Taken from the Pathfinder SRD:
"The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus 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 CMB when performing specific maneuvers."
This means that small size characters, such as halflings and gnomes, get a -1 penalty to CMB (and CMD)
However
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. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Since small sized creatures get a +1 bonus to attack rolls, wouldn't they get a +1 bonus to combat maneuvers? If so, wouldn't this cancel out their size bonus? I'm sure this cannot be the way it works, because by this rational, regardless of what size you are, the bonus or penalty you receive to combat maneuvers would be the same as the bonus or penalty you usually get to attack rolls. Is there any documentation on this?
The halflings size bonus to attack rolls would be counted as a normal attack bonus in this case.
Thus they would not receive the +1 bonus, and the -1 bonus would take initiative and dominance.
|
Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Technically, combat maneuvers are not attack rolls. It's a different mechanic altogether. The size bonus to attacks is akin to that old saying about hitting the broad side of a barn in broad daylight. The bigger your target is relative to you, the harder it is to miss. But with combat maneuvers, you aren't simply trying to hit it and damage it, you're trying to move it and make it do different things. With attack rolls, a halfling will have an easier time hitting a giant than a human would, because the giant presents him with a much bigger target. Conversely, if the halfling is trying to trip the giant, he has a harder time than the human would, because the giant presents a much heavier and sturdier target, and the halfing doesn't have as much mass to move the target as the human might. Ergo, the size discrepancy works the opposite for combat maneuvers than for attacks.
Since small sized creatures get a +1 bonus to attack rolls, wouldn't they get a +1 bonus to combat maneuvers?
Although it's not totally clear in the rules, the consistent answer from the Powers That Be is that the special size bonus/penalty overrides the normal size penalty/bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Nightwish
Technically, combat maneuvers are attack rolls, as per the rules. My question isn't that it shouldn't work like this (because it would defeat the purpose of the size rule being there in the first place) My question is why? I would like to have written information explaining why this doesn't work (because as it is written, it should)
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.
Notice the bolded text: "in place of". The point being that some part of your normal attack bonus is overridden by your CMB.
The question is, WHAT part of your normal attack bonus is overridden by your CMB?Answer: the part that is in the definition of your attack bonus. To wit:
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
So these are the three things that are replaced by your CMB: your BAB, your Strength mod, and your size modifier.
Because your normal size modifier is part of what is replaced by the CMB, you don't apply it to the attack on top of your CMB -- just like you don't apply your base attack bonus or your Strength mod on top of the CMB. They are replaced by the CMB (which itself includes your BAB, your Strength mod, and a different size modifier).In effect, then, a halfling will have a CMB that is -2 relative to his standard melee attack bonus. We arrive at this with the Rules as Written, without any hand-waving or errata at all.
-AvalonXQ
again I have to point out this rule:
"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."
The only loophole I see here is a storyteller would be able to determine that the size bonus to attack would not apply due to the second sentence in this rule. It just seems like this is wonky enough that it should warrant a little more clarification than "the storyteller can say no" because I find that to be a weak argument.
-AvalonXQ
again I have to point out this rule:
"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."
And again, that rule doesn't contradict what I've explained above.
Your "normal attack bonus" includes the three things shown above in the Combat rules. All other bonuses are added to those three things. When making a combat maneuver, those three things are replaced by CMB.So the process goes like this, to give an example of a charging, flanking fighter with a masterwork weapon:
Attack roll = base attack + str mod + size mod + weapon focus + enhancement bonus + flanking bonus + charge bonus
Now, according to the rules, replace the bolded section...
Combat maneuver roll = CMB + weapon focus + enhancement bonus + flanking bonus + charge bonus
... because we've already included the size bonus, and then replaced it as per the rules, we don't include it a second time. That would be cheating.
If it's easier for you, you can think about the "replace" language more specifically -- the special size modifier replaces the normal size modifier for CMB. Instead of (not in addition to) +1, the halfling gets a -1.
-Nightwish
Technically, combat maneuvers are attack rolls, as per the rules. My question isn't that it shouldn't work like this (because it would defeat the purpose of the size rule being there in the first place) My question is why? I would like to have written information explaining why this doesn't work (because as it is written, it should)
Because that would make absolutely no sense. And because Pathfinder is a Roleplaying game played with real human beings using their actual brains. It's not an algorithm hacked into a computer, which will only look at the exact set of instructions and ignore intention.
