I was looking over feat selection, and was wondering whether or not it was worth it to invest in one of the combat maneuver lines. I am relatively low-level at the moment, but was looking at the campaign-long impact it would have. I want to be clear if I'm understanding the math right.
As a full-BAB class, your CMB bonus is identical to your attack bonus...plus size modifiers and feat bonuses for improved trip, etc. It's BAB + Str + All your normal attack modifiers like magic weapons, bless, etc + Improved/Greater Trip + Size.
A monster's CMD is basically it's AC + size modifiers + strength, minus armor, minus shield, minus natural armor.
In PF, after a bit, your first hit (iterative attacks) is almost guaranteed to beat a monster's AC. Given that your CMB is -higher- than your AB, and the CMD you're attacking is probably -lower- than the creature's AC...
...how do you ever miss a combat maneuver at mid-high levels? Wouldn't you pretty much trip/sunder/disarm somebody every single time you tried?
What am I missing here?
-Cross
Beside getting the +2 to the specific maneuver the feat also allows you to avoid the attack of opportunity you would get if you did not have the feat. I think that is what makes the feat the most attractive to people.
CMB = BAB + strength modifier + special size modifier + feat/spell/etc. boni.
You however have to use a weapon with the Trip property. (James Jacobs pointed that out in one of the many threads on CMB/CMD).
CMD = BAB + strength modifier + special size modifier + circumstance boni + dexterity modifier + 10.
My 6th level fighter, without any special feats or spells, has a CMB of 10 and a CMD of 24, so a 14 has to be rolled, and he has no dex. Other threads have gone over this and rolling 14-16 (approximately) seems to be the norm for a CM to succeed.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Edit: you missed the CMD +10, dex mod and circumstance mod.
Yes, the +10 is the thing that makes it hard.
It is common consent that Paizo did not want everyone and his uncle to grapple the BBEG and thus it is very hard to hit opponents at equal challenge rating in mid/high levels unless you optimise your char for it and sacrifice in other areas.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Weapon Focus, masterwork/magic weapons, etc. don't contribute to CMB. Likewise, Dodge, etc. do not contribute to CMD. Take yourself out of the 3.5 mindset that a combat maneuver check is a different kind of attack roll. Your medium-sized 6th level STR 20 fighter, with no Improved Grapple/Trip/what have you will have a CMB of +11. If he also has a 14 Dex (not unreasonable), his CMD will be 23, so he'd be able to succeed on a combat maneuver against himself on a 12+.
Combat maneuvers are viable options for martial-type (full BA) characters, even at lower levels, especially against non-martial enemies. Just last Saturday, for instance, in a PFS game, my lvl 1 ranger shut down a spellcaster by a series of grapple, pin, and tie up. Later, we stopped an enemy cleric from negative channeling us to death by disarming her unholy symbol.
I'd suggest you go back a reread the combat maneuver section of the PFRPG Core to brush up on the CMB/CMD formulas, then take one or more of the combat maneuver feats. Even when they aren't automatic fight enders, they can strongly affect an enemy's ability to hurt you when they stick.
|
CMD = 10 + + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifierThat's what you're missing, BAB is included in both CMB and CMD
CMD =/= AC + size modifiers + strength, minus armor, minus shield, minus natural armor.
CMD = Touch AC + BAB + Str mod +Special size modifier
I am an idiot. That's what I was missing. Thanks a million.
-Cross
No prob, I noticed that no one else was catching that, and trying to answer a question you weren't really asking :D
This thread reminded me of those old exercises in class where you were given a long math problem, and given instructions to read to the end before starting the problem. Usually it started with bill has 10 pidgeons, if he gives frank blah blah blah, and ended with how many pidgeons did bill start with? And some people would quickly get it and turn in the problem, but others who started with the math problem instead of reading to the end would spend half an hour doing unnecessary math.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
@Mirror, Mirror and Crosswind.
