CMB and CMD, a Broken System With No Point?

[Michael Sayre]

HyperMissingno wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Snowblind wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

...

Minor problem.

If you don't have the feats or a reach weapon, every single maneuver provokes.

Since the gunslinger is presumably getting hammered in melee, this means that all she will accomplish by trying to bull rush is getting smacked again and then fishing for nat.20s on her maneuver roll since the AoO added another +18 to the check.

So long as you are provoking dangerous AoOs, maneuvers are borderline useless.

Which is one of their many problems.

It's significantly less pointless than standing around crying while you get your butt whipped. I'll take an AoO any day of the week if it has a chance to turn a combat back in my favor.

Except if you get hit during this AoO you take a penalty equal to the damage you took.

They actually have to hit you and it's still better than standing around doing nothing . In what world is willingly bending over for a paddling better than fighting back for a chance to turn the tables?

[Charon's Little Helper]

HyperMissingno wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Snowblind wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

...

Minor problem.

If you don't have the feats or a reach weapon, every single maneuver provokes.

Since the gunslinger is presumably getting hammered in melee, this means that all she will accomplish by trying to bull rush is getting smacked again and then fishing for nat.20s on her maneuver roll since the AoO added another +18 to the check.

So long as you are provoking dangerous AoOs, maneuvers are borderline useless.

Which is one of their many problems.

It's significantly less pointless than standing around crying while you get your butt whipped. I'll take an AoO any day of the week if it has a chance to turn a combat back in my favor.

Except if you get hit during this AoO you take a penalty equal to the damage you took.

That's why he earlier mentioned intentionally provoking AOOs with movement before trying a manuver without the relevant feat.

[TriOmegaZero]

One of my local players specifically moves to provoke before performing maneuvers or spellcasting while threatened. The fact that his character is a monk/sorcerer with a 30AC helps quite a bit.

[Triune]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

HyperMissingno wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Snowblind wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

...

Minor problem.

If you don't have the feats or a reach weapon, every single maneuver provokes.

Since the gunslinger is presumably getting hammered in melee, this means that all she will accomplish by trying to bull rush is getting smacked again and then fishing for nat.20s on her maneuver roll since the AoO added another +18 to the check.

So long as you are provoking dangerous AoOs, maneuvers are borderline useless.

Which is one of their many problems.

It's significantly less pointless than standing around crying while you get your butt whipped. I'll take an AoO any day of the week if it has a chance to turn a combat back in my favor.

Except if you get hit during this AoO you take a penalty equal to the damage you took.

That's why he earlier mentioned intentionally provoking AOOs with movement before trying a manuver without the relevant feat.

Once again, lack of further penalty, not actually an advantage.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Triune wrote:

Once again, lack of further penalty, not actually an advantage.

You're strawmanning me.

I never said that gave you a bonus, though actually yes, avoiding a penalty is a relative advantage to not doing so.

[Triune]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Triune wrote:

Once again, lack of further penalty, not actually an advantage.

You're strawmanning me.

I never said that gave you a bonus, though actually yes, avoiding a penalty is a relative advantage to not doing so.

You were referring to an earlier exchange over a post by someone else. My counterpoint still applies. Unless you weren't and I missed something, in which case I apologize for the confusion.

[Lirya]

The main problems with the CMB and CMD system as I see it is:
A) The bonuses on all sides of the equation are out of control.
B) Too many feats are required before they are worth performing.

If you compare humanoids with class levels, who are not using True Strike, Lore Warden, Strength Surge, or something similar to push the values off scale. Then they are balanced until mid-high levels where stat boosts, deflection bonuses, luck bonuses and so on push CMD too high. The maneuvers that get bonuses for a magical weapon can deal with this to some degree, and bardic music + heroism would fix the values. But it should be possible to succeed at non-weapon maneuvers on a 10 in a mirror match without a buffing bard present.

Monsters gain extra Base Attack and Strength to offset a size penalty to normal attacks, and then double dip with a size bonus to CMB and CMD which pushes them off scale.

As for feats, you "need" the improved feat to not provoke. But many maneuvers do not actually become good until you also have the Greater feat. And some maneuvers such as Dirty Trick also require Quick Dirty Trick. In order to make the investment cheaper, you can remove the Combat Expertise feat tax. But the main improvement would be to merge the Improved and Greater feats, as that saves a number of feats equal to the combat maneuvers you want to be proficient at.

Improving combat feats so that they allow fighters to do more cool stuff (instead of improving numbers) would also be one of the best ways of improving fighters (and other martials). After all, casters get feats like Dazing Spell, Quicken Spell, and Item Creation Feats (and Sacred Geometry, Divine Interference, and Divine Protection). So making sure there are plenty of really good feats that expand the amount of relevant options a martial character has would be a good thing.

I agree that removing size bonuses is probably a decent hot fix. Though inflated monster stats means you still probably need Dusty Rose Prism [wayfinder] + gauntlets of the skilled maneuver + Greater feat before a maneuver is worth trying against half the bestiary.

For more of a rebuild of the system, how would this work?

Spoiler:

CMB = Base Attack Bonus + Strength modifier + CMB specific bonuses
CMD = 10 + Base Attack Bonus + (highest of Strength modifier or Dexterity modifier) + CMD specific bonuses.

Bonuses to attack rolls or defenses do not apply to CMB or CMD. Only bonuses that specifically say they apply to CMB or CMD are added.

Create and item or some other effect to make up for the fact that monsters have higher Base Attack Bonus and Ability Modifiers than humanoids with class levels. Probably costing something like bonus squared x 1 000 gp, max +5. The main problem with this is that it creates yet another item tax. (monster attack bonus is balanced to hit AC without using a magic weapon and while suffering a size penalty)

This would also allow skill vs. CMD to be a reasonable way to resolve
Acrobatics to tumble, and perhaps Bluff to feint and Intimidate to demoralize. As a +5 Item, class training and a primary stat means you succeed on a 2-7 against a typical full bab humanoid (assuming a +1 - +5 CMB/CMD item equalizing humanoids with monsters). Skill Focus would be enough to push the skill into always succeeds range, which is fair. Cheap +15 skill items would probably push the numbers too far for skill vs. CMD to work, but a +10 item is probably ok as allowing someone to auto-succeed isn't broken if they invest that a high stat, +10 item and skill ranks into it. It also helps skills based on a dump stat stay relevant.

Also add something to help partial bab classes that should be good at specific maneuvers. Such as a rogue talent that allows the rogue to perform Disarm, Steal, and Dirty Trick using Sleight of Hand instead of CMB.