can grapple. However, grappling the guy over the wall is harder than grappling him if the wall wasn't there (obviously harder to sneak up on him though).
So the guard would get a circumstance bonus for the partial cover the wall generates to his CMD. Of course, he's surprised, so he's flat-footed and loses his dex bonus, so that's probably not going to help.
I cannot imagine a 3' wall which would provide cover while stille allowing Sneaky Steve to reach the guard.
I think it would be so flimsy that it should be ignored.
If however we assume that the wall does meet the requirements for cover and allows Steve to reach the guard I will conceed that a circumstance bonus might be in order, but not a cover bonus.I think it is important not to comfuse the two bonus types. In part because of stacking rules and even more so because there needs not be a...
You can't imagine a 3 foot tall stone wall that's thick enough to provide cover for sneaking up?
Here are a couple I found on google images with a search of stone walls. There's this one... or maybe this one... or possibly this one?
But, I agree, I originally said the cover bonus would apply a circumstance bonus, not as a cover bonus. I just think it would make grappling as difficult as attacking normally is all.
Actually this is a core issue!
Even providing total cover the shield hinders the defender as much as the attacker during the bullrush and shuld thus not offer any advantage.
This is why I think cover rules are not appliable to combat maneuvers. Circumstance bonuses are a different matter, but cover bonuses and sandard cover rules are a no go.
Actually they are two separate issues. You can target a person with cover. You cannot target a person with total cover. That is why I said you would target the shield for the bull rush and it would use it's wielder's CMD, totally different than a fence you can reach over but is a barrier between you and your opponent when he has cover, or soft cover.
I cannot imagine a 3' wall which would provide cover while stille allowing Sneaky Steve to reach the guard.You can't imagine a 3 foot tall stone wall that's thick enough to provide cover for sneaking up?
Here are a couple I found on google images with a search of stone walls. There's this one... or maybe this one... or possibly this one?
But, I agree, I originally said the cover bonus would apply a circumstance bonus, not as a cover bonus. I just think it would make grappling as difficult as attacking normally is all.
As I said:
I cannot imagine a 3' wall which would provide cover while stille allowing Sneaky Steve to reach the guard.
As far as the walls in those pictures are concerned, they would all occupy at least 5' on a battle mat and would therefore make it impossible for Sneaky Steve to reach the guard. With that in mind it makes the attack even harder!
But I have to say those are great pictures and make good inspiration for modeling some terrain :)
Actually they are two separate issues. You can target a person with cover. You cannot target a person with total cover. That is why I said you would target the shield for the bull rush and it would use it's wielder's CMD, totally different than a fence you can reach over but is a barrier between you and your opponent when he has cover, or soft cover.Actually this is a core issue!
Even providing total cover the shield hinders the defender as much as the attacker during the bullrush and shuld thus not offer any advantage.
This is why I think cover rules are not appliable to combat maneuvers. Circumstance bonuses are a different matter, but cover bonuses and sandard cover rules are a no go.
True.
I cannot imagine a 3' wall which would provide cover while stille allowing Sneaky Steve to reach the guard.You can't imagine a 3 foot tall stone wall that's thick enough to provide cover for sneaking up?
Here are a couple I found on google images with a search of stone walls. There's this one... or maybe this one... or possibly this one?
But, I agree, I originally said the cover bonus would apply a circumstance bonus, not as a cover bonus. I just think it would make grappling as difficult as attacking normally is all.
As I said:
I cannot imagine a 3' wall which would provide cover while stille allowing Sneaky Steve to reach the guard.As far as the walls in those pictures are concerned, they would all occupy at least 5' on a battle mat and would therefore make it impossible for Sneaky Steve to reach the guard. With that in mind it makes the attack even harder!
But I have to say those are great pictures and make good inspiration for modeling some terrain :)
LOL, yeah, they are good examples. :)
I disagree though that they would take up 5'. An 8 inch thick wall should never take up 5 feet on any terrain map. It should take up the edge of two 5 foot squares where they meet. I guess that's where we disagree, objects should take up their logical space, not 5 feet even though they are less than a foot thick.
