I have a question:
Higher Ground, Flanking, Charging, Laying Prone - all give bonuses of some kind.
Is it a "Higher Ground Bonus" or "Laying Prone" bonus?
Or is it a "Circumstance Bonus"?
Robert
I've always considered them circumstance bonuses. I don't give both Higher Ground and Laying Prone, they are the same circumstance (attacker higher than defender).
|
I've always considered them circumstance bonuses.I have a question:
Higher Ground, Flanking, Charging, Laying Prone - all give bonuses of some kind.
Is it a "Higher Ground Bonus" or "Laying Prone" bonus?
Or is it a "Circumstance Bonus"?
Robert
And I have as well; same with Fighting Defensively. (Full Defense states Dodge bonus - but fighting defensive does not specify)
And if those are all circumstance bonuses - so too is cover as far as I'm concerned.
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?
If an object takes up most or all of a square it provides cover. A medium foe provides the listed +4 bonus to AC for cover. I use the RAW as a foundation to build off of - so to me, that is the basis or standard to build from.
The way the system works that I've built off of that is the first square that is fully occupied (such as a medium foe) provides a +4 cover. Each subsequent square provides and additional +2; to a max of +10; anything beyond that is FULL COVER. So a Large foe being used as cover would typically provide +6 to the AC (if you assume one is attacking through two squares that the large-sized creature occupies).
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?
I'm not sure I completely understand your hypothetical situation - I'm not even sure if it's a legitimate question or just rhetoric, but I'll provide you the benefit of the doubt that you're interested in a civil discussion.
A character can take a 5' step to move behind an adjacent foe and use it as cover against another foe absolutely. It's not total cover - but does provide the +4 bonus as written (provided the attacking foe is actually attacking through the square that the cover-foe is occupying - with a polearm or natural reach of some sort.) If that cover-foe is stading next to another such creature the PC can take his next 5' step to stand behind it instead and can go back and forth one round after the other. (if this is what you mean); but it's not total cover.
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?
Once again I'm hoping this is not just rhetorical. For my part as DM, I try to not automatically say "No" when clever players surmise an idea even if it may sound silly to you or me.
Instead, I use the RAW as guidelines to make rational decisions - using the rules as a foundation to base other rulings on. One only needs to think outside the book just a little to see that there are precedences set for many of these "clever" ideas.
I've never had a player ask to do this specifically, however should one ever, I would say 'absolutely - but you cannot use the weapon offensively this round (no attacks), and no attacks of opportunity.'
Now - there's already a mechanic and rule for this type of trade-off: 'fighting defensive or full defense.'
Thematically, "full defense" is not indidfferent from "I position my polearm upright in front of me to grant my body some form of protection." And in all honesty - it would probably make more sense to consider it a shield bonus....but I'm not going to nitpick the +1 at that point.
So mechanically, the player is better off 'fighting defensive' or going 'full defensive'; but perhaps he wants +1 to AC from cover as opposed to +4 to dodge. There is one situation that I can think of that this would be relevant - the character is being attacked by something invisible and they'd be denied their dodge bonus - so going full defense wouldn't really help; but giving up their attacks for a +1 cover AC from something - I guess I would see that as a fair trade-off. Of course the attacker could just sunder the cover - and provoke no AoO (even if it wasn't invisible - because the ruling was already put in motion that the trade-off would be no AoOs that round due to the weapon being used defensively).
So you see there's already a precedence set in the books to have these sorts of trade-offs. The key is to use them as guidelines to base other decisions on for concepts not covered in the book.
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?"
Indeed - I agree. And in fact that's what I did. I first indicated that I fully agree with Pax's assessment as it pertained to the OP's dilema.
It was only after that, that I added anecdotal information about how I've used things in our home games. Perhaps others having similar concerns may benefit from seeing how others do things differently and may be inspired to try something a bit different - especially DMs who are frustrated that players want to argue every +/- 1 that a DM is applying in a given situation. For me - I've learned it's just easier to listen to a players description of actions, assess the situation, adjudicate it with descriptions after he rolls the dice and adds his own modifier to it.
