[PF] - Math behind CMB/CMD?

[The Glyphstone]

It seems to be commonly accepted, or at least loudly accepted, that Pathfinder screwed up the modifier bonuses when they simplified special maneuvers into the CMB and CMD system - but how badly? The splitting of Improved X feats aside, how much easier/harder is it to pull off a grapple/disarm/trip? Someone must have done the math at some point, but does anyone have it in easy reach?

[FMArthur]

I could be wrong, but in most cases you're looking at a loss of 2 for the feat, a loss of [enemy Dex], and a gain of 0.5 for the 10 defense instead of the d20. If you were increasing size, a big fella will have lost another 3-6 depending on whether you reach Large or Huge (greater optimization yields bigger sizes, but that's not typical play). Weapon bonuses vanished, leaving you down by another 4 until you can get a weapon suited to the particular maneuver and enhance it up to a +4 weapon.

The Fury's Fall feat lets you add your Dex to Trip attempts, and since trippers like Combat Reflexes, they have good enough Dex to reliably negate the new addition of Dex to CMD. So for a Tripper who didn't enhance size, you're basically down by 5.5, but Huge trippers lost 11.5. In later levels with GMW or just plain expensive equipment you can recover up to 5 of that with weapon enhancements. So it's not that bad, and with Dex investment it is actually better for Mediums now that Large monsters' defense against it got trimmed down a bit. You reach (stable) parity for the Dex feat at 4th level. You reach (stable) parity for both that and Greater Trip at 10th level.

Grapple got mostly destroyed, being a standard action now. I don't think the difference is even quantifiable. To be perfectly honest, I don't think Grapple was good for the game in 3.5, where monsters always win grapples and removed a player from the game until someone else killed it. I am happy enough that it exists for when the PCs need to disable someone they already have an advantage over, but isn't especially useful in a fight.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It seems to be commonly accepted, or at least loudly accepted, that Pathfinder screwed up the modifier bonuses when they simplified special maneuvers into the CMB and CMD system - but how badly? The splitting of Improved X feats aside, how much easier/harder is it to pull off a grapple/disarm/trip? Someone must have done the math at some point, but does anyone have it in easy reach?"Screwed up" is quite subjective. If it's harder to make a chain tripper work against anything medium or smaller, one person will say that PF fixed a broken mechanic, and another person will say that melee can't have nice things. That said, I guess I can go over some changes from 3.5 to see how it's different:

Size bonuses matter a lot less. Since a dedicated tripper was probably going to either become large somehow (thank you, party casters) or get powerful build, that +4 turns into a +1... if it's worth it for the PF player to get that +1 at all.

Like you said, they split Improved Trip into two feats. This doesn't alter the bonus of a dedicated tripper, but it does turn that PF feat advantage into a disadvantage, at least early on.

The main difference, however, is the way Combat Maneuver Defense works. In 3.5, you'd make a (normally quite easy) touch attack and then do an opposed strength check. In PF, the defender's check is replaced by a DC that adds 10 + str + dex + other modifiers. Then again, you can avoid that pesky touch attack.

I'll stat out the level 1 example: Bob the level 1 Human Fighter is probably the best core-race tripper available. He has 18 strength, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Combat Reflexes (not a 20 because he needs dex, con, int, and nonnegative wis). He's trying to trip a normal level 1 halfling rogue with 20 dex and 10 str (melee rogue, doesn't want a damage penalty) who has two weapon fighting as his feat. Bob has a +7 to trip our rogue, who has a 14 CMD. He needs to roll a 7 or higher, giving him a 70% chance of success.

Now let's look at the 3.5 case: Let's be generous and say Bob still has an 18 strength - point buy is nicer in 3.5 that way. Bob has to make a touch attack at +5 against the Halfling's touch AC of 16. Then he has to win an opposed strength check of +8 against the halfling's -4. The touch attack, in this case, is nowhere near trivial, though he will get a free attack if it succeeds. Which is better? It's hard to say.

Of course, level 1 might not be the best snapshot. Touch AC becomes trivial at later levels, but that's because you're fighting large and larger creatures, which have huge checks that rival or surpass even a dedicated tripper as long as there's no size abuse going on. And of course, casters don't really care about being tripped.

[Curious]

Trippers do gain a bit of an advantage in reach now, due to the Lunge feat, but it is harder to pull off a dedicated build, as these gentleman above have shown.

