|
I want to make sure I'm going to run this right.
The Giant Whiptail in question is squeezing so it has that condition, giving it a -4 to melee attack rolls.
The tailslap in the stat block looks like a secondary weapon because it's at -5 compared to the creature's main bite attack.
The CMB bonus of this creature is +12.
If the Whiptail attacks with his tail slap, the attack will happen at -1 in his current situation. (Bab 3, Str 7, size -2, secondary -5, squeeze -4). If the attack hits, his trip roll will be a d20 + (?). I'm thinking since it is a free trip on a normal attack, it should go with the same bonuses he's getting for the attacking limb. So it should be at -1? How does the size benefit play into this calculation? Should it be +1 [bab 3, str 7, size -2 (for attack), size +2 (for cmb), -5 secondary, -4 squeeze]?
Stat block below:
An elephantine centipede scurries about, its double tail lashing angrily behind it.
Centipede, Giant Whiptail CR 3
XP 800
N Huge vermin
Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +4
DEFENSE
AC 15, touch 8, flat-footed 14 (+7 natural, –2 size)
hp 38 (4d8+20)
Fort +9, Ref +1, Will +1
Immune mind-affecting effects
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft., climb 40 ft.
Melee bite +8 (2d6+7 plus poison), tail slap +3 (1d3 nonlethal plus trip)
Space 15 ft.; Reach 15 ft. (20 ft. with tail slap)
STATISTICS
Str 25, Dex 11, Con 21, Int --, Wis 10, Cha 2
Base Atk +3; CMB +12; CMD 22 (can’t be tripped)
Skills Climb +15, Perception +4, Stealth +0; Racial Modifiers +8 Climb, +4 Perception, +8 Stealth
SQ compression
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Poison (Ex)
Bite—injury; save Fort DC 17; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d4 Dex; cure 1 save. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Tail Slap (Ex)
A giant whiptail centipede’s tail slap deals nonlethal damage and gains no bonus from its Strength score on damage dealt.
[...] Squeezing doesn't seem to affect maneuvers, or at least I can't find anything that states otherwise
Page 199 Core Rulebook:
"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."Page 193 Core Rulebook:
"[...] while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC."
So the combat maneuver check, which is an attack roll, specifically says incurs the penalties made on attack rolls. So, to the best of my knowledge, the squeezing would give a -4 penalty to the maneuver.
Also: I would love for someone to tell me whether the -2 size penalty to attack rolls applies.
|
|
The more I look at this, the more I think the trip maneuver would be calculated with a +1 bonus. [bab 3, str 7, size -2 (for attack), size +2 (for cmb), -5 secondary, -4 squeeze]
In the rules for Natural Attacks it goes to say:
Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5
The Paizo blog for Combat Maneuvers it says:
Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.
This leads me to believe, that modifiers apply to the roll, whether negative or positive "bonuses".
Since the tail slap is a secondary weapon, it gets a -5. Since the centipede is squeezing, it gets a -4. Since it is a trip attempt off of an attack with a limb, it gets a -2 for size. Since it is a combat maneuver, it gets a +2 for size.
As has been quoted:
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.
When it says bonuses does it mean strictly positive bonuses? Then that wouldn't include the squeeze, but i'm certain the squeezing condition would apply. So it goes to follow that the -5 from a secondary attack should apply also.
The final calculation is: +1 [+3 Base attack bonus, +7 Strength Mod, -5 Secondary Natural Attack, -2 Size attack modifier, -4 Squeezing, +2 Size CMB modifier]
Anyone with more rules knowledge able to chime in to confirm or deny my rules interpretations?
As far as the positive/negative bonuses are concerned, it says that penalties apply normally, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
I am not sure exactly how to proceed with the secondary attack's -5. My reading is that the attack bonus uses the BAB - 5; since the Combat maneuver bonus replaces this attack bonus, that doesn't really come into play. The minus 5 is not applied as a penalty or bonus, so it is not added in.
So this would come out to be +6 [+3 Base attack bonus, +7 Strength Mod, -2 Size attack modifier, -4 Squeezing, +2 Size CMB modifier].