However, as far as I know, the OP asked if cover affects CMD according to the PF RPG rules.
And that was answered. I still steadfastly believe that it does - which I indicated.
(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.)
Duly noted. I can respect that. However, for me an most of the gamers in my group shy away from players who need to meta-game to that level to decide tactical decisions. That's just our style - it suits some players, and doesn't suit others. Neither are wrong.
Players that need to know ever +/- to the point that is in effect so that they can determine the optimally tactical advantage of actions are simply happier finding other games to play because they get frustrated that they have to base decisions listening to the descriptive text and thinking outside the book. There's nothing inherently wrong with either style of play - that's the beautiful thing of RPGs such as this - there is no "wrong" way to play. Everyone prefers a different style - ours is to use as litte meta-gaming factors as possible.
That being said - it would indeed be unfair if we simply expected players to make a decision without providing descriptive text about the situation presented to the players. I agree that "you have a fair chance of hitting him" is a bit vague. Instead, we use more detailed and descriptive text that adds more flavor and roleplaying to the game.
If as a player, my DM told me........
"The orc stands at highest level of combat readiness. He is armored in every conceivable place on his body and wields a sturdy shield that would impress the most criticizing dwarf, and stands perched for combat with as much poise and expertise of any warriors you've ever faced - and wisely stands with the bannister tactically positioned between you and he."
...and I chose to ignore that he's probably got a great AC, coupled by good warrior tactics, feats, abilities and has cover, and simply attack it half-assed and power attack or whatever, I deserve to fail miserably on my attack.
That's the type of description I as DM provide players. Most of the time players use the description to base their decisions on. But a player that asks me....
"I'm considering if I want to power attack or not - and I need to know if it seems he's only getting the usual +1 that full plate allows to his Dex, or does he seem to get more than that"
....I'm just going to respond with "The orc tilts his head a bit and stares blankly for a moment; he doesn't seem to understand you. Your turn is almost up - do you attack or delay further?"......
On the other hand if I use that text, and decide to attack normally - hoping to add all I can for my first attack, I'll let the DM know that I intend to do just that, perhaps charging to increase my chances of hitting, then roll my D20 and add my known modifiers.
The DM could then detail the results.
"You blade comes very close to hitting the orc, but he leans back as the last moment with the trained agility of a seasoned fighter. Your blade instead hits the bannister that he was wisely using as cover. He grins realizing his tactic worked goading you into charging and lowering your own defenses, and responds with action of his own. Keeping the bannister between you and him, he bounds up a couple of steps with agility unexpected from someone in such heavy armor; leaps over the bannister just a few steps from you, sheds his shield as he menacingly approaches you on even ground, now gripping his axe in both mighty hands and swings with wild abandon in an attempt to cleave you in half with one powerful attack."
Then (providing I'm still alive) on my next turn, I can realize that I just barely missed - but now the cover is gone, and the shield is gone, perhaps I have a better chance of hitting next time, and perhaps I didn't roll so good - only a 13; now his AC just probably dropped by 5 or 6, and so now I think I can actually power attack and hope for a good roll.
In short - we get alot more satisfaction from games played this way than discussing all the pluses and minuses.
But that's just me. Everyone has different preferences. And I am in no way putting you or anyone else who doesn't play that way down. PRGs such as D&D and Pathfinder cater to all sorts.
Robert
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?
LOL, sorry for the threadjack.
One of my former players has a wonderful story for that. He and his group were exploring an underground dungeon. A group of troglodytes came humping down the passage at a trot. Everyone else found a nook to hide in, except his dwarf. So he just held his dwarven battle ax up in front of his face and stood against the wall.
All five troglodytes rolled ones on their spot checks to see him standing there. Five critical failures.
They jogged on past, and the rogue in the party b**ched and moan for the rest of the time they were in the dungeon.