[share and enjoy]

I much prefer the PF system It gives you more options as to what can be a tripper you can now make a medium sized or even small tripper viable tiny or smaller use dex rather than str it gives you more options for who can trip it depends if you like the idea of having smaller characters able to trip larger ones.

[tyckspoon]

Combat Maneuver Bonus: BAB + Str + Special Size Modifier.
Combat Maneuver Defense: 10 + BAB + Str + Dex + Special Size Modifier.

To make a special combat maneuver, you make an attack roll. Specifically, this attack roll involves..
...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.

To the best of my knowledge "effects" is just as broad a term in Pathfinder as it is in 3.5, so pretty much anything that would benefit your attack will also benefit your combat maneuvers (Magic weapon? That's an effect. Bard song? Effect. True Strike? Best believe that's an effect. And so forth.) Which means the whole CMB thing is kind of pointless and you're basically making an attack against CMD instead of AC.

The way this works out is, I believe, that monsters still wind up being pretty hard to perform maneuvers on because they still tend to have outrageous Str/Dex/BAB scores compared to humanoids. Humanoids, on the other hand, are a little harder to hit in the early going; they get that second stat to their defense and they don't risk rolling poorly. But later on they become trivial targets, because you're taking a value that scales relatively rapidly- the tripper's to-hit bonus, essentially, which goes up at least 1/level for a full BAB and jumps more whenever he gets a relevant feat, improves his weapon, or gets a better +Str item- and testing it against the target's Str and Dex modifiers, which.. well, don't go up 1/level.

[Seerow]

Honestly, if CMD/CMB used the best of Dexterity or Strength, rather than CMB being reliant on strength and CMD getting both added together, then the system would be workable, and run much smoother than 3.5's rules. That is, assuming you continue using 3.5 feats.

[ericgrau]

I don't remember the thread title where this was discussed but I did the numbers and found that dex balanced out with size bonuses and by some kind of wonky sort of happenstance everything came out to be about the same on optimized 3.5 vs. optimized PF. Except if you don't get permanently large at higher levels you're only 2 behind optimal instead of 5 behind. And you need 2 feats instead of 1, though you get a nice additional bonus effect on the 2nd feat which might be worth a feat by itself anyway.

Or basically dex makes it harder but now huge things aren't as hard to affect so in the end it all evens out and not much has changed.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Hm, I overlooked that "effects" part. True Strike on a combat maneuver is quite nice. That said, it'll be different for anyone with special modifiers to CMB.

Seerow: There's a feat (tax) for that.

[The Glyphstone]

What about the 'Miscellaneous' category?



Miscellaneous Modifiers
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.


That seems like an awful lot of potential bonus sources - does it have any noticable influence on the target DC to 'hit'?

[Drelua]

I don't see why everyone is so against what they did with the feats; sure, it takes a higher investment, but you get more feats in pathfinder anyway. Not to mention the extra effect with the 'greater' feats. I'll gladly take greater disarm to launch someone's weapon 15 feet away; instead of taking one move action to pick up the weapon, they now have to take 2 moves, a full round to go get the weapon. Not to say that the system is perfect; its way too easy to put your CMD through the roof, especially with the monk's AC bonus applying. I mean monk's are already immune to disarm and trip by virtue of their class features, why should it be so hard to pull off any other combat maneuver on them? I do, however, like that its harder to pull off a successful combat maneuver in Pathfinder than 3.5. I think, realistically, it should be harder to, say, trip someone than it is to resist being tripped.

Edit: I realize it may seem like I am saying monks are overpowered. That is not the case. I apologize for any confusion.

[Starbuck_II]

I do, however, like that its harder to pull off a successful combat maneuver in Pathfinder than 3.5. I think, realistically, it should be harder to, say, trip someone than it is to resist being tripped.

Edit: I realize it may seem like I am saying monks are overpowered. That is not the case. I apologize for any confusion.

That is issue. Not everone likes that it is harder to successful use a maneuver than 3.5.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I don't see why everyone is so against what they did with the feats; sure, it takes a higher investment, but you get more feats in pathfinder anyway.

Feats were already bad in 3.5. In PF, they took the only good core-only feats and nerfed them. An extra three feats doesn't make up for making you pay double to get good at a combat maneuver.