I disagree though that they would take up 5'. An 8 inch thick wall should never take up 5 feet on any terrain map. It should take up the edge of two 5 foot squares where they meet. I guess that's where we disagree, objects should take up their logical space, not 5 feet even though they are less than a foot thick.
It must be optical deception. The way I interpret the pictures the walls look between 2' and 6' thick.
I usually go by that any wall thick enough for a person to stand on without major trouble should occupy a 5' square or more.In the end it is a matter of the given situation. Basically I think we agree that circumstance bonuses mught apply to CMD while cover bonuses do not (even though cover might grant a circumstance bonus).
I disagree though that they would take up 5'. An 8 inch thick wall should never take up 5 feet on any terrain map. It should take up the edge of two 5 foot squares where they meet. I guess that's where we disagree, objects should take up their logical space, not 5 feet even though they are less than a foot thick.It must be optical deception. The way I interpret the pictures the walls look between 2' and 6' thick.
I usually go by that any wall thick enough for a person to stand on without major trouble should occupy a 5' square or more.In the end it is a matter of the given situation. Basically I think we agree that circumstance bonuses mught apply to CMD while cover bonuses do not (even though cover might grant a circumstance bonus).
LOL, that's why I included the one with the girl, her hand is about half-way over the wall, and she's all of 9 or 10, I'd guess that wall was about a foot thick at most.
But yeah, we seem to be on the same page, cover can grant a circumstance bonus, in the right circumstance. And I agree, a 3-6 foot thick wall would take up a whole square. Anything two feet or under would, to me, just take up a foot at the edge of two different squares. Anything between 2 and 3 would be, to me, gm's option.
RAW says no, but all common sense says yes.
The problem is, I don't think Cover has a named bonus to the AC it provides, does it? Unless it's just "cover bonus". It'd make more sense if it was a "circumstantial bonus", actually.
I see a split line between this. Maybe James or someone can help us with this?
|
|
I wouldn't mix up cover bonuses to CMD -- after all, Trip, for example, is not *just* about kicking or swinging at someone's feet. I feel this is another issue with an ability/maneuver name; it's about knocking someone prone, which could just as well be a powerful blow to the chest (in which case a low wall or hedge wouldn't help much). Likewise with Disarm. As for Overrun and Bull Rush, I'd likely treat a low wall as an obstacle.
What Quandary said: CMD is a modified touch AC. Anything which applies to touch AC, also applies to CMD.
|
|
Opponent in a hedgerow (concealment, but not cover)I want to butt in here, to bring up a fight from the Jack Doesn't Steal A Chicken thread.
A hedge is a tangle of bushes, possibly trimmed or shaped. It may be cover if it's really thick or solid, or concealment if it's just undergrowth thickness; it's a GM call. A hedgerow is a wall whose composition is partially living foliage. It is cover because soldiers would hide behind them from explosions in WWI. You are probably referring to a hedge and not a hedgerow.
That said, I have no comment on your actual point, just some nitpicking. ¬_¬
Don't bring that argument to this thread -- I swear I'll unleash my fiendish squirrels at you if you do!
What Quandary said: CMD is a modified touch AC. Anything which applies to touch AC, also applies to CMD.Not anything, just most things.
For instance luck bonuses count for touch ac, but not CMD.
Could that be an omision?
Could that be an omision?What Quandary said: CMD is a modified touch AC. Anything which applies to touch AC, also applies to CMD.Not anything, just most things.
For instance luck bonuses count for touch ac, but not CMD.
seems like that would be a mistake. I'm so lucky ENERVATION.. crap
|
Why do these thread go so long without receiving any clear answer?
Its a shame because I think CMB/CMD were two very clear enhancements to Pathfinder RPG. Yet, I begin reading long threads with so many various explanations, and it serves to confuse and doubt of my understanding sets in.
