As for breaking a bulls neck, sure, it's probably possible. Unarmed damage? Existing grapple rules allow for it I think? There was a Reaping Mauler prestige class in 3.5 that would let you do stuff like that I think.
Not everything IRL translates over perfectly.
I still wouldn't expect to see someone knock over an elephant without magic.
Or a big gun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So really your saying that you don't LIKE how it works...
I'm on your side, frankly.
However, in NO reality will any amount of training allow a human to run at an Elephant (full grown) and knock it over.
No way. Heck, even a cow or a horse is really hard to knock over. REALLY hard, even harder if they see you coming.
That's where I experience a bit of cognitive dissonance, I essentially agree with you, that Fighters should get more love... but it seems weird if they can start doing magical stuff.
Frankly, I'm torn.
I just don't BOTHER using CMB/CMD stuff with my characters, I do damage/cast spells.
So, to sum up, I personally don't agree that the existing rules are broken, but I do hate how they work. In regards to everything you said, for the same reasons you said, mostly.
1. This is not an average person. This is a person of superhuman ability with magically enhanced strength, who was already likely at the tip top of human ability at level 1. We're not talking level one characters here, we're talking mid-high levels.
2. Realism has zero to do with system balance. Period.
3. People seem oddly obsessed with bull rush. Steal and dirty trick both don't really care how strong you are, do they?
I... have to wonder why you would despise the level based system or how it would be a problem?
All this means is that if you want a type of game, you set it at the appropriate level.
Nobody in Lord of the Rings [except spirit things like the Wizards and a few REALLY old elves] was over level 6ish, and that worked great for that campaign [rail-roading aside.]
The problem as I see it is this idea of a game needing to run from 1-20. Zero to Hero stories are great and certainly have their place, but you can't forget that a Hero is essentially the scion of a god [and in Ancient Greece Heroes were frequently worshiped AS gods.]
My first roleplay experience was Cyberpunk 2020, where one headshot can kill anyone.
Lethal, but it was super well GMed so the experience stuck. Characters could improve by getting skills improved, and getting better gear, but you were only ever as tough as you were... Armor reduced damage, so that helped, but a grenade was gonna kill you unless you were supermurderhobo.
Also, we all seem to agree that beyond level 12 things in d20 get a bit... wonky... right?
Not saying I don't love playing the game, just despise the base, core mechanic of level based progression. You get better at EVERYTHING, ALL AT ONCE. Also, you have to wait multiple games to see that improvement. :D I don't wanna start a rant/fight about THAT though.
Is the common consensus that IRL people wouldn't be more than level 5 or so? I always assumed a pyramid of doubling, so most people would be level 1, half that amount level 2, half THAT amount level 3 and so on...
*shrugs* I don't think CMB/CMD is broken, but I do think it should be simplified/improved a bit. It would be cool to have a specialized _whatever_ be able to take down a dragon on hand to hand combat. Have him speak with an Australian accent. Have him narrate his own adventures. :D
|
Couple of points.
1. People seem to keep bringing up trip and disarm and what not. These are weapon based maneuvers. The main problem is with non weapon based maneuvers. These are the ones with huge issues with scaling. That's precisely why that's one of the suggested changes, making them all weapon based.
Not all of them make sense to be done with weapons. Some make sense to be possible with some specific weapons, and those exceptions to exist in the rules.
2. Related to the first point, a lot of posters seem to be bringing up campaigns with a lot of humanoid enemies as proof the system is fine. Yeah, sure, if you ignore the majority of the bestiary, the system improves, but what does that say about the system?
It says that you need more than one trick up your sleeve, and you need to select tricks appropriate to your enemies.
You could make the same points about enchanters. They're great in one campaign, terrible in another. But most savvy players who roll up an enchanter will make sure they have some other tricks that aren't mind-affecting, too.
3. Of course I discount the lore warden, because if only one or two archetypes of one or two classes can do something even competently, the system is broken. Can only one or two archetypes of a couple classes even try to be two handed weapon combatants?
Various monk archetypes are extremely good at maneuvers (tetori, flowing). A kensai with a whip and wand arcana (true strike) is just nasty. Druids can wildshape into a big beast with built-in maneuver abilities to take on big enemies. Abyssal bloodragers grow Large when they rage and get significant strength + size bonuses as well as expanded reach, AND they can leverage Longarm, Blade Lash and True Strike where needed. A ranger or slayer can wreak havoc with shield bash/bull rush/prone against the wall from level 2. Barbarians who are going after Spell Sunder anyway can just Greater Sunder their way through humanoids, attacking fragile possessions to basically roll to-hit against CMD instead of against AC if the enemy's armor type warrants.
The weapon based maneuvers are great when they work. The problem is, they require HUGE feat investments, and the higher level you go (if you use average stuff from the beastiaries) the less likely they are to work. The non weapon maneuvers won't even work. Notice how most of the examples of strong maneuver characters are trippers? There's a reason for that.
Personally I'm most enamored of grappling, because it shuts down both 2H builds and casters, which rank among the enemies most likely to cause major trouble.