Lastly, looking at the size attack mod stuff I think it might not apply, depending on ones rules interpretation. Although it says size penalty to attack rolls, I'm reading this to intend to mean size penalty to Attack bonus. The Attack bonus is described as Base attack bonus + Strength modifier (or Dexterity) + size modifier. So, when the Combat maneuver bonus replaces the Attack bonus, it would replace that and it would not factor into the calculation.
This makes sense to me because otherwise size bonuses/penalties would always cancel when calculating CMB, and I thought the intent of the CMB alterations was to grant large creature bonuses to CMB (yeah, they still get Strength bonuses), and a reverse effect for smaller creatures. Obviously, this would be houserule territory.
Using that interpretation, you end up with +8 [+12 CMB, -4 Squeezing].
The -2 for size certainly does not apply. If it did apply in this instance, it would always apply, and so would be figured into the CMB.
Pavsdotexe, the way you explained how the -5 is not relevant is precisely my understanding of it also.
I wouldn't think so. I don't have my CRB on hand though... I'm 99% sure it uses your attack bonus, not your BAB, so whatever your normal attack bonus is for that iterative attack, that's what you use.
Edit: Veldebrand's quote above shows that it uses your normal attack bonus, so for the third iterative attack, yep, you'd use the third iterative ttack's normal bonus.
|
The creature is making a Trip attempt, so you use the CMB and add it to the d20 roll. You also include any bonuses or penalties from spells, feats, or other sources. In this case, the creature is squeezing with a -4 penalty. The -5 for the tail's secondary attack is irrelevant in this situation, otherwise there would be a note in the stat block addressing it. The adjusted CMB for this creature is +8.
|
|
Let me see if I got this correct. Examples are generic for the purpose of understanding.
A large Ogre, with a 10 ft. reach, gets an AoO on the approaching medium human. At the 10 ft. mark, the Ogre decides to do a CMB Trip for it's AoO. Ogre succeeds, human falls at 10 ft. mark. Normally, a Trip would provoke an AoO from the human, but since the human is still 10 ft. away, that would be impossible. Human will spend a move action getting up, provoking another AoO from the Ogre (possibly tripping them again, sundering, or just walloping them.)
If the Ogre's Trip had failed, human then would of been in range for a standard attack (after his move action), but would the human still get the AoO from the Ogre's failed Trip at the 10 ft. mark, even though they had to move another 5 ft. AFTER that event?
If I understand your question correctly, no, the human would not get an AoO on the failed trip attempt because the attempt occurred at a point when the human did not threaten the ogre (assuming, of course, that the human did not have some special ability that gave him a longer reach).
|
|
As another example:
The Marilith has a tail slap with the grab ability (and the tail slap is the only natural attack with that ability). It's CMB states: CMB +24 (+28 grapple). If the intent was to apply the -5 for a secondary attack for the tail slap, the CMB for initiating a grapple would be +23 (+4 for the grab ability, -5 for secondary attack).
I'm sure there are a number of examples we could find in which we would not include the -5 for secondary attacks to CMB.
|
|
I'm sure there are a number of examples we could find in which we would not include the -5 for secondary attacks to CMB.
- Pit Fiend
- Crag, Ice, & Tarn Linnorms
- Octopus
- Otyugh
- Salamander
- Sea Serpent
- Squid
These are the others from the Bestiary that have some kind of combat maneuver associated with a secondary attack that don't take the -5 in their CMB. There were a few others, but that secondary attack was their only attack and so I felt it didn't count for this example.
|
|
I think that is because grapple as a standar action therefore the maritlith can not attack with the manufactured weapons therefore the tail slap counts as primary natural attack.
No, that is incorrect. The Marilith gets the manufactured weapons AND the tail slap or the slams AND the tail slap. The only time a secondary natural weapon counts as a primary natural weapon is if that is the only weapon that a creature has (look at the stegosaurus, for example). If a Marilith chooses to attack with only the tail slap and nothing else, that tail slap attack would still be considered a secondary weapon.