I have not read all the posts so this may have been answered. This is more of a thought in exercise than a rules question. How does a deflection bonus or any other AC bonus that applies stop a creature from escaping a grapple since you have to defeat CMD to escape or should/does the AC bonus to CMD only apply when someone is being attacked?
|
|
I have not read all the posts so this may have been answered. This is more of a thought in exercise than a rules question. How does a deflection bonus or any other AC bonus that applies stop a creature from escaping a grapple since you have to defeat CMD to escape or should/does the AC bonus to CMD only apply when someone is being attacked?
Deflection bonus does apply to one's CMD
Page 199 of the core rules indicates the CMD as the following:
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier
+ Dexterity modifier + special size modifierThe special size modifier for a creature’s Combat
Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive
–4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2,
Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities
grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific
maneuvers. 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.
That being said - from a theme or excersise perspective, there really is no easy or obvious explanation why a deflection modifier to the grappler's CMD should defeat a person's attempt to escape a grapple. With that - I certainly understand why it's a bit shakey.
That being said - it's one of those issues that the rules meant for simple balance has to over-ride common sense or realism.
It would be a whole heckuva lot more complicated if there was an entirely new subset of mechanics in place to apply to one's CMD for the sole purpose of Escaping a grapple, but another one to defend becoming grappled, and then another one for maintaining a grapple, and another one to worry about a trip or disamr or other such maneuver.
So it's one Mechanic to rule them all.
Even though I'll have to agree with your assessment that it is a bit unituitive.
Robert
|
|
So it's one Mechanic to rule them all.
Even though I'll have to agree with your assessment that it is a bit unituitive.
Robert
On top of agreeing with you - I think it's worth repeating that it was a whole lot simpler in Beta with one DC, and one mechanic, and we added no modifiers to it - sure it wasn't conclusive of a system, but it was simple.
We chose to discard the CMD subsystem of the combat maneuvers in our current campaign and are still sticking with a DC 12+CMB with no CMD or modifiers for anythink like deflection etc, and it's working great for us.
Sometimes less is more. Sure it's not the official way to do it, it's not the RAW, and it's certainly not expansive enough to cover all the possible cirucumstances and scenarios - but it's easy one touch applicator that gets resolved without a lot of math and we move on and sometimes that's all the matters.
If you can't wrap your mind around all the different modifiers and how or why they should or shouldn't apply to a given scenario, give simplification a try and see if it works for you.
Robert
|
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?LOL, sorry for the threadjack.
** spoiler omitted **
That's a funny story! :)
Although it's exactly the opposite to my example, in which the player explicitly tries to get a mechanical bonus; in your story the troglodytes fumbled their Perception checks, and the DM reacted to the player's hilarious action (the dwarf covering his face with his axe) by rolling with it. Actually, from a mechanical perspective he could just have said that those trogs ran past the dwarf without a glance before he lifted his axe, or that those trogs happened to be half-blind, or even that at the last minute the dwarf finds a suitable nook... it would not have made a difference, although I suspect he actually didn't even roll those checks. Now, if the player had insisted that he should get a circumstance bonus to Hide "because my dwarf's battle axe is kind of the same color as the stone walls... you know, greyish!", it would be a similar situation to what I posted.
Anyway, whether it was about providing narrative to the results (the player could have done so, too, by suggesting that those trogs failed to perceive him because he used his axe to cover his face), or reacting to player's hilarious action by deciding that the trogs *should* fail their checks, it is a nice example of creative thinking without seeking a mechanical advantage.
|
|
I've always considered them circumstance bonuses.I have a question:
Higher Ground, Flanking, Charging, Laying Prone - all give bonuses of some kind.
Is it a "Higher Ground Bonus" or "Laying Prone" bonus?
Or is it a "Circumstance Bonus"?
Robert
And I have as well; same with Fighting Defensively. (Full Defense states Dodge bonus - but fighting defensive does not specify)
And if those are all circumstance bonuses - so too is cover as far as I'm concerned.
Robert
Untyped bonuses are just that... untyped bonuses that stack with everything. Although I suspect fighting defensively was supposed to grant dodge bonus, too; likely this was just an oversight or omission (maybe both were originally untyped bonuses, and they forgot to change the bonus type to fighting defensively?) and I wouldn't be surprised if it will be dealt with errata at some point.
