Generally speaking do you consider it easier for a well built PC to grapple or trip level appropriate monsters in Pathfinder or D&D 3.5?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking do you consider it easier for a well built PC to grapple or trip level appropriate monsters in Pathfinder or D&D 3.5?
Generally Speaking, easier in Pathfinder. 1d20 + CMB vs. CMD of your target, provoking an attack of opportunity if you don't have the corresponding "Improved" feat.
3.5: Grapple - touch attack roll, provoking attack of opportunity if you don't have Improved Grapple. If the attack of opportunity hits, your action has no effect. If you aren't hit with the A of O, you then make a grapple check, opposed by the targets grapple check. If the targets result is equal to or higher than your result, your grapple has no effect. If your grapple check is higher than your targets, you establish a grapple and move into your targets square (you do not do grapple damage on the check that establishes the grapple unless you have an ability that says otherwise). If you have more attacks remaining in the current round (base attack above +5, haste spell, etc.), you can make more opposed grapple checks to inflict damage, pin the opponent, or make an attack within the grapple.
Pathfinder: Grapple - see first statement.
Trip, trip's a little easier in 3.5 but still requires an opposed Trip check on both characters' part, cancelling your trip if your opponent meets or beats your roll and an attack of opportunity that could cancel your combat maneuver if it hits.
Pathfinder: Trip - see first statement.
In short, one of Pathfinder's strengths is its simplified combat maneuver system. One roll, one effect, one chance to take damage from your opponent. Clean and quick and makes combat more interesting.
That's a good point about needing multiple rolls in 3.5 and only a single roll in Pathfinder, I hadn't considered that.
What I was intending to ask though, is whether a 3.5 PC is more or less likely to beat an appropriate CR monster's grapple check than a Pathfinder PC is to beat an appropriate CR monster's CMD.
That's a good point about needing multiple rolls in 3.5 and only a single roll in Pathfinder, I hadn't considered that.
What I was intending to ask though, is whether a 3.5 PC is more or less likely to beat an appropriate CR monster's grapple check than a Pathfinder PC is to beat an appropriate CR monster's CMD.
If you build for it and aren't facing something that is also built for it i would say about 70% of the time your gonna beat them.
it`s signifigantly easier in PRPG at low levels vs. typical humanoid NPCs than it was in 3.5.
it is about the same as 3.5 at higher levels, although you can find cases that sway one way or the other.
personally, I like that maneuvers are easy at low levels because it encourages using them at the beginning of the game, intro`ing them to new players, as well as making non-lethal combat more of an option at that level.
if you`re interested in this, i recommend you dig up the thread archive from the PRPG beta test...
look for a thread about maneuvers that uses the word `maneuver AC` (or you may have to use search terms)
that is basically the exact system that made it`s way into the final, albeit the current rules don`t apply untyped AC bonuses to CMD (although it makes sense to do so IMHO, and that is likely Errata). all the numbers are broken down, and model combats are compared with 3.5 rules to the `proposed` Maneuver AC rules. being involved in that discussion myself, I was honestly very surprised at exactly how close Maneuver AC came to approximating 3.5 chances of success across a wide range of opponents, since i wouldn`t have expected that from a 1 roll system vs. a 2 roll system.
Thanks very much Quandary, I wish I'd been around during the playtesting for Pathfinder, it looks like you guys had a good time.
Some of those 'maneuver ac' threads did have the Pathfinder vs 3.5 breakdowns I was looking for, though if anyone does know of a secret repository of 3.5 grapple bonuses or Pathfinder CMDs broken down by CR, please let me know. Otherwise I'll have to stop being lazy and do it myself.
This thread is so going to end up being an edition war thread...
Anyway, on to the point. I never got to using the combat maneuvers in 3.5e since our DM shifted to Pathfinder in the middle of the campaign and my Cleric didn't need to pull any maneuvers off either way. But looking at the rules, I don't see that much of a problem with the 3.5e system, despite the fact that the Pathfinder one is actually much more coherent. Part of the reason is that the combat maneuvers just were more effective in 3.5e (partly because the feats associated with them were stronger).