Whenever a creature with the grab ability hits with the associated attack, it makes a free grapple attempt. The trip special ability is exactly the same, with the only exception in that it doesn't grant a bonus to CMB like grab does.
I still need clarification on one point: it is specifically stated as a size penalty to attack rolls, not a modifier to the attack bonus. Being a penalty to attack rolls, and the rules specifically saying all penalties to attack rolls apply to the combat maneuver (which is an attack roll), this should apply RAW. I can't find any errata or rules otherwise. Please note I am not asking for your opinion on what makes sense to apply; I already know the answer to that. I am asking for rules citation to make this not... silly.
When figuring your CMB, you ignore the penalty to hit due to size and include the size bonus instead.
It takes a bit of a minor leap to come to this conclusion and it's easy to see how people could figure them as just cancelling one another out. However, if you look at the stat blocks for monsters of various sizes and reverse engineer the bonuses, you'll see how it was intended.
As I said above, I want to see this "leap." I only have access to the rules, not implied logic.
Saying I know how something is supposed to work is RAI. I was asking for how it works RAW.
I would obviously not do this, but wouldn't this allow someone to show up to PFS with a small character and claim that they actually get both a size modifier to attack bonus AND a size bonus to attack rolls? Because the rules I am reading say they can.
|
|
I've come to the conclusion that the size penalty to attack rolls is not included in the combat maneuver bonus calculation because it would always cancel out with the size bonus to combat maneuver checks, and that's not how it is intended. (As Macgurcules pointed out).
I'm still looking at the -5 penalty to a secondary natural attack and I'm convinced that the intention of combat maneuvers that are performed with weapons (in this case the tail slap) should apply all appropriate modifiers and penalties relating to the attacking object/limb.
If it was a grapple attempt by a creature with the grab ability, then it would in fact get the +4 from grab, and a -5 if performing the grab with a secondary natural attack.
Conversely, if the grab attempt was on a limb with a primary attack, it would just get the +4 from grab and no penalty obviously. (unless the grabbing creature did not have two free hands/limbs, then it would get the penalty via grapple rules)
So the Tail Slap of the Whiptail in the original post making the trip attempt after a successful hit should be at +3 [+3 bab, +7 str, +2 size, -5 secondary, -4 squeezing].
As I said above, I want to see this "leap." I only have access to the rules, not implied logic.
There is no leap.
The size modifier to attacks is part of the attack bonus . (combat chapter core rulebook)
The CMB includes the size modifier to combat maneuver rolls.
When you roll an combat maneuver you replace the attack bonus with your CMB. The size modifier to attacks is part of the attack bonus and therefore no longer part of the combat maneuver roll.
Just look at the exact formulas and what replaces what. Its all in the core rules.
I see exactly what you are saying. That is how I want it to work. However, there is additionally a size penalty/bonus to attack rolls, which would apply after the calculations you pointed out. Yes, the size penalty to attack rolls is a penalty to attack rolls, and as such would be treated as a penalty to attack rolls.
You cannot include a modifier twice
One is a modifier to attack bonus. Another is a penalty to attack rolls. They are distinct.
|
|
Nope both are a size modifier
Edit : where exactly did you find the penalty to attack rolls ?(some spells have it ,Esp. Enlarge person which has its own rules of you get what is written but i could not find it with this wording in the combat or creature sections of the prd (I only have a tablet at hand))
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/space-reach-threatened-area-te mplates
Nope both are a size modifier
Edit : where exactly did you find the penalty to attack rolls ?(some spells have it ,Esp. Enlarge person which has its own rules of you get what is written but i could not find it in the prd (I only have a tablet at hand))
You seem to be right, the size bonus and size penalty to attack rolls apply only for specific things, such as being a gnome, halfling, goblin, kobold, ratfolk, grippli, svirfneblin, or wayang; or spells such as enlarge person or reduce person. Are these only applicable then for these specific circumstances? So a Goblin PC would get a size modifier and size bonus on attack rolls?
EDIT: Veldebrand that establishes size modifier to attack bonus, not size bonus/penalty to attack rolls.