Was this determined?
Seems like using CMB/CMD require the path to be clear as a pre-requisite. For example, nothing can obstruct a charge. If nothing obstructs - you may charge or overrun or whatever.
Where are we at with all of this?
|
|
Not quite.
The example you mention should be visualized on the battle mat.
If you have a blocker standing between you and the tackler, the tackler will not have sufficient reach to tackle you (cover rules are thus irrelevant).
If the tackler tryes to move past the blocker the blocker gets an AoO and may grapple or trip the tackler before he has a chance to tackle(again cover rules are not relevant).You are indeed right that cover plays a part in combat maneuvers, just not in the way you think. The cover becomes an obstacle in these instances, but does not provide a CMD bonus as such.
Try looking at the rules as a whole and you will realize that they have been though through quite well.
I respectively disagree. There are many instances each game of a defensive would-be tackler tackling the half-back THROUGH the lead blocker making the tackle as he's being blocked, reaching around and/or through the guy - especially with the freaks in the league with 9ft wingspans like Jevon Kearse! If we are to assume the fooball scenario as it pertains to a D&D combat, the defensive would-be tackler is in the same square of the fullback (if the fullback had a weapon he could make an AoO) or sometimes the halfback is in the same square as the fullback, right on his hip. Regardless, my point is, that the blocking guard is the cover, and the tackler is having to try to make the tackle around or through that cover. Granted it's a moving cover - but cover nonetheless - reach helps, but it's not cut and dry to say impossible. Most great tacklers can do it despite not having D&D equivalent of reach.
If something - anything stands between a defender and attacker, it's reasonable to assume it's more difficult to attempt and succeed in grabbing, grasping, and wrapping the person up into a successful grapple. Whether it's a low wall, a statue, a pillar, a stalagmite, a tavern bar, sarcophagus, etc.
Cover bonus adds to Touch AC - so it stands to reason that it applies to CMD which is a modified and derivative of touch AC.
Robert
|
|
Why do these thread go so long without receiving any clear answer?
Its a shame because I think CMB/CMD were two very clear enhancements to Pathfinder RPG. Yet, I begin reading long threads with so many various explanations, and it serves to confuse and doubt of my understanding sets in.
Was this determined?
Seems like using CMB/CMD require the path to be clear as a pre-requisite. For example, nothing can obstruct a charge. If nothing obstructs - you may charge or overrun or whatever.
Where are we at with all of this?
I agree Pax. For the record, I lobbied heavily for having NO modifiers to CMB. Back in ALPHA when it was first presented as a mechanic, my gaming group fell in love with it. Mainly for it's sheer simplicity.
During our campaign for playtesting BETA rules, we loved the ease of use and diverse and universal application that CMB could apply to - anything from the typical maneuvers to outlandish attempts such as tipping a table over that an opponenet was standing one, pulling a rug out from someone, slamming a door into someone, swingin from a chandalier and trying to swing-kick someone off a balcony.
When it was determined that CMB was changing - during the months leading up to the release of CORE while we were reading the write-ups of the iconics, I was a bit disappointed that the once-simple mechanic had become once again convoluted with all the modifiers that affect an attack roll and added the CMD in as well.
Granted - CMB wasn't a perfect system, and a good and reasonable arguement could be made that there are many circumstances that could/should apply towards the success of such attempts, but for our group, we happily sacrificed that bit of realism for the simple practicality of using the CMB system with one number, one DC, no modifiers, and a simple roll.
To date - we still use the CMB system of the BETA in our games and have not adapted the new CMB and CMD w/ modifiers model. Sure it's not indicative of every nuance - but it's alot more simple - and mainly it has remained simple and we haven't had to deal with any lengthy discussions such as this one - that in all honesty still has produced no clear-cut answer - and people are still in two completely different and opponsing schools of thought without any sign of changing their tunes any time soon.