[Powerfamiliar]

I'm not sure many maneuvers are harder now. The main thing is you get to add any bonus to hit with the weapon you are using to the your CMB roll. Pretty significant bonus specially when you start adding bonuses from spells/feats/bards/situation, and fighters get to add their weapon training bonuses to it. My fighter had no trouble tripping enemies much bigger/larger than himself well into the mid-levels.


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.

[Starbuck_II]

I'm not sure many maneuvers are harder now. The main thing is you get to add any bonus to hit with the weapon you are using to the your CMB roll. Pretty significant bonus specially when you start adding bonuses from spells/feats/bards/situation, and fighters get to add their weapon training bonuses to it. My fighter had no trouble tripping enemies much bigger/larger than himself well into the mid-levels.

You only add tripping bonus if using a tripping weapon. Pathfinfer is very sure about that.

So what weapon was the Fighter using?

[Drelua]

Feats were already bad in 3.5. In PF, they took the only good core-only feats and nerfed them. An extra three feats doesn't make up for making you pay double to get good at a combat maneuver.

I don't disagree with you; I'll only take combat maneuver feats if I'm a monk or a fighter, thanks to the bonus feats, but like I said, you're not paying double for the same advantage. Maybe its not as good as some other feat choices, but the AoOs with trip and bullrush can be very useful, especially if the party rogue is flanking. I'm currently planning a character focused on bullrushing with a shield, using the dungeon crasher variant. If used properly, the feats can be great, if you use them right, but they take some planning to use well, as I think it should be, but that's just me; I'm sure a lot of people like combat maneuvers to be more powerful than I do. And of course, I'm no system master, so there;s a chance I don't know what I'm talking about. :smallwink:

[Powerfamiliar]

You only add tripping bonus if using a tripping weapon. Pathfinfer is very sure about that.

So what weapon was the Fighter using?

Was using both flail and guisarme/ranseur (whichever one is the tripping one).

[Hiro Protagonest]

I don't disagree with you; I'll only take combat maneuver feats if I'm a monk or a fighter, thanks to the bonus feats, but like I said, you're not paying double for the same advantage. Maybe its not as good as some other feat choices, but the AoOs with trip and bullrush can be very useful, especially if the party rogue is flanking.

It's worse than 3.5 version, where it was no action, just a free attack, so you and your allies still have the AoO for when he stands up.

[stainboy]

It seems like full BAB classes break even on everything but grappling, because they're likely to be smaller and higher BAB than their opponents.

Grappling got hit pretty hard though. You can't make iterative grapple attacks in PF.

[Zolthux]

well, first off, a CMB usually does something more dramatic that hitting the enemy with a stick would.

a successful CM can either partially disable an opponent or essentially make him lose a turn.

mechanically, this is very powerful, so it needs something that is accessible, but not by everyone

3/4 BAB classes will have a harder time achieving CM's, but this is expected as they also have a harder time hitting to begin with. Conversely, a straight up BAB class should have an easier time doing it. Strangely enough casters also have an easy time doing CM's with spell since the BAB is CL + relevant stat.

I think that making it a standard action over a free action in 3.5 is an improvement in terms of game balance, but it's obvious why people aren't happy about it.

As for the math behind it, let's look at hypothetical level 8 characters

the Fighter has a BAB of 8/2 with a str bonus of 4 and a dex bonus of 1 (whatever)

His CMB/CMD is +12/23

The Rogue has a BAB of 6/1, a str bonus of 1, and a dex bonus of 4 (again, hypothetical, im sure that a lot of builds have +5's by this point)

CMB/CMD is +7/21

there is a huge difference in cmb's but the CMD's are comparable because of the reliance on str/dex, both which are important stats for melee classes.

We would not be expected the class that is not supposed to be up there front and center to have an easier time grappling/tripping than one that does.

Casters are a funny sort, though...Let's look at hypothetical level 8 sorcerer with BAB 4, +0 str, +3 dex and +4 cha

any spell he casts that lets him to a CMB (Hydraulic push, telekinesis, toppling magic missile) use a CMB equal to CL + cha. His CMD doesnt change however.

We're looking at +12/17

It's interesting to note that the sorcerer can, at range, use CM's with a CMB bonus that match the fighter's. Of course, the weakness is the almost nonexistant CMD.

sure, there is Defensive combat training (which would make the sorc's CMD 21 and the rogue's 23), but we're assuming not feats.

