Why Combat Maneuvers Mechanics?

[artificer]

The 3rd Edition SRD already have disarm, grapple and similar mechanics. So I wonder why the CMB and CMD mechanics where added to pathfinder?

NOTE: I am a newbie so this an honest question, not trolling

[ciretose]

It really simplified some of the more complicated applications. Few things stopped a game colder than having to pull out the specifics on each type of combat maneuver in a given circumstance.

[Gorbacz]

Because each of them was a weird subsystem of it's own that did little to make the rules streamlined and easy to absorb.

[Fleshgrinder]

Because it took a needlessly complex system and made it far more simple and elegant.

[artificer]

Ok! It make sense thank you!

[StreamOfTheSky]

To simply them all into "not working."

Combat Maneuvers are ridiculously harder to use now than they were in 3E. They also can all auto-fail on a 1 now. Yeah, they can also auto-succeed on a 20, but...if you had any business using the maneuver to begin with, chances are you would've "hit" on a 19 or 20 anyway... (And yes, I've had 3E characters that have rolled a 1 and succeeded at combat maneuvers; the bonus disparity you can get in 3E is wonderful, especially for things like bull rush, where how much you win by is just as important to determine as winning at all is.)

[Happler]

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

To simply them all into "not working."

Combat Maneuvers are ridiculously harder to use now than they were in 3E. They also can all auto-fail on a 1 now. Yeah, they can also auto-succeed on a 20, but...if you had any business using the maneuver to begin with, chances are you would've "hit" on a 19 or 20 anyway... (And yes, I've had 3E characters that have rolled a 1 and succeeded at combat maneuvers; the bonus disparity you can get in 3E is wonderful, especially for things like bull rush, where how much you win by is just as important to determine as winning at all is.)

3rd ed and 3.5 both had most all of the CM's as attack roll based, this means that you could auto fail on a 1 and auto succeed on a 20 there too.

Personally, I have found that CM's are easier in Pathfinder than in 3.x

Also, Pathfiner Bull rush:

Quote:

Bull Rush

You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack. You can only bull rush an opponent who is no more than on size category larger than you. A bull rush attempts to push an opponent straight back without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Bull Rush feat, or a similar ability, initiating a bull rush provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD you can push the target back an additional 5 feet. You can move with the target if you wish but you must have the available movement to do so. If your attack fails, your movement ends in front of the target.

What was that again about mattering how much you beat them by?

[Atarlost]

Happler wrote:

Quote:

Bull Rush

You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack. You can only bull rush an opponent who is no more than on size category larger than you. A bull rush attempts to push an opponent straight back without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Bull Rush feat, or a similar ability, initiating a bull rush provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD you can push the target back an additional 5 feet. You can move with the target if you wish but you must have the available movement to do so. If your attack fails, your movement ends in front of the target.

What was that again about mattering how much you beat them by?

Emphasis in SRD quote altered.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, good luck ever bull rushing someone 15 or 20 feet in Pathfinder!

And many required touch attacks, this is true. Some did not, like bull rush, overrun, and grapple. So those were nerfed by introducing a 5% autofailure chance (and you have to roll grapple every round just to "maintain" it now, so every round, even if the other guy can't escape your grasp, you have a 5% chance of having a "whoopsie!" moment).

EDIT: Oh, 3E grapple did require a touch attack. Sorry, most times I see it used, it's by something with the grab ability.

[Xavier319]

3.5 grapple was retarded and overly complicated. and it was never close, you either had a massive grapple bonus, or you didnt. I'm VERY happy with how they've changed things. I've made characters with disarm, bull rush, grapple, etc, and they work just fine if you build for it. Sure some monsters are stupid hard to use CMs on, but they are generally massively huge or strong or dexterous, so it makes sense.

[Kimera757]

artificer wrote:

The 3rd Edition SRD already have disarm, grapple and similar mechanics. So I wonder why the CMB and CMD mechanics where added to pathfinder?

NOTE: I am a newbie so this an honest question, not trolling

The new system is somewhat simpler when it comes to grappling. Unfortunately, the new rules inflict Dex penalties if you're grappled, which means things up to and including initiative get modified. 4e had an even simpler system.

The numbers are far better though. A typical mid-CR monster could have high Strength, loads of Hit Dice (more than its CR, so its BAB is greater than its CR) and it's Huge, which in 3.x gave a +8 bonus to grapple checks. An equal-leveled fighter had very little chance of ever escaping from a grapple, and if the monster had improved grab, actually getting a hit and then a grab was easy for the monster too. (I once, without meaning too, created a frost giant werebear; it was reasonably balanced except it's grapple bonus was about 20 points higher than the best PC bonus, which meant it could not fail barring someone rolling a 20 or a 1.) In Pathfinder, the size bonus would only be +2, which is far saner. While 4e has even better numbers, they're also ridiculous in the sense that knocking over a Gargantuan 4-legged elemental (much larger than a PC) is as easy as knocking over a smaller two-legged monster with the same defenses.

[StreamOfTheSky]

PF still has massive HD monsters with loads of BAB. The size modifiers are less, but applying the BAB to all maneuvers instead of just grapple/disarm/sunder makes their advantages even more magnified.

The size bonus reductions are also tempered by the fact that bonuses to maneuvers, like the feats, were nerfed.

I'm in a high level PF game. The big monsters are still impossible to use maneuvers on (numbers-wise, nevermind size restrictions on attempts, of course) / resist theirs. Except now that's true of ALL maneuvers, not just the ones that were BAB-based in 3E. A +16 size bonus for colossal in 3E pales in comparison to a +30 or so BAB in terms of what's going to blow up your CMB/CMD.

[Kimera757]

I figured PF added BAB to make fighters better at maneuvers. I would also figure that mods you faced in 3.x against nasty maneuvers (eg grapple) are smaller in PF, even if less nasty ones (bull rush) are higher.

To be fair, my PF campaign just reached 6th-level.

[StreamOfTheSky]

People always associate BAB with "martial skill," but it's not. There's tons of big, stupid monsters with way more BAB than you. And the difference between a level 20 fighter and wiz 20 is +10 BAB...monsters can get way more than +10 BAB over a fighter.

[Atarlost]

I am increasingly convinced that the rules for non-humanoids are hopelessly broken. At low levels they happen to have the right numbers, but the power curves are just off for everything.