It doesn't solve natural attackers, although going for a fast pin does. Even so, I'm quite happy if I have a tactic that's devastating against half my enemies, instead of holding out for something that works perfectly every time. That would just be dull.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So are you saying that bullrushing an elephant should be easy?At level seven for a character specialized in Bullrushing [Martial Character with high strength and Improved Bullrush, maybe Greater Bullrush] and properly equipped?
Hell yes.
For a non-specialized level 7 martial character, or a specialized level 5 character?
Not easy, but reasonably doable.
To address what you said in order:
1)Big things have big weapons, and big limbs... of course it's gonna be hard to knock that giant's weapon out of his hand. This isn't a failure in the system, he has leverage and strength! As you mentioned, training (and good weapons) can help overcome this. Tackling that same opponent to the ground, or pushing him over a cliff SHOULD be harder, as you are trying to move his whole body, not just remove an item or take out a knee...
Leveling is supposed to be about becoming more powerful, about gaining the ability to go up against greater and greater foes.
If a specialist can't reliably pull off his schtick against level appropriate foes [say... 80% odds of success against CR = Level, 40-50ish against CR+4] then his schtick is invalid and he should feel bad for daring to try to do something interesting.
I disagree with your idea of what should be possible/easy. Enemies should be diverse, requiring different approaches. It's not okay if tripping the elephant is the go-to tactic at level=CR. Elephants are supposed to be hard enemies if you try to brute-force them like that in melee.
You're using the wrong tool for the job and then complaining that it doesn't work well.
|
|
I disagree with your idea of what should be possible/easy. Enemies should be diverse, requiring different approaches. It's not okay if tripping the elephant is the go-to tactic at level=CR. Elephants are supposed to be hard enemies if you try to brute-force them like that in melee.
You're using the wrong tool for the job and then complaining that it doesn't work well.
This. It's the reason that Brawlers are good at manuvers. They're several points behind where several other classes such as Lore Warden can get - but they can always have the right tool for the job if they have the right building blocks in place.
Minotaur with a non-magical axe? Sounds like it's Sunder time.
That humanoid is on a bridge over lava? Bull Rush sure sounds like fun.
Close with the wizard? It's Grapple time!
Etc. They'll never have the CMB a Lore Warden will have - but they'll always have the right tool.
Ugh... conceptually Brawlers sound awesome, but I wouldn't play one... too many options.
Gimme my Orc Barbarian any day.
Roll to hit, roll damage, next target!
|
|
Ugh... conceptually Brawlers sound awesome, but I wouldn't play one... too many options.
Yes - it's definitely a class which requires prep. If I were to play one (haven't yet) - I'd get a bunch of index cards listing all of the potential feat combos my character would want for different circumstances. I wouldn't be able to remember them off the top of my head.
Tripping does so much more than damage does though...
by making a target prone, you remove it's ability to move/attack.
When it goes to get up, you (and anyone else within reach) get an AoO on it!
Hitting it with an axe just does damage. Tripping it could allow for multple people to hit it with axes.
The higher chance of failure is offset by the massive potential increase in DPR.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... They're several points behind where several other classes such as Lore Warden can get ....
And they should be; Lore Warden is a broken archetype that ignores all the rules of making balanced archetypes, but in doing so manages to be somewhat competent at one of the things it's supposed to do (thus providing further evidence that, yep, the system doesn't work quite right).
Lore Warden is also an example of another problem in the system: if an archetype like the Lore Warden is good enough to perform combat maneuvers on a large creature, it means their bonuses are so high that they'll pretty consistently auto-succeed against humanoid NPC opponents. Just to have a chance at picking an ogre's pocket, a halfling has to have pumped his CMB high enough that he can toss a human across the room.
On another note, people want to talk about cognitive dissonance; an ogre has less than a 50% chance of hitting a pixie with a club, but he has a 75% chance of picking its itty-bitty pocket with his big fat fingers, or knocking its tiny little sword out of its tiny little hand. Conversely, the pixie, that flying, crazy fast, little stealth ninja fey, has only a 10% chance of picking the ogre's pocket or hurling dirt in its eye.
.... They're several points behind where several other classes such as Lore Warden can get ....And they should be; Lore Warden is a broken archetype that ignores all the rules of making balanced archetypes, but in doing so manages to be somewhat competent at one of the things it's supposed to do (thus providing further evidence that, yep, the system doesn't work quite right).
Lore Warden is also an example of another problem in the system: if an archetype like the Lore Warden is good enough to perform combat maneuvers on a large creature, it means their bonuses are so high that they'll pretty consistently auto-succeed against humanoid NPC opponents. Just to have a chance at picking an ogre's pocket, a halfling has to have pumped his CMB high enough that he can toss a human across the room.
On another note, people want to talk about cognitive dissonance; an ogre has less than a 50% chance of hitting a pixie with a club, but he has a 75% chance of picking its itty-bitty pocket with his big fat fingers, or knocking its tiny little sword out of its tiny little hand. Conversely, the pixie, that flying, crazy fast, little stealth ninja fey, has only a 10% chance of picking the ogre's pocket or hurling dirt in its eye.
