| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't that cancel out for your CMB?
Attack Bonus: Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following: Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier"
Combat Maneuver Bonus: "A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula: CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier"
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus."
The attack bonus is replaced by CMB. Since the size bonus to attack is part of that attack bonus, it's also replaced. The special size modifier (which for a Small creature is -1) is part of the CMB value, so it still applies.
CMB checks are not attack rolls.
The size modifier is different for attacks and cmb/d. It's not a separate bonus and penalty that would stack, instead it changes depending on what it modifies.
CMB checks are not attack rolls.
Performing a Combat Maneuver: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus."
But bonuses to attack rolls do apply to Combat Maneuvers
Correct, but the size modifier is already included in the attack bonus. That attack bonus is replaced by the CMB.
Otherwise, you would be applying the size modifier twice on normal attacks, and applying Strength and BAB twice on combat maneuvers.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's odd. I always thought it was rather clear that they canceled out. To me it essentially reads as, "Small creatures get a +1 to attack rolls except for combat maneuvers."
I'm a little surprised to see that people are reading it otherwise.
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.
If they intended for both to apply and thus cancel each other out, then why would they list out all these special size modifiers instead of just saying "size modifiers do not apply to combat maneuvers"?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I wasn't playing in the 3.X days, but I hear they didn't have "combat maneuvers" in this sense, and therefore that whole section of the CRB's combat chapter was written "fresh" for Pathfinder. Meaning, not a copy-paste-that-should-have-been-removed-but-got-left-in kind of thing.
|
I wasn't playing in the 3.X days, but I hear they didn't have "combat maneuvers" in this sense, and therefore that whole section of the CRB's combat chapter was written "fresh" for Pathfinder. Meaning, not a copy-paste-that-should-have-been-removed-but-got-left-in kind of thing.
This is exactly right. The whole Combat Maneuvers section was made brand-new for Pathfinder, to correct the fact that 3.x had a mess of different mechanics for the various special maneuvers you could do in combat.
I wasn't playing in the 3.X days, but I hear they didn't have "combat maneuvers" in this sense, and therefore that whole section of the CRB's combat chapter was written "fresh" for Pathfinder. Meaning, not a copy-paste-that-should-have-been-removed-but-got-left-in kind of thing.This is exactly right. The whole Combat Maneuvers section was made brand-new for Pathfinder, to correct the fact that 3.x had a mess of different mechanics for the various special maneuvers you could do in combat.
MESS certainly being the active word. The advent of CMB/CMD definitely clarified and simplified the combat math hell that we faced in 3.X and below.
Part of the reason that Pathfinder exists. To clean up those messes.