You are correct. I missed that. It would be nice if those modifiers were included in the formulas here.
EDIT: That's the second time I've been rules-one-upped today. I am normally the guy the DM asks when he wants to know what the rule says. My rules-fu is rusty. I need to play more.
Could you explain this part of the Pathfinder book to me, then?
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
Weapon Focus is a feat that gives you a bonus to attack rolls.
Masterwork/magic weapons are other effects that give you bonuses to attack rolls.
Weapon Focus and other modifiers may or may not apply depending on the manuver and/or the weapon being used, that is why they are not in the normal formulas. Some manuvers can only be done with your bare hands or certain special weapons.
Example: I have a +2 longsword with WF(Longsword). If I am attempting a disarm or sunder, I could use the longsword and get the +3. If I was attempting a trip or grapple, I would have to use my hands and thus I would not get the bonuses for using a longsword.
If I was using a +2 flail with WF(Flail), I could use it to trip, because it is specifically able to be used for trip attacks. I could also use the flail to disarm and get an additional +2 to the attempt on top of the +3 from enhancement and weapon focus.
Is it possible to miss when you attempt a combat maneuver at medium levels?
I think it's been cleared up, but basically CMD trades armor/shield/natural-armor for BAB, Strength, and reversed size modifiers.
OR, CMB vs. CMD: CMD roughly equals CMB + 10 + Dex. So if your other bonuses cancel out (deflection/dodge vs. bless/inspire), you need to roll 10+Dex to affect yourself.
So your typical 3.5 cleric in full plate, shield, etc., is often difficult to hit, but not nearly as hard to use a maneuver on. Shield of Faith still adds to both though.
...What is this "+10 makes it hard" nonsense? 10 is below the average roll on a d20. if CMB and CMD are equal, d20 + CMB beats 10+CMD 55% of the time.)
You seemed to miss the +10 to CMD, which would make maneuvering extremely easy. hence I answered "+10 makes it hard".
If you find an opponent who is neither larger, nor very dextrous nor has the means to keep out of close combat, then you are right that you have a above 50% chance to maneuver that opponent to your hearts content.
Question is how often won't it be better to just melt this minions face in one round and proceed to the real thread aka the BBEG.
Is it possible to miss when you attempt a combat maneuver at medium levels?I think it's been cleared up, but basically CMD trades armor/shield/natural-armor for BAB, Strength, and reversed size modifiers.
OR, CMB vs. CMD: CMD roughly equals CMB + 10 + Dex. So if your other bonuses cancel out (deflection/dodge vs. bless/inspire), you need to roll 10+Dex to affect yourself.
So your typical 3.5 cleric in full plate, shield, etc., is often difficult to hit, but not nearly as hard to use a maneuver on. Shield of Faith still adds to both though.
ARE the size modifiers reversed?
I thought a halfling gets -1 to CMB and CMD.
ARE the size modifiers reversed?
I thought a halfling gets -1 to CMB and CMD.
They're the reverse of the AC boni, which I think majuba meant.
So ... beyond making the target a semi-static number for combat maneuvers, PF's really not made much of a simplification to the circumstances at all - other than simply make it harder to pull off maneuvers, this sound about right?
If so ... anyone that's been toting the "maneuvers are so much easier now!" line better re-think it.
When it was just the base calculation - yes, it simplified things quite nicely. HOWEVER, noting the situational/circumstantial buffs, feats, and items *might* come into play and *might* be ignored muddies those water far to much for me now.
It's no longer "simpler" or "more intuitive" it's just different, and slightly harder to accomplish between the maneuvers being split into 2 feats in the first place, AND added difficulty in calculating DC's. It's clearly not any more simple - it's just different.
:-(
Man ... this realization actually takes a bit of the wind out of my sails on the maneuver front. I was "ok" with the feat split given the simplification - apparently it was just a layout sleight of hand, though. Just as complex, harder to pull off, and more feat-intensive in cost. None of this comes off particularly advantageous to me now ... just ... lame.
|
|
So ... beyond making the target a semi-static number for combat maneuvers, PF's really not made much of a simplification to the circumstances at all - other than simply make it harder to pull off maneuvers, this sound about right?