Yup, it's not perfect. Imagine that though, Ogre pickpocket. :D
Well, technically the pixie example would only happen if it somehow wasn't invisible or the ogre somehow knew about it. Otherwise, it'd just use sleight of hand, even in combat. Good illustration though.
Tripping does so much more than damage does though...
by making a target prone, you remove it's ability to move/attack.
Funny you should say that. Last time I checked, dead was a far less functional condition than prone
When it goes to get up, you (and anyone else within reach) get an AoO on it!IF you succeeded in tripping it and IF it didn't already kill you while you were trying and IF it doesn't just kill you from it's backside. Many monsters don't give a damn about a -4 penalty to hit from being prone.
Hitting it with an axe just does damage.Yes, and damage killsTripping it could allow for multple people to hit it with axes.Sure, IF it works.
The higher chance of failure is offset by the massive potential increase in DPR.Try it in practice.
I've seen it in practice. My buddy who is a SERIOUS powergamer is always making tripper builds. He trips them, gets a free attack, like stomps them or something, then hits them again when they get up. Any melee in the area gets their attack as well, and the target is easier to hit because it's prone... Throw in some reach weapons and armor spikes and it even works on larger critters.
I almost told him not to make another one in my last game. It's scary how effective it can be.
If you build a character who does one thing really well, and then complain that the one thing he does well doesn't work in every combat, people probably aren't gonna side with you.
Like the whole 'two handed fighter can't attack flying monsters' thing... No one approach works for everything. if it did, this game would be very dull.
I've tried it in practice, the whole tripping to set up allies thing. Works out very well for the levels most people play in.
I think part of the problem with these discussions is that people try to talk about the whole range of levels of play, focusing on the levels that best support their point. Another part of the problem is that really, the bestiary is not the best guideline, or at least needs to be taken with a salt elemental. Monsters make up a decent portion of encounters, but classed NPCs make up a lot of encounters as well, and we don't yet have good data on the average statistics of classed NPCs. We could check against the NPC Codex, and that may be the easiest, but properly weighting the statistics between classed NPCs and monsters is difficult, and could really skew the results.
Mr. Triune above mentions how player CMD scales slower than AC, which would hold doubly true for NPCs. This would mean that combat maneuvers would work for quite some time against classed NPCs, a much different result than against monsters.
And then a third problem is the use of anecdotal evidence like my first paragraph.
I'd love to compile a list of all encounters in APs, modules, and scenarios some day. It'd be very interesting to see the results.
Unrelated to the above, one thought that's been going through my head the past day is how the various on-critical-hit effects start to come online around the same time as the combat maneuvers start to fade in their use against monsters. My guess is that the various Assault feats become much safer to use around that same level too, since you can actually swallow the -5 to-hit they impose.
Maybe we should just move to a system where if a player wants their character to use a combat maneuver against something the GM controls, they need to successfully use it on the GM. Much more fair! :p
|
This character usually starts with Tstrike (using a true strike wand) then round 2 goes for dirty trick blind then the trip with no dex and +2 due to blindness. Then any remaining attacks go into flatfooted prone. If I hit I grant the sickened condition (brutal beating thug) and either shaken or frightened with my intimidate (enforcer).
Current level 7 - mm2, lw2, R3
Target lv 12
Maneuver master 2, Lore warden 3, Rogue Thug 7
|
|
Well, technically the pixie example would only happen if it somehow wasn't invisible or the ogre somehow knew about it. Otherwise, it'd just use sleight of hand, even in combat. Good illustration though.
What, your ogre's don't walk around with clubs that are the focus for a permanent antimagic field? You must be doing it wrong :P
In all seriousness though, as you acknowledge I think the example illustrates the point I was trying to make very well; people keep trying to play it up like it's absurd that anyone would think that there's issues with the CMB/CMD system by throwing out irrelevant examples "Hurr dee durr, try pushing an elephant around in real life, hyuck yuck", and yet they ignore the true absurdities of the system. CMB/CMD isn't just a measure of strength, it's also a measure of finesse, and truthfully there are just as many, if not more, maneuvers that should be favored by high DEX creatures/characters such as disarm, trip, dirty trick, reposition, steal, even arguably grapple in some instances (after all, how many examples in popular fantasy literature are there of pixies or other small creatures tripping then tying up their opponents as described in the Pinned condition that works off of grapples), that don't actually reflect that at all.
So really your saying that you don't LIKE how it works...
I'm on your side, frankly.
However, in NO reality will any amount of training allow a human to run at an Elephant (full grown) and knock it over.
No way. Heck, even a cow or a horse is really hard to knock over. REALLY hard, even harder if they see you coming.
That's where I experience a bit of cognitive dissonance, I essentially agree with you, that Fighters should get more love... but it seems weird if they can start doing magical stuff.
See, this is the Inherent problem with martials...