While it's always good to be as precise as possible with rules, that doesn't mean one must absolutely follow the rules as written, ignoring the spirit of the rules in the process. At least not in RPGs. Abusing loopholes in laws and all that is all nice and well, but in RPGs, that just doesn't work unless the GM lets it work.
While I agree with the principal of not letting the RAW get in the way of common sense, in this case following the RAW actually arrives at the correct result -- since, again, the size modifier is included and then replaced by the CMB, and so cannot be included again when adding in additional modifiers.
No house rule or clarification needed; it's there in black and white.
Perhaps I've been sounding snarkier than I've intended. KaeYoss- I understand the spirit of the rules. I'm not making this point because I can't interpret the rules as they are intended.
Avalon- I get what you are saying. Specifically, it brings up an unusual point. According to the SRD (which I'll admit, is not the same as the rulebook in all accounts, but I do not have access to the rulebook atm.)
Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
According to the Halfling entry, all the bonuses are of the "Size" type, but specifically, the penalty is not given a type, in concurrence with the above penalty rule.
This would suggest that in your above statement, that both the bonus and penalty would be valid (as they are not the same type), and should both be added into the equation. (of which I know cannot be true, because it would invalidate the need for the size bonus/penalty rule to be there in the first place).
I'm aware that the end result in my question is that the Game Designers overlooked this issue, of which I do not blame them for, Jason and Co. have done an amazing job with this system. I simply think a rule or clause should exist that would validate the way we all know combat maneuvers works. (Which, may actually exist, I simply haven't discovered it yet).
I think a good addition would be, that under the combat maneuver rules: "Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects -but not size bonuses-. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
Okay, you've gotten to the point where your argument no longer even makes sense.
Are you arguing that the halfling's size bonus to attack rolls isn't the same as the halfling's size modifier, and so should be added twice?
Again, this isn't an oversight -- the rules exactly as written work just fine. I don't know what silliness you're trying to pull but it's not making sense.
If you insist that what you're saying matches the RAW, Walk through a step-by-step guide for calculating the halfling's Sunder roll. Include a citation to match each step of your calculation.
If you can't do that, I'm going to have to assume you're just making stuff up.
|
|
Something I am going to note, that the size penalty/bonus to CMB is not called a bonus or a penalty here, its called a "modifier" of which I cannot find any reference to in the glossary.
It's called a "size modifier" in all instances. If you look in the core rulebook where it describes AC and attacks, it refers to the "size modifier" in both cases, just as it does in the CMB section. Only in specific instances where the race of the creature is known, and thus it is known whether the modifier will be positive or negative, are the terms "bonus" or "penalty" substituted.
Actually Avalon, I believe I may have overlooked one of your previous statements, and I see that you are correct
Your CMB does replace your normal roll to hit, which does include your size modifier. This would satisfy the ruling that size modifiers to hit are not included in combat maneuvers, because they are "replaced" by penalties to hit. I Apologize, you had posted the rule I was looking for, and I skipped over it.
+1 internets to you
Perhaps I've been sounding snarkier than I've intended. KaeYoss
Nah, it's just one of my pet peeves. People treat RPGs as a computer game - or computer programme - all too often.
Not that I have anything against computer programmes - I'm a software developer, If I didn't like playing make-a-wish-with-the-genie, I wouldn't be in this business - but it's important to remember that this is not one.
It might sometimes seem tempting to treat it like one, as it has many rules, which might remind people of computer games, but we must be resolute (as well as bloody and bold, of course! :))
-KaeYoss
I'll definitely agree that one should not be a slave to the rules of the game. However, in my experience as a gamer (of which is long and venerable) I've found that the clearer the rules are presented, the less often you have arguments during the game, and thus, more time to have fun. One of the reasons I love Pathfinder so much, is that they've gone the extra mile, and made the rules very precise. Case in point, while I knew how the size modifiers worked, I couldn't find the words to support it. I had faith that Paizo had something that would make it work, and thanks to Avalon, I have it in writing.