If so ... anyone that's been toting the "maneuvers are so much easier now!" line better re-think it.
When it was just the base calculation - yes, it simplified things quite nicely. HOWEVER, noting the situational/circumstantial buffs, feats, and items *might* come into play and *might* be ignored muddies those water far to much for me now.
It's no longer "simpler" or "more intuitive" it's just different, and slightly harder to accomplish between the maneuvers being split into 2 feats in the first place, AND added difficulty in calculating DC's. It's clearly not any more simple - it's just different.
:-(
Man ... this realization actually takes a bit of the wind out of my sails on the maneuver front. I was "ok" with the feat split given the simplification - apparently it was just a layout sleight of hand, though. Just as complex, harder to pull off, and more feat-intensive in cost. None of this comes off particularly advantageous to me now ... just ... lame.
Um I got it right away and do in fact find it simpler, so yeah, get down with your bad self.
Weapon Focus, masterwork/magic weapons, etc. don't contribute to CMB.
Actually they do count but it depends on which maneuver you use. For example they don't count on trip unless the weapon has the trip Quality. They don't count when you try to grapple. They do count when you try to disarm or sunder.
Also I believe dodge does apply to CMD.
|
Speaker, I wouldn't worry too much. While it may sound theoretically complex, I can tell that in-game (in my experiences), our grapples and other maneuvers are much quicker to resolve under PF's CMB/CMD rules than they ever were under 3.0/3.5.
It's just getting the total and tracking the changing bonuses that are a pain. ;)
Speaker, I wouldn't worry too much. While it may sound theoretically complex, I can tell that in-game (in my experiences), our grapples and other maneuvers are much quicker to resolve under PF's CMB/CMD rules than they ever were under 3.0/3.5.It's just getting the total and tracking the changing bonuses that are a pain. ;)
Thanks for the encouragement all - but I (and my groups) must of of the rare few that really didn't have many issues with grapples or any maneuvers, really. We managed 'em just fine in 3.x.
In essence, there's not contested rolls anymore, but it's just harder to pull off. :shrugs:
I suppose there is some simplification in going to an AC-like mechanic, but still tracking that many mods ... just as intensive as 3.x was (only more so since it totally did a bait-and-switch on us where we thought only that core equation mattered).
:shrugs:
Whatever - not a big deal, but man ... disappointing.
When it was just the base calculation - yes, it simplified things quite nicely. HOWEVER, noting the situational/circumstantial buffs, feats, and items *might* come into play and *might* be ignored muddies those water far to much for me now.
It's just getting the total and tracking the changing bonuses that are a pain. ;)
Changes to STR/Size are no different than in 3.5. These are generally not changing round-to-round anyways.
Other attack bonuses/ AC bonuses may change from round to round, but this is exactly like NORMAL melee combat.I always write down CMD right next to the AC numbers because anything that affects Touch AC affects CMD (Dodge, Cover, etc). Crucially, THE EXACT SAME Touch AC Modifiers also came into play in the 3.5 Maneuvers which used Touch AC, but only to 1 part of the roll (the one which usually became an 'anything but 1' check at mid-high levels). Essentially, low-STR/ high-DEX characters are less disadvantaged in PRPG than in 3.5, since all defensive bonuses accrue linearly rather than DEX/Touch AC bonuses applying seperately to a roll that usually became auto-pass, or close to it.
I also think it's better to instead of writing down/tracking a separate CMB number, to just right down THE DIFFERENCE between your CMB and normal attack bonus, which is basically the difference between the Melee/Maneuver Size Mods (or, double the Maneuver Size Mod), though DEX-build characters without Dextrous Maneuvers (but with Weapon Finesse) would need 2 numbers here for weapon-finesse/ normal maneuvers. But this 'difference' can be applied as a modifer on top your normal/iterative attack numbers on the fly, while you update only the normal set of numbers for ongoing buffs, etc. (if you do that normally). This is 100% mechanically identical to PRPG's CMB, just 'presented' differently for ease of play.