This thought process is WHY things like CMD/CMB and combat in general is stacked against martials. Because if they get to do cool things they are "doing magic" and "martials don't do magic"
Well, technically the pixie example would only happen if it somehow wasn't invisible or the ogre somehow knew about it. Otherwise, it'd just use sleight of hand, even in combat. Good illustration though.What, your ogre's don't walk around with clubs that are the focus for a permanent antimagic field? You must be doing it wrong :P
In all seriousness though, as you acknowledge I think the example illustrates the point I was trying to make very well; people keep trying to play it up like it's absurd that anyone would think that there's issues with the CMB/CMD system by throwing out irrelevant examples "Hurr dee durr, try pushing an elephant around in real life, hyuck yuck", and yet they ignore the true absurdities of the system. CMB/CMD isn't just a measure of strength, it's also a measure of finesse, and truthfully there are just as many, if not more, maneuvers that should be favored by high DEX creatures/characters such as disarm, trip, dirty trick, reposition, steal, even arguably grapple in some instances (after all, how many examples in popular fantasy literature are there of pixies or other small creatures tripping then tying up their opponents as described in the Pinned condition that works off of grapples), that don't actually reflect that at all.
I do not sound like that, even when making a perfectly valid point about elephants. The CMB/CMD system works, most of the time. Hurr dee durr indeed... I'm more of a derp derp guy myself.
Anyway, it doesn't seem like a lot of people consider the system 'broken'. It isn't perfect, but it's what we've got, and it seems to work most of the time (or at least often enough that there is debate about it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not all of them make sense to be done with weapons. Some make sense to be possible with some specific weapons, and those exceptions to exist in the rules.
Yes, and those options have even further feat taxes. Wanna spend over half your feats on one trick that gets rapidly much worse as you level, while your buddies invested in damage and to hit that is universally applicable? Be my guest.
It says that you need more than one trick up your sleeve, and you need to select tricks appropriate to your enemies.
You could make the same points about enchanters. They're great in one campaign, terrible in another. But most savvy players who roll up an enchanter will make sure they have some other tricks that aren't mind-affecting, too.
Except that to be decent at enchanting or doesn't carry even close to the same cost. Wanna be good at a non weapon maneuver? You have to devote the vast majority of your resources to be passable at mid levels. Wanna be a passable enchanter? Pick a couple enchanting spells to prep for the day. The opportunity cost isn't even in the same ballpark.
Various monk archetypes are extremely good at maneuvers (tetori, flowing). A kensai with a whip and wand arcana (true strike) is just nasty. Druids can wildshape into a big beast with built-in maneuver abilities to take on big enemies. Abyssal bloodragers grow Large when they rage and get significant strength + size bonuses as well as expanded reach, AND they can leverage Longarm, Blade Lash and True Strike where needed. A ranger or slayer can wreak havoc with shield bash/bull rush/prone against the wall from level 2. Barbarians who are going after Spell Sunder anyway can just Greater Sunder their way through humanoids, attacking fragile possessions to basically roll to-hit against CMD instead of against AC if the enemy's armor type warrants.
Ah yes, a bunch of classes good at weappn based maneuvers which will be useless against most higher cr enemies, and a spellcaster that only works because he uses magic to basically bypass the system altogether. Shield bash is an exception, as it usually stays useful longer and is weapon based. But it is just that, an exception.
Personally I'm most enamored of grappling, because it shuts down both 2H builds and casters, which rank among the enemies most likely to cause major trouble.
It doesn't solve natural attackers, although going for a fast pin does. Even so, I'm quite happy if I have a tactic that's devastating against half my enemies, instead of holding out for something that works perfectly every time. That would just be dull.
Sounds like low level play against humanoids. If that's what your campaign mostly is, great. That's not what I'm really referring to though. 50% is usually a pipe dream at higher levels, for all of the reasons I outlined.
Couple of points.
1. People seem to keep bringing up trip and disarm and what not. These are weapon based maneuvers. The main problem is with non weapon based maneuvers. These are the ones with huge issues with scaling. That's precisely why that's one of the suggested changes, making them all weapon based.
Not all of them make sense to be done with weapons. Some make sense to be possible with some specific weapons, and those exceptions to exist in the rules.
2. Related to the first point, a lot of posters seem to be bringing up campaigns with a lot of humanoid enemies as proof the system is fine. Yeah, sure, if you ignore the majority of the bestiary, the system improves, but what does that say about the system?It says that you need more than one trick up your sleeve, and you need to select tricks appropriate to your enemies.
You could make the same points about enchanters. They're great in one campaign, terrible in another. But most savvy players who roll up an enchanter will make sure they have some other tricks that aren't mind-affecting, too.
3. Of course I discount the lore warden, because if only one or two archetypes of one or two classes can do something even competently, the system is broken. Can only one or two archetypes of a couple classes even try to be two handed weapon combatants?Various monk archetypes are extremely good at maneuvers (tetori, flowing). A kensai with a whip and wand arcana (true strike) is just nasty. Druids can wildshape into a big beast with built-in maneuver abilities to take on big enemies. Abyssal bloodragers grow Large when they rage and get significant strength + size bonuses as well as expanded reach, AND they can leverage Longarm, Blade Lash and True Strike where needed. A ranger or slayer can wreak havoc with shield bash/bull rush/prone against the wall from level 2. Barbarians who are going after Spell Sunder anyway can just Greater Sunder their way through...