So where are we? Still confused. Still debating.
There's simply too many "circumstances" to make things so simple cut and dry.
Back in 2nd editions, many players of the game wanted rules and clarifications for everything. Enter 3rd edition - where there are rules for everything. Now we have rules for everything - but can't agree on what is applicable and inclusive and what isn't.
Sometimes less is more. IMO 3rd edition is far and away better than 2nd edition was, but it can be far more cumbersome - and more than it has to be.
Robert
|
|
I wouldn't mix up cover bonuses to CMD -- after all, Trip, for example, is not *just* about kicking or swinging at someone's feet. I feel this is another issue with an ability/maneuver name; it's about knocking someone prone, which could just as well be a powerful blow to the chest (in which case a low wall or hedge wouldn't help much). Likewise with Disarm. As for Overrun and Bull Rush, I'd likely treat a low wall as an obstacle.
But even a powerful blow to a chest to "trip" someone is still harder to do when there's a barrier between the two combatants. Cover doesn't have to be wall up to ones thighs any more than "tripping" has to be a foot sweeping ones ankles.
Cover could be a thin street lamp - surely not taking up a whole 5' square; but certainly something that stands to be something to contend with - especially if that chest pounding "trip" attempt is being done with a weapon that can do trip attempts.
Even a low wall would be problematice for a chest thrust trip attempt - consider it's harder to step into the blow, keep your balance while your inertia carries the attacker forward - it's just in the way.
Robert
|
|
I wouldn't mix up cover bonuses to CMD -- after all, Trip, for example, is not *just* about kicking or swinging at someone's feet. I feel this is another issue with an ability/maneuver name; it's about knocking someone prone, which could just as well be a powerful blow to the chest (in which case a low wall or hedge wouldn't help much). Likewise with Disarm. As for Overrun and Bull Rush, I'd likely treat a low wall as an obstacle.But even a powerful blow to a chest to "trip" someone is still harder to do when there's a barrier between the two combatants. Cover doesn't have to be wall up to ones thighs any more than "tripping" has to be a foot sweeping ones ankles.
Cover could be a thin street lamp - surely not taking up a whole 5' square; but certainly something that stands to be something to contend with - especially if that chest pounding "trip" attempt is being done with a weapon that can do trip attempts.
Even a low wall would be problematice for a chest thrust trip attempt - consider it's harder to step into the blow, keep your balance while your inertia carries the attacker forward - it's just in the way.
Robert
A thin lamp wouldn't grant cover, at least to my knowledge. Here's what PRD says:
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall).
If I want to ponder about 20 cm thick metal posts and inertia and how the particular weapon "realistically" *should* behave in or affect the given situation -- after considering whether the player has chosen to swing or thrust or use the weapon's butt (or whatever) and chosen which body part the character targets -- and how much bonuses/penalties all that amounts to, I'll use one of the "simulationist" systems instead of D&D (I still get headaches from thinking back to the days we played Rolemaster).
Honestly, I don't get these threads; what I personally meant is that I can find justifications for most rules, if I want to. In this case, "So here's what RAW says... a low wall is probably on obstacle, so let's see how it affects the mechanics and try to work it from there -- for example, you probably hit his chest and knocked him prone"; I would never automatically say "As tripping targets legs, you cannot use it, because there's a waist-high wall that prevents hitting legs" (unless the rules explicitly prevented it, or it was indeed an "impossible" action in that situation). Also, as far as I'm concerned, most of these threads are nowhere near their 4E counterparts ("So you just blinded 9 *wraiths* with your 1st level power, using a single *dagger*? Er... how?!?").
The example you mention should be visualized on the battle mat.
If you have a blocker standing between you and the tackler, the tackler will not have sufficient reach to tackle you (cover rules are thus irrelevant).
If the tackler tries to move past the blocker the blocker gets an AoO and may grapple or trip the tackler before he has a chance to tackle(again cover rules are not relevant).