This was actually discussed in-depth by the community during the Beta period (search: Maneuver AC), and people running the numbers found what became the current system actually trended remarkably close to 3.5's chances of success, though PRPG's change to Size Mod certainly has it's own effect. The current system also makes it much easier for low-level, low-stat characters to try these maneuvers against each other (since the base chance is ~50% rather than ~25% for STR v STR AND attack v Touch), which is convenient both for running bar-room brawls and introducing players to maneuvers themselves. Besides the fact that the standard/obvious methods to increase your offensive/defensive chances (flanking, higher ground, cover, etc) all apply to CMD, and thus if players are worried about their offensive/defensive chances, they know what to do.
It's clearly not any more simple - it's just different.
It certainly does require one minor step at char-gen or level increases (ticking off +BAB and CMB/CMD, all by the same amount), though if you if you choose the 100% equivalent approach of applying a 'Maneuver Modifer' = 2x Maneuver Size Mod to your normal attack numbers, you only have to update BAB and CMD (by the same amount). But otherwise all you are doing is applying attack modifiers which you do to EVERY melee attack and AC modifiers which apply AGAINST every melee attack. I would say that a single roll vs. static DC which basically conforms to the standard attack/AC system IS indeed more simpler. And the vast majority of feedback I have seen since the game was released found the change to indeed be a simplification and positive change to the game.
None of this comes off particularly advantageous to me now ... just ... lame.
I guess it's too bad for you the system designers at didn't consider giving you 'advantage' (to win the game?) important enough in balancing the game. AFAICT, the system currently works decently well, though with more or less the same 'wall' when very large/ multi-legged monsters start showing up... for better or worse. The fact a wide range of offensive bonuses (which tend to out-number defensived ones IMHO) now apply directly to CMB vs. CMD actually can help increase your chances of success for many maneuvers. Weapon Focus, Weapon Enhancements, Bardic Music, Bless, Flanking, Higher Ground, Surprise Round (lack of DEX->AC), Attacking from Invisible, _Aid Another_, and more. Basically, all the knowledge which players use to gain advantage/ evade disadvantage in melee combat applies equally to maneuvers now. Which seems like a simplification to me. Incidentally, I too didn't have much of a problem running 3.5's maneuvers. But I think the PRPG way is better, unifying with the normal attack vs. AC system.
They don't count when you try to grapple. They do count when you try to disarm or sunder.
I'm not 100% certain on this, but I BELIEVE Grapple (and un-armed Trip) attacks would count as a Natural Weapon for purposes of Magic Fang/ Amulet of Mighty Fists. Grapple does count as it's own 'weapon type' for Weapon Focus (it is listed as an example).
Weapon Focus, masterwork/magic weapons, etc. don't contribute to CMB. Likewise, Dodge, etc. do not contribute to CMD. Take yourself out of the 3.5 mindset that a combat maneuver check is a different kind of attack roll. Your medium-sized 6th level STR 20 fighter, with no Improved Grapple/Trip/what have you will have a CMB of +11. If he also has a 14 Dex (not unreasonable), his CMD will be 23, so he'd be able to succeed on a combat maneuver against himself on a 12+.
Combat maneuvers are viable options for martial-type (full BA) characters, even at lower levels, especially against non-martial enemies. Just last Saturday, for instance, in a PFS game, my lvl 1 ranger shut down a spellcaster by a series of grapple, pin, and tie up. Later, we stopped an enemy cleric from negative channeling us to death by disarming her unholy symbol.
I'd suggest you go back a reread the combat maneuver section of the PFRPG Core to brush up on the CMB/CMD formulas, then take one or more of the combat maneuver feats. Even when they aren't automatic fight enders, they can strongly affect an enemy's ability to hurt you when they stick.