Except look at how many feats it requires to do 1 FREAKING MANEUVER. Heck, you can't even do a maneuver without provoking an AoO without a feat FOR EACH MANEUVER...
This is why the brawler is awesome, because he can quickly grab what needs for the moment. But outside the brawler, everyone is SoL
I disagree with your idea of what should be possible/easy. Enemies should be diverse, requiring different approaches. It's not okay if tripping the elephant is the go-to tactic at level=CR. Elephants are supposed to be hard enemies if you try to brute-force them like that in melee.
You're using the wrong tool for the job and then complaining that it doesn't work well.
I just said this is a specialist.
At level 7 that means he's taken Improved Trip and quite likely Greater Trip as well.
2 feats, two whole f%!+ing feats out of the 10 a non-human non-bonus-feat class gets. That's 20% of the feats he'll ever get. Ever.
Take away Greater Trip, and that 80% I suggested becomes a 70%. Take away improved Trip, and it becomes 60%. Add two more legs to the beast and it becomes 50% for the casual tripper.
Bear in mind CR = Level encounters are supposed to be easy, and the casual tripper only has a 50/50 chance of tripping this supposed cakewalk. He's FAR better off just hitting the thing.
Actually it's 3 feats because you also need to get Combat Expertise which is not usually a feat you would have gotten anyway like Power Attack
A hammer isn't always the tool for every job.
Sometimes you gotta pick up a wrench.
Specializing in one thing makes you better at it. Spreading out resources makes you more flexible.
If by being worse at tripping you become better at hitting and killing, so be it.
Saying that combat maneuvers suck because they don't work 100% of the time is like complaining about spells allowing for saving throws.
There will always be something to challenge you, that is sort of the point of the game. Overcoming challenges.
Some things will be straight up immune to it, that's why you diversify and/or rely on party members for help.
Also, fighters get bonus feats, so a human fighter at level seven will have invested less than half his feats to be the best tripper EVAH. You know, for his level and such...
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not sound like that, even when making a perfectly valid point about elephants. The CMB/CMD system works, most of the time. Hurr dee durr indeed... I'm more of a derp derp guy myself.
Anyway, it doesn't seem like a lot of people consider the system 'broken'. It isn't perfect, but it's what we've got, and it seems to work most of the time (or at least often enough that there is debate about it).
An elephant is a CR 7 huge creature (coincidentally one who appears to have the highest strength of the CR 7 line-up, including dinosaurs); the rules already prohibit a human from even attempting to bull rush one without being magically enhanced. That's why I called the example absurd and irrelevant; whether you can push one around in real life doesn't matter at all, because you can't do it in the game either without magic or being some kind of fantastic creature, regardless of the fact that a 7th level character has left real life limitations behind some time ago. This has nothing to do with CMB/CMD, but is baked into the maneuver itself. Most maneuvers, truthfully, have their own baked in limitations governing their use, so further gating them behind incredibly high CMDs just doesn't make sense. It turns maneuvers into the least used spells; the ones that require a successful attack roll followed by multiple saves.
My experience has been that making combat maneuvers more reliable makes the game more fun and increases engagement; sure, a successful trip has the potential to deal more damage than an attack, assuming that multiple party members are adjacent to the enemy, but if that happens to be the case, it means the party is working together as a team instead of a group of individuals and paying close attention when it's not their turn. It could be said that successful use of combat maneuvers actually encourages teamwork, something I wholeheartedly support.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On another note, people want to talk about cognitive dissonance; an ogre has less than a 50% chance of hitting a pixie with a club, but he has a 75% chance of picking its itty-bitty pocket with his big fat fingers, or knocking its tiny little sword out of its tiny little hand. Conversely, the pixie, that flying, crazy fast, little stealth ninja fey, has only a 10% chance of picking the ogre's pocket or hurling dirt in its eye.
You do understand that the steal combat maneuver isn't a stealthy pick pocket but rather a grab and yank don't you?
Interestingly, if you start with 20 Strength, level 14 is the last level where you get 50% success rate. This is for a non-weapon-using maneuver where the player doesn't have any buffs on them (haste, heroism, inspire courage, good hope, etc), doesn't have the ioun stone that helps out, isn't flanking, etc.
The %s then become:
1-6: 71.66%
7-12: 55%
13-20: 26.875%
My guess is that in actual play, these %s will be fairly better, due to all the non-CRB options available that can help, as well as the use of buffs by the party. If they really failed as often as the percentages implied, then we wouldn't continue to see so many builds for them, I'd wager.
Still, there are a ton of oddities at play here, and the system could use a whack or three.
I do not sound like that, even when making a perfectly valid point about elephants. The CMB/CMD system works, most of the time. Hurr dee durr indeed... I'm more of a derp derp guy myself.