We can then see why melee classes usually have a good/decent CMD and ok CMB's, whilst the casters benefit from a good CMB for spells, but have crap CMD.

That's the balance in my opinion as far as PC's are concerned.

But let's look at NPC's. I picked a random CR 8 monster to illustrate.

First off is the black dragon, which we expect to have a hard time pulling off a CMB on.

CMB/CMD are +15/27 (+4 vs trip).

should he go after the fighter, he needs to roll an 8+ (60% success rate)
For the fighter to grapple the dragon, he needs a 15+ (or 19-20 to trip) which means, on a good day he has a 25% of success. Remember we're not adding bonuses from feats/equipment (which monsters usually dont have anyway)

obviously the dragon is more likely to succeed on pulling off a CM than the fighter, BUT if the fighter succeeds, hes disabling the dragon for a turn, and this is a very powerful advantange on a 1 vs party scenario.

[Person_Man]

I think it heavily depends on whether or not you allow pre-Pathfinder material into Pathfinder. Theoretically Pathfinder is 100% backwards compatible. That was a big selling point for Paizo - that you wouldn't have to "throw away" any of your old books. But in reality, if you allow non-updated 3.0/3.5 material, then most of the Pathfinder material is just a joke.

More specifically, if you allow 3.03.5 material, then there are plenty of ways to generate Trip/Bull Rush/Grapple/etc checks via alternate means. And you can optimize your CMB checks just by optimizing your To-Hit and debuffing your enemy. (Whereas in 3.5, you would optimize your Size and/or opposed check, which ran on a separate rail).

For example, let's say you want a Trip build. Pick up Exotic Weapon Proficiency (or get it for free with magic) for the Ritiik (Frostburn), and now every time you hit an enemy he has to make a Reflex Save or you get a free Trip attempt. Maybe you'll also pick up the Shield Charge feat (Comp Warrior), and you get a free Trip whenever you Charge with a shield. Maybe take the Tunnel Fighter feat (Dungeonscape) and whenever you attack your enemy from higher ground your enemy must make a Balance check or be knocked Prone or give up his next Move action. Maybe pick up the Sand Snare feat (Sandstorm) and whenever you knock an enemy prone in an area of loose dirt/sand (which you can create via a variety of means) it's a full round action for him to stand up. Or create difficult terrain with Earth Devotion or spells. Invest a little into buffing your To-Hit (via dozens of spells, powers, soulmelds, X to Y abilities, etc) and you're set. (And that's before you get into things like Warhulk with a Skillful Weapon).

On the flip side, if you rule out all/most 3.0/3.5 material, then clearly it's harder. But it won't be for long. Paizo is publishing at a fairly fast pace. If I bothered to download their stuff and index it, I'm I could come up with a workable build focused on anything.

[subject42]

More specifically, if you allow 3.03.5 material, then there are plenty of ways to generate Trip/Bull Rush/Grapple/etc checks via alternate means.

Is 3.0.3.5 a typo, or some combination of 3.0+errata+other?

[FMArthur]

Is 3.0.3.5 a typo, or some combination of 3.0+errata+other?

He meant 3.0/3.5 there.

[Serenity]

The way I see it is this: Pathfinder's made some frankly stupid rulings on various maneuvers, which I ignore as a DM, and stick the maneuver feats back together, by having them scale up with level from Improved to Greater. But the CMB/CMD system itself strikes me as fine. My personal experience and all the math I've seen seems to suggest that maneuver checks are, at worst, no easier or harder to succeed at than in 3.5, while being considerably easier and more intuitive to make thanks to the unified mechanic. It ain't remotely perfect, but I'll take it over the 3.5 system any day.

[subject42]

He meant 3.0/3.5 there.

Thanks. It seemed odd, but the words of Person_Man are the words of gospel, so I was hesitant to doubt it.

[Gnaeus]

obviously the dragon is more likely to succeed on pulling off a CM than the fighter, BUT if the fighter succeeds, hes disabling the dragon for a turn, and this is a very powerful advantange on a 1 vs party scenario.