Combat Maneuver Defense
Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers. A creature's CMD is determined using the following formula:
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
Special Size Modifier: The 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.
My level 6 Monk with a 31 CMD read the rules
Would you mind spelling out the modifiers that add up to give that monk a 31 CMD? I'd like to see what a maneuver-ready character looks like.
Would you mind spelling out the modifiers that add up to give that monk a 31 CMD? I'd like to see what a maneuver-ready character looks like.
Base = 10 CMD
6th Level Monk = +4 BAB20 STR = +5
16 DEX = +3
18 WIS = +4
Monk Level = +1
Ring of Protection = +2 Deflection
Ioun Stone = +1 Insight
Dodge Feat = +1 Dodge
= 31 CMD
Note that the Monk Level/WIS AC Bonus more than makes up for the 3/4 BAB.
Quandary Monks use their full level for their BAB bonus to CMD/CMB.
"At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally."
So lets drop out the Ioun Stone which is a bit expensive, and make that ring of protection +1 to keep just at the CMD 31.
Quandary Monks use their full level for their BAB bonus to CMD/CMB.
SO he has a 31 with no other bonuses than that.
I don't see that in the rules, it just mentions Full BAB for CMB, not CMD:
Who knows, that it also applies to CMD could well be the intent, but that's what's in the rules now.
(I also expect other bonuses to Touch AC - Luck, Untyped, ?- to apply to CMD in the next Errata)
I guess I'm too use to the idea "CMD =10+ CMB + DEX"
However IF we would like to make it such then the feat "Defensive Combat Training" would definitely make it so.
I guess I'm too use to the idea "CMD = CMB + DEX"
I completely empathize, I want to tell people "it's simple, just add BAB and STR to Touch AC and flip the Size Mod" but then not EVERY bonus applicable to Touch AC applies per the current RAW. Which was exactly what I advocated against during the playtest, i.e. sitautions where you have 95% rules overlap with existing mechanics but niggling exceptions remain.
I guess I'm too use to the idea "CMD = CMB + DEX"I completely empathize, I want to tell people "it's simple, just add BAB and STR to Touch AC and flip the Size Mod" but then not EVERY bonus applicable to Touch AC applies per the current RAW. Which was exactly what I advocated against during the playtest, i.e. sitautions where you have 95% rules overlap with existing mechanics but niggling exceptions remain.
Honestly, I still use CMD = Touch AC + CMB.
the simplicity of it far outweighs what few balance concerns there may be.
Shoutout to all the beta "Maneuver AC" crew, btw
It can be done with out any magic items using the Ki pool and lesser stats.
Base 10
BAB 6 Using Defensive Combat Training
STR 18 4
DEX 12 2
WIS 16 3
Dodge 1
Monk CMD Bonus 1
KI Dodge 4
_
31
Note that the Monk Level/WIS AC Bonus more than makes up for the 3/4 BAB.
Likewise, you could take the feat Defensive Combat Training to boost it another couple of points.
Monks get +1 to AC every fourth level, right?
... which is exactly what they're losing from BAB.
Monks get +1 to AC every fourth level, right?
... which is exactly what they're losing from BAB.
Sort of, although they lose BAB at levels 1, 5, 9, etc. and gain a bonus to AC at levels 4, 8, 12, etc.
Honestly, I still use CMD = Touch AC + CMB.
the simplicity of it far outweighs what few balance concerns there may be.
Shoutout to all the beta "Maneuver AC" crew, btw
Right on! I do think we were onto something there :-)
Base 10
BAB 4
Str 2
Dex 4
Wis 5
Ring of Pro 1
Dodge Feat 1
Ioun Stone 1
I.S. in a Wayfinder 2
Monk Bonus 1
We do the "Heroic" stat method. 2d6+6, and I just got a =2 Wis headband.