Anyway, it doesn't seem like a lot of people consider the system 'broken'. It isn't perfect, but it's what we've got, and it seems to work most of the time (or at least often enough that there is debate about it).
An elephant is a CR 7 huge creature (coincidentally one who appears to have the highest strength of the CR 7 line-up, including dinosaurs); the rules already prohibit a human from even attempting to bull rush one without being magically enhanced. That's why I called the example absurd and irrelevant; whether you can push one around in real life doesn't matter at all, because you can't do it in the game either without magic or being some kind of fantastic creature, regardless of the fact that a 7th level character has left real life limitations behind some time ago. This has nothing to do with CMB/CMD, but is baked into the maneuver itself. Most maneuvers, truthfully, have their own baked in limitations governing their use, so further gating them behind incredibly high CMDs just doesn't make sense. It turns maneuvers into the least used spells; the ones that require a successful attack roll followed by multiple saves.
My experience has been that making combat maneuvers more reliable makes the game more fun and increases engagement; sure, a successful trip has the potential to deal more damage than an attack, assuming that multiple party members are adjacent to the enemy, but if that happens to be the case, it means the party is working together as a team instead of a group of individuals and paying close attention when it's not their turn. It could be said that successful use of combat maneuvers actually encourages teamwork, something I wholeheartedly support.
So you think the system is broken BECAUSE it parallels real life in the elephant example?
Don't get me wrong, I basically agree with you about it sucking that halflings can't throw giants to the moon, but that is how they made the game.
We all know casters>martials. I doubt they will alter that, like... ever.
Interestingly, if you start with 20 Strength, level 14 is the last level where you get 50% success rate. This is for a non-weapon-using maneuver where the player doesn't have any buffs on them (haste, heroism, inspire courage, good hope, etc), doesn't have the ioun stone that helps out, isn't flanking, etc.
The %s then become:
1-6: 71.66%
7-12: 55%
13-20: 26.875%My guess is that in actual play, these %s will be fairly better, due to all the non-CRB options available that can help, as well as the use of buffs by the party. If they really failed as often as the percentages implied, then we wouldn't continue to see so many builds for them, I'd wager.
Still, there are a ton of oddities at play here, and the system could use a whack or three.
Do your calculations take into account increased number of rolls due to iterative attacks? Individual success rates may drop, but with more attempts, rate of success on attempted maneuver likely rises substantially. You don't need to trip someone four times, just once.
|
|
You do understand that the steal combat maneuver isn't a stealthy pick pocket but rather a grab and yank don't you?
On another note, people want to talk about cognitive dissonance; an ogre has less than a 50% chance of hitting a pixie with a club, but he has a 75% chance of picking its itty-bitty pocket with his big fat fingers, or knocking its tiny little sword out of its tiny little hand. Conversely, the pixie, that flying, crazy fast, little stealth ninja fey, has only a 10% chance of picking the ogre's pocket or hurling dirt in its eye.
When you have Greater Steal the enemy doesn't even know something's been taken. True "grab and yank" items such as cloaks, sheathed weapons, or pouches, are harder to take, and held items can't be stolen at all, but require the Disarm skill. You can read, can't you?
If it sounds like I'm replying harshly, it's because I find it extremely insulting when people ask leading questions with no relevant rules backing them in response to detailed and researched posts.
Here's the number one solution to balancing the system without completely rewriting it: remove size modifiers from the equation. You see, the reason that monster CMD scales so ridiculously quickly is that every monster is double-dipping their size benefits; for example, in following the rules on the monster creation chart a colossal creature would see a 32 point increase in its strength over a medium creature, but only a 4 point decrease in its dexterity. This means that just by virtue of its size, the creature has already seen a net 14 point increase in its CMD. Add in its size bonus to CMD and a colossal creature is getting a +22 to its CMD before factoring in BAB and any other relevant factors. That +14 is an achievable number through feats and class abilities; the +22 much less so, especially when many maneuvers are already unuseable against such creatures due to limitations on the size of creature you can affect baked into the maneuvers themselves.
Remove the additional size modifiers from the CMB/CMD equation, and everything balances much more smoothly (though poorly balanced archetypes that attempt to cheat the system, like the Lore Warden, will need to be revoked or rebalanced; I'd suggest as a quick fix, halving the bonus to CMB granted by such archetypes).
You notice the issue, but I think you conclude to change the wrong thing. The size modifiers are pretty mild for PF. It's the strength score bloat due to size that bothers me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you think the system is broken BECAUSE it parallels real life in the elephant example?
Don't get me wrong, I basically agree with you about it sucking that halflings can't throw giants to the moon, but that is how they made the game.
We all know casters>martials. I doubt they will alter that, like... ever.
No, I'm saying that the bull rush maneuver, specifically and independently of the CMB/CMD system, already accounts for any absurdity regarding disparate creature sizes. I said this very plainly in the post you responded to. Because the maneuvers themselves already have specific limitations, there's no sense in further gating them behind artificially inflated CMDs.