I respectively disagree. There are many instances each game of a defensive would-be tackler tackling the half-back THROUGH the lead blocker making the tackle as he's being blocked, reaching around and/or through the guy - especially with the freaks in the league with 9ft wingspans like Jevon Kearse! If we are to assume the fooball scenario as it pertains to a D&D combat...
This is where we keep talking past oneanother.
I am ONLY refering to PRPG and the RAW.
Your example while valid in a RL situation and derived from experience and observations in RL sports have nothing to do with PRPG and how small miniatures interact on a grid.
A number of factors and conditions can inf luence an attack
roll. Many of these situations grant a bonus or penalty on
attack rolls or to a defender’s Armor Class.
A creature can also add any circumstance,
deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred
bonuses to AC to its CMD.
RAW do not provide a bonus to CMD from cover. Thats the short version of it. The GM is free to apply circumstance bonuses from cover as he deems fit.
|
|
... and I would encourage the GM to apply bonuses or penalties...
Part of RAW is not only the 'GM's best friend' - what I've always considered a cheezy phrase.
The GM is the rules and should feel free to modify as contextually needed. One thing I do is avoid reporting anything to players. As their approach, plans, and context of the attack becomes more favorable.... I just adjust the decription of the result.
As for RAW, my hope is that we share the good news that CMB/CMD is a clean, easy, effective rule enhancement in Pathfinder RPG. The rest of the modifiers is, and always has been, the purview of the GM.
The GM is not beholden to RAW. That is, unless folks are playin in, or think they are playing in a sterile Wal-mart of dungeon rooms. Think about it - - - a lot of gamers think that RAW is the one way things need to be adjudicated because its more "fair" or "perfect" or "balanced" but really, it kind of implies that those players are expecting every hallway to be exactly the same. How fun or creative is that?
And think about who is the greater game designer: the designer who tries to write rules for everything, or the one who knows where the rules should end, and the context of the game and the mind of the GM should begin? This is why I see such good, quality, and judicious work within Pathfinder RPG. Now, it is up to us as the community to really get this important feature, and work together to change the previous "demand" for rules bloat that exists within the community. I belive we're doing that through discussions like these. Thanks.
|
|
The example you mention should be visualized on the battle mat.
If you have a blocker standing between you and the tackler, the tackler will not have sufficient reach to tackle you (cover rules are thus irrelevant).
If the tackler tries to move past the blocker the blocker gets an AoO and may grapple or trip the tackler before he has a chance to tackle(again cover rules are not relevant).
I respectively disagree. There are many instances each game of a defensive would-be tackler tackling the half-back THROUGH the lead blocker making the tackle as he's being blocked, reaching around and/or through the guy - especially with the freaks in the league with 9ft wingspans like Jevon Kearse! If we are to assume the fooball scenario as it pertains to a D&D combat...
This is where we keep talking past oneanother.
I am ONLY refering to PRPG and the RAW.
Your example while valid in a RL situation and derived from experience and observations in RL sports have nothing to do with PRPG and how small miniatures interact on a grid.
I will concede your point that it is a real-life vs gamist argument; but I was merely trying to provide a recognizable example of how ones "cover" or blocking obstacle does make grappling harder than it would be if said obstacle wasn't in the same square. I couldn't imagine another easily recognizable example of someone trying to grapple another - with some form of obstacle in the way. Even wrestling doesn't usually have anything between the two athletes - except for perhaps the occasional very unfortunate referree.
Imagine combat in RPGs as fluid and not stagnant minis standing in a square waiting for their turn. A person doens't take up a whole 5' by 5' square, but engaged in combat, they're believed to be dancing, parrying, ducking about, bobbing and weaving avoiding blows from each other. If combatant one steps/leans forward to make a grab, defender can easily take a step or lean back a bit to avoid the contact - still within that 5' square though - the attack can lean a little more forward etc - all still within their respective 5' squares.