(I'll deal with your longer post tomorrow... now I'm off to bed!)
I have a question:
Higher Ground, Flanking, Charging, Laying Prone - all give bonuses of some kind.
Is it a "Higher Ground Bonus" or "Laying Prone" bonus?
Or is it a "Circumstance Bonus"?
Robert
None of them are circumstance bonuses.
They are all untyped bonuses and therefore stack.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
I am discussing RAW as well, I just happen to disagree with your strict interpretation that seems to clearly not be what the rules mean.
I have a question:
Higher Ground, Flanking, Charging, Laying Prone - all give bonuses of some kind.
Is it a "Higher Ground Bonus" or "Laying Prone" bonus?
Or is it a "Circumstance Bonus"?
Robert
None of them are circumstance bonuses.
They are all untyped bonuses and therefore stack.
And I see them all, by RAW, as circumstance bonuses.
And I see them all, by RAW, as circumstance bonuses.
Well, I can also see them as circumstance bonuses BUT NOT by RAW. By RAW circumstance bonuses (or penalties for the matter) as designated as such. But as it stands, cover grants an UNTYPED bonus to AC and thuis this bonusis not applied to CMD as per RAW. On a personal matter (as mentioned before), i would allow the bonus granted by cover to apply to CMD.
I think I am going to houserule deflection out. I know some things have to over rule common sense, but I don't even see why deflection is needed as a balance factor
|
|
I think I am going to houserule deflection out. I know some things have to over rule common sense, but I don't even see why deflection is needed as a balance factor
I have seen "deflection" modifier described as some magical aura that surrounds someone that 'deflects' attacks - with that in mind I could see how it would stop wounds from being received; not so sure I can see it protecting from a sunder or disarm......but since CMD is essentially a "touch AC" and deflection is a major part of it - it's probably more simpler to have ruled that it's part of it - for no other reason than to cut down on the different scenarios of math equations.
I think removing it makes sense, but not sure if its worth the hassle (for my part anyways). As I said - I don't use any of the modifiers - so it's easy enough for me as it is.
I will say that it will most likely make CMB successes higher since deflection bonuses are a common component of creatures and PCs/NPCs specifically. (lots of spells like Prot from Evil, Shield of Faith provide it - as does rings of protection - which are the most commonly worn ring by far).
Let us know how it works out.
Robert
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
But as it stands, cover grants an UNTYPED bonus to AC and thuis this bonusis not applied to CMD as per RAW.
Yet by RAW this is granted by different situations, which if the particular situation isn't present you lose the bonus. A situation granting a bonus is a circumstance bonus unless you willfully choose to interpret the rules in a way they clearly do attempt to describe.
All of this turns on the use of the word "situation" instead of "circumstance" in the beginning of that section.
|
|
I am discussing RAW as well, I just happen to disagree with your strict interpretation that seems to clearly not be what the rules mean.
(Just a quick comment... need to write booktalking material about graphic novels for tomorrow)
No, someone saying "my interpretation of what is intended by RAW" is nothing more than your interpretation of RAI (Rules As Intended); unless Jason would -- for some reason -- say that they messed it up in the rules, deflection bonus is deflection bonus and circumstance bonus is circumstance bonus and both work mechanically just as they're written in the core rulebook. There *are* some mechanics that suffer from vague wording to the degree that even RAW provides multiple options on interpreting how they work (e.g. Spring Attack and some other feats), but bonus types (and overall about 99% of the mechanics) are pretty explicitly defined. If you "tweak" the rules and say "Well, I think X and Y are more logical this way", you're houseruling.
And I see them all, by RAW, as circumstance bonuses.
Again, that's your interpretation; if the correct bonus types are missing, they'll be included in the errata at some point, but until then they should be treated, by RAW, as untyped bonuses which stack with each other.
Surprised no one has come in to officially rule this already. But yet, I see they take the time to go an errata something that didn't need errata on another thread --- making Improved Natural Attack unavailable to monks. But they can't come in to simply state whether or not cover applies to CMD? ><