Do your calculations take into account increased number of rolls due to iterative attacks? Individual success rates may drop, but with more attempts, rate of success on attempted maneuver likely rises substantially. You don't need to trip someone four times, just once.
Trip is not the only combat maneuver in the world. Some combat maneuvers are standard actions and only provide you with one chance, and some quickly step from "unlikely" into "virtually impossible" on the iterative attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A hammer isn't always the tool for every job.
Sometimes you gotta pick up a wrench.
Specializing in one thing makes you better at it. Spreading out resources makes you more flexible.
If by being worse at tripping you become better at hitting and killing, so be it.
Saying that combat maneuvers suck because they don't work 100% of the time is like complaining about spells allowing for saving throws.
There will always be something to challenge you, that is sort of the point of the game. Overcoming challenges.
Some things will be straight up immune to it, that's why you diversify and/or rely on party members for help.
Guh, people are not getting it.
Funny thing about spells, something have a stupid high WIll but no fort? Disinigrate. Some have high fort and no Will? Dominate.
And each spell requires little to no investment for the Caster as a whole. And if they do specialize in a certain spell (like blaster's focus on fireball) they still have thier whole spell list to choose from. If you wanted to make spells more like Combat Maneuvers you would have to tell this wizard: ok, in order to cast a school of magic you have to take these 3 feats, other wise you need to make a concentration check with a -4 penalty everytime you cast anything. Have fun!
People aren't complaining that they don't work 100% of the time. People are complaining because you are lucky to get them to work 50% of time! At that point you may as well just hit it with a stick and get it over with. Between the things are are straight immune and the huge bonuses to the few things that are not immune makes doing them pointless.
It would not be an issue if it werent for the fact you have to waste very precious character resources just to do one competently. And you need to waste atleast 2 feats PER COMBAT MANEUVER. Heck you need a feat just to do it without provoking an AoO. Oh and want to make a dex based guy? Thats another feat... With the amount of feats you need to dump you may as well not try.
No, I'm saying that the bull rush maneuver, specifically and independently of the CMB/CMD system, already accounts for any absurdity regarding disparate creature sizes. I said this very plainly in the post you responded to. Because the maneuvers themselves already have specific limitations, there's no sense in further gating them behind artificially inflated CMDs.
So you think the system is broken BECAUSE it parallels real life in the elephant example?
Don't get me wrong, I basically agree with you about it sucking that halflings can't throw giants to the moon, but that is how they made the game.
We all know casters>martials. I doubt they will alter that, like... ever.
Okay.
Anyway, it would appear that a lot of people think the existing combat maneuver system is good enough. I'm one of them. I've never seen a situation where it upset gameplay, or a player complain about it being useless or broken.
If you decide to alter it in a homegame, I hope it works out for you.
You notice the issue, but I think you conclude to change the wrong thing. The size modifiers are pretty mild for PF. It's the strength score bloat due to size that bothers me.That's a fair conclusion. I still think that removing size modifiers is the easier and more consistent fix though.
I think I would agree with you on this... Larger means stronger anyway, and increased hit dice... I never really liked the arbitrary bonus "because big".
|
|
I'd be more inclined to keep the high CMD on the elephant, but remove the size limit. If you really are that good at bull rush, okay, fine. The elephant is just really hard to move, as it should be.
Where I do think the system isn't quite working it is the maneuvers that aren't really about brute force, like Steal, Dirty Trick, and perhaps using Acrobatics to tumble through threatened areas. Those DCs shouldn't necessarily scale up when opponents get bigger, and they should be more Dex-based than Strength-based.
Maybe D&D4 was onto something when they turned the saving throws into a variant form of AC that you could aim melee attacks against. A steal maneuver could go against Reflex, a bull rush against something Strength/Size based.
However, care should be taken not to make maneuvers too complicated; not introduce five new different scores against which you target.
|
|
Okay.
Anyway, it would appear that a lot of people think the existing combat maneuver system is good enough. I'm one of them. I've never seen a situation where it upset gameplay, or a player complain about it being useless or broken.
If you decide to alter it in a homegame, I hope it works out for you.
A lot of people think that global warming isn't real and continue to leave their SUVs running while waiting for their kids to get out of school, that doesn't change reality. Similarly, many people haven't seen a crocodile in real life, but that doesn't make the guys at the Discovery Channel liars.
I long ago altered the way we use CMB/CMD in our home game, and it was a huge improvement and success. I find that people who think the CMD system works "just fine" tend to fall into one of two camps:
1) They never, or rarely, actually play at the levels where the system breaks down.
2) They play in a type of "low fantasy" game where it's more Game of Thrones than Dungeons and Dragons, and are used to far more NPCs with class levels than dragons, manticores, titans, etc.