If on the other hand, a stationary obstacle lies in the middle of the two, defender can take the evasive lean or step back, and the attacker cannot counter it with a step forward because of the obstacle blocking his immediate progress without effort to work around it - it's not guaranteed that the obstacle will completely thwart the attack, it's not guaranteed that it won't. That's where the dice and chance to succeed come in - but certainly the presence of said obstacle should favor a defender.
Furthermore, There are plenty of movie scenes to draw inspiration from of one combatant dodgeing behind a pole, statue, etc to avoid a swinging weapon; it makes the attack hesitate just that little bit or attack awry; even in thin poles - a swinging weapon could easily be hampered by such an obstacle.
Robert
|
|
Very good stuff
I agree here with Pax completely.
One thing I do as DM, is I don't give all the possible scenario bonuses penalties out loud to the player.
I have them in my head, and relay the result using the presence and reasoning for the modifier as part of the oral description that I relay back.
This seems to cause less arguments over mechanics.
Another thing I do is I still hold onto an old 3rd (not 3.5) version of cover. I don't give a flat +4 for all forms of cover. I use a sliding scale of +1 to +10 based on the size and bulkiness of the obstacle in question. Anything more than +10 is FULL cover.
This works a little more realistically.
A persor or corner of a wall will give a +4. A thin lamp post maybe +2. A big bulky statue, perhas +8. Standing behind a partially closed door or inside an arrow slit +10
Robert
|
|
Very good stuffI agree here with Pax completely.
One thing I do as DM, is I don't give all the possible scenario bonuses penalties out loud to the player.
I have them in my head, and relay the result using the presence and reasoning for the modifier as part of the oral description that I relay back.
This seems to cause less arguments over mechanics.
Another thing I do is I still hold onto an old 3rd (not 3.5) version of cover. I don't give a flat +4 for all forms of cover. I use a sliding scale of +1 to +10 based on the size and bulkiness of the obstacle in question. Anything more than +10 is FULL cover.
This works a little more realistically.
A persor or corner of a wall will give a +4. A thin lamp post maybe +2. A big bulky statue, perhas +8. Standing behind a partially closed door or inside an arrow slit +10
Robert
Well, if a thin lamp post grants +2 cover bonus, how much should a medium or large foe grant using that same logic/scale? What if a player says that his character is spending his 5 ft. step to move back and forth behind adjacent foe in order to gain total cover from other enemies? Or could a player state that his polearm, when positioned upright in front of his character's body, grant him at least +1 cover bonus?
And, regardless of how you houserule these (and other) situations, that's still not how stuff works per RAW; it would be another matter if OP had asked "How would you guys houserule/fix this situation?" and/or this discussion took place on the houserule/homebrewed threads. However, as far as I know, the OP asked if cover affects CMD according to the PF RPG rules. Therefore I don't see any point in people replying "Well, *realistically* X, Y and Z should affect it and that's how it works in MY games!" or "Yeah, that's what the rules say, but I've been fencing for 30 years and if they had my experience with weapons blah blah blah!"; some posters are even implying that Paizo has "dropped the ball" and cluttering these threads with their advice how to "fix" the mechanics.
(BTW, I find it to be a bit unfair if you don't let your players know how much bonuses or penalties accumulate on their rolls; it might be a critical mistake, for example, to use Power Attack or Charge, and saying "Well, you have a fair chance at hitting him" is a bit too vague for me. Even if you did include every affecting condition in your verbal description, sometimes a single -1 or +1 is the deciding factor between different tactics.)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
RAW do not provide a bonus to CMD from cover. Thats the short version of it. The GM is free to apply circumstance bonuses from cover as he deems fit.
So where do you see in the rules that Cover is defined as anything but a circumstance bonus?
Because as I see it, Cover (being a circumstance bonus) is absolutely included "by RAW."