CMB/CMD works fine during the first 5 levels of play. In the 6-12 range, where there's still plenty of creatures close to Medium size, it's manageable through focusing feats and accepting that you just can't use roughly 20% of your resources in roughly 20% of your fights. 13-20 gets obnoxious though; the levels when martial character should be doing the most cool stuff tend to be the levels where they instead just hit the enemy over and over hoping for a crit, because that 5-25% per hit chance of triggering a crit feat is now more reliable than actually attempting to do something other than flail about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could easily be wrong, but I have a recollection from the Alpha/Beta era that Jason pretty much deliberately build the CMB/CMD system to discourage players from using it. The justification I recall - and my memory is less than perfect - was that maneuvers inherently prolong a fight, rarely simplifying or shortening a combat. So the system was build as we see it today, to be a thing that monsters can use to enrich the variety of their actions, and optimized PCs under just the right circumstances can dip into if they insist.
Which isn't to say an optional "maneuvers that work" ruleset would've been unwelcome in Unchained.
Honestly, with the way Combat maneuvers are I can't help but wonder what level trained martial artists are in real life seeing as well trained practitioners learn how disarm, reposition, trip. If they are a MMA fighter you also learn Grappling... so that is:
Improved Unarmed Strike
Combat Expertise
Improved Disarm
Improved Reposition
Improved Trip
Improved Grapple
So for a fighter that is level 4.
And that is assuming they have no other feats... and this isn't even fully encompassing seeing as (especially for an MMA fighter) they would reasonably also have Chokehold and Pinning Knockout which requires Greater Grapple...
A hammer isn't always the tool for every job.
Sometimes you gotta pick up a wrench.
Specializing in one thing makes you better at it. Spreading out resources makes you more flexible.
If by being worse at tripping you become better at hitting and killing, so be it.
Saying that combat maneuvers suck because they don't work 100% of the time is like complaining about spells allowing for saving throws.
There will always be something to challenge you, that is sort of the point of the game. Overcoming challenges.
Some things will be straight up immune to it, that's why you diversify and/or rely on party members for help.
Please stop being condescending with this 100% business. As I showed earlier in the thread, a character with three feats invested and full bab can expect a 40% success rate against an average equal CR opponent at mid level, let alone a higher CR. Usually as a standard action, on an action that usually won't have a huge impact. Wanna know what they call characters like that? Useless.
Please stop being condescending with this 100% business. As I showed earlier in the thread, a character with three feats invested and full bab can expect a 40% success rate against an average equal CR opponent at mid level, let alone a higher CR. Usually as a standard action, on an action that usually won't have a huge impact. Wanna know what they call characters like that? Useless.A hammer isn't always the tool for every job.
Sometimes you gotta pick up a wrench.
Specializing in one thing makes you better at it. Spreading out resources makes you more flexible.
If by being worse at tripping you become better at hitting and killing, so be it.
Saying that combat maneuvers suck because they don't work 100% of the time is like complaining about spells allowing for saving throws.
There will always be something to challenge you, that is sort of the point of the game. Overcoming challenges.
Some things will be straight up immune to it, that's why you diversify and/or rely on party members for help.
No condescending behavior intended here, just saying that having options is usually better than only being able to do one thing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be more inclined to keep the high CMD on the elephant, but remove the size limit. If you really are that good at bull rush, okay, fine. The elephant is just really hard to move, as it should be.
Where I do think the system isn't quite working it is the maneuvers that aren't really about brute force, like Steal, Dirty Trick, and perhaps using Acrobatics to tumble through threatened areas. Those DCs shouldn't necessarily scale up when opponents get bigger, and they should be more Dex-based than Strength-based.
Maybe D&D4 was onto something when they turned the saving throws into a variant form of AC that you could aim melee attacks against. A steal maneuver could go against Reflex, a bull rush against something Strength/Size based.
However, care should be taken not to make maneuvers too complicated; not introduce five new different scores against which you target.
For me, the issue with the high CMDs also leads into ancillary issues, like feats, spells, potions, items, etc. that give you big boosts to your CMB in an attempt to make those numbers reachable. This leads to the issue I mentioned earlier where the system allows people who heavily invest to basically auto-succeed against Medium sized opponents just to have a chance against larger ones. By removing the size bonuses to CMD but keeping the built-in limitations on size affected, you can more easily control the results.
For a hypothetical example, say Paizo releases a poorly balanced archetype called "Lore Warden" that gives you up to a +8 to your CMB. This effectively cancels out the scaling bonuses to size, but pushes your success rate against creatures who aren't so much larger than you into ludicrous levels of success. It also doesn't account for the limitations in the maneuvers themselves.
So instead, what if we just remove the size modifiers from the CMB/CMD equation? When fighting those colossal creatures, this has the same effect for everyone that the Lore Warden's class ability gave to him, without having the unbalancing impact against smaller opponents. Then we make a new class called the "Legend Guardian". Instead of getting huge baked in bonuses to CMB, the Legend Guardian increases the maximum size creature he can affect with a given combat maneuver, or combat maneuvers in general. This lets him leverage his feat and weapon investments more evenly throughout his career, without creating a situation where he's either completely dominating the battlefield with uncontestable CMB checks, or forced to plink away ineffectively because he didn't invest in the right resources for a given fight.