RAW do not provide a bonus to CMD from cover. Thats the short version of it. The GM is free to apply circumstance bonuses from cover as he deems fit.So where do you see in the rules that Cover is defined as anything but a circumstance bonus?
Because as I see it, Cover (being a circumstance bonus) is absolutely included "by RAW."
As far as cover is concerned the rules state plainly that it gives a bonus to AC. No where in the CMB/CMD rules is cover mentioned. That's is the facts (please point out a page reference if that is incorrect). I am only trying to answer the OP, here.
What you bring up is an entirely different matter as far as i see. I have not seen the cover bonus to AC being name as a circumstance bonus anywhere, or at least I do not remember. You are welcome to point out a page reference.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I have not seen the cover bonus to AC being name as a circumstance bonus anywhere, or at least I do not remember. You are welcome to point out a page reference.
Don't need a page number. Circumstance bonuses are defined as circumstances. The circumstance of having something to hide behind that grants Cover.
Therefore, by RAW a Cover bonus to AC is a circumstance.
Bold uses of the word "circumstance" is following the dictionary definition of the word.
I have not seen the cover bonus to AC being name as a circumstance bonus anywhere, or at least I do not remember. You are welcome to point out a page reference.Don't need a page number. Circumstance bonuses are defined as circumstances. The circumstance of having something to hide behind that grants Cover.
Therefore, by RAW a Cover bonus to AC is a circumstance.
Bold uses of the word "circumstance" is following the dictionary definition of the word.
That has nothing to do with rules.
If you want to argue that cover is a circumstance bonus you have to provide a page reference.|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you want to argue that cover is a circumstance bonus you have to provide a page reference.
This is absolutely surreal.
I feel like I'm being asked to prove that dead people can't take actions.
I doubt I can come up with a page that says "circumstances giving circumstance bonuses grant a circumstance bonus" in the rules. I will try.
If you want to argue that cover is a circumstance bonus you have to provide a page reference.This is absolutely surreal.
I feel like I'm being asked to prove that dead people can't take actions.
I doubt I can come up with a page that says "circumstances giving circumstance bonuses grant a circumstance bonus" in the rules. I will try.
No.
But feats, skills, spells, magic effects have named circumstance bonuses whenever it applies. Circumstance bonuses are set, just as are dodge bonuses, morale bonuses, luck bonuses etc. unnamed bonuses are not circumstance bonuses by default. If a bonus is not explicitly name a circumstance bonus, then it is not a circumstance bonus.Cover is not a circumstance bonus in as far as AC is concerned.
But this whole discussion is irrelevant to the OP. Since cover provides a set bonus for AC but not for CMD. You can however adjudicate a circumstance bonus from cover to CMD if you want to. But it is not somthing explicitly covered by the rules.
|
|
I have not seen the cover bonus to AC being name as a circumstance bonus anywhere, or at least I do not remember. You are welcome to point out a page reference.Don't need a page number. Circumstance bonuses are defined as circumstances. The circumstance of having something to hide behind that grants Cover.
Therefore, by RAW a Cover bonus to AC is a circumstance.
Bold uses of the word "circumstance" is following the dictionary definition of the word.
As Grandfather and Ughbash said, the rest of us are discussing this how the rules (RAW) mechanically treat cover; don't try to use definitions from dictionary entries or giving mechanical terms new (and vague) meanings. That is not relevant to this discussion.
Using that definition, pretty much *anything* could be termed and justified as a circumstance bonus; for example, someone tells you that his PC has a sweet natural smell, and later on demands it should be treated as a circumstance bonus to Diplomacy. Or that you should get a circumstance bonus to Initiative, if you grease your weapon. Or that if you have described paying "extra" attention to your surroundings, you should get a circumstance bonus to... well, everything from Perception to saves and AC.
If you ask me, circumstance bonuses are a "catch-all" category that should have been merged with Competence or Insight; I might allow an occasional condition/situation to grant a circumstance bonus, but I wouldn't dream of making it just another bonus type that clever players can easily abuse.