1. It is reasonable that a character in a 4 member party should have a 25% chance to neutralize an equivalent CR monster. However, the fighter has invested resources (2+ feats) into a fighting style, and he actually has rather less than a 25% chance of disabling the dragon for a turn. To be more precise, he has a 25% chance if the dragon is engaging him in melee on the ground. Given that this is a fairly foolish course of action for an intelligent flying creature with a built-in ranged attack, if the fighter or his team can somehow lure the dragon into engaging them on their terms, the fighter ought to have a significantly better chance of succeeding. This is a micro-example of a bigger problem. Grapple requires a very specific set of factors to be workable. It needs to be in melee. With a single opponent (because if you are fighting many enemies you are going to be trashed while you are grappling). There are lots of things that you can't grapple (incorporeals, etc), and lots more things that you don't WANT to grapple (Things that burn, are spiky, etc). Then there are lots of ways out of a grapple, even in PF only, and especially in PF+3.5 (Escape artist, freedom of movement, dimension door, etc.) So when the fighter is lucky to go toe-to-toe with an enemy that can't just negate his trick altogether, he should have a rather higher chance of success. It is very poor planning to invest 2+ feats that you could be using to dominate the battlefield in every combat in order to have a 25% chance to neutralize a single monster in a narrow set of circumstances.

Edit: Alternately, it is also reasonable for PCs to need to fight monsters of their own CR without party support (which grapple fighter usually can't do), or to face challenges like 2 monsters of Cr = Level +1 or 2, or one foe at CR = level +3 or 4. In those cases, grapple guy has to go home and cry. Likewise, fighting multiple monsters of CR < Party level makes grappler really lame.

2. Fighter CMB goes up more or less linearly. At level 14, that fighter will have about 8 points higher bonus (+6 bab, + a couple odd points of bonus from strength or other). But the Old black dragon has a 39 CMD, reducing fighter's chance of success to 10%. And the Old dragon has tons of options to negate the fighter's attack, or to raise his own CMD. Again, this is a small example of a bigger problem. The higher level you are, the less likely that trick is to succeed. Monster HD & Str scales faster than PC level & Str. And unlike the 3.5 fighter, the PF wizard can't easily polymorph his wrestling ally into a monster that can win grapple checks.

In 3.5, it is not really optimized to make a dedicated grappler, but it can be done. Druids, Totemists, even fighters with a transmuter ally can grapple most equivalent cr threats. In PF, you are eventually going to be really bad at grappling even in the situations where grappling would be helpful.

[Reverent-One]

2. Fighter CMB goes up more or less linearly. At level 14, that fighter will have about 8 points higher bonus (+6 bab, + a couple odd points of bonus from strength or other). But the Old black dragon has a 39 CMD, reducing fighter's chance of success to 10%.

You're missing a number of ways for the fighter to boost his CMB, most of which don't require focusing on just tripping, since anything that boosts his attacks also boosts his trip attempts. Without any real effort into boosting trip other than the two trip feats, a level 14 fighter can easily have a CMB of: 14 (BAB) + 6 (22 Strength, which is likely a bit low) + 4 (trip + greater trip) + 3 (Weapon Training) + 4 (a +4 magic weapon) = 31. He only needs an 8 to trip the dragon (6 if he took Weapon focus + Greater Weapon focus with the other dozen or so feat slots he has available), and while a dragon may be able to boost it's CMD or debuff his attacks, any spellcaster buddies the fighter has can boost his attacks or debuff the dragon's CMD. The fact that the dragon should really be flying is the big problem with tripping, but that doesn't change that you're misrepresenting the math.

[Gnaeus]

You're missing a number of ways for the fighter to boost his CMB, most of which don't require focusing on just tripping, since anything that boosts his attacks also boosts his trip attempts. Without any real effort into boosting trip other than the two trip feats, a level 14 fighter can easily have a CMB of: 14 (BAB) + 6 (22 Strength, which is likely a bit low) + 4 (trip + greater trip) + 3 (Weapon Training) + 4 (a +4 magic weapon) = 31. He only needs an 8 to trip the dragon (6 if he took Weapon focus + Greater Weapon focus with the other dozen or so feat slots he has available), and while a dragon may be able to boost it's CMD or debuff his attacks, any spellcaster buddies the fighter has can boost his attacks or debuff the dragon's CMD. The fact that the dragon should really be flying is the big problem with tripping, but that doesn't change that you're misrepresenting the math.

I wasn't misrepresenting the math, I was talking about grappling. I dont think there is a + grappling weapon. If there is, then I still wasn't misrepresenting the math, I was just wrong :smallsmile:.

Greater trip requires 3 feats. Combat Expertise is a prereq.

Tripping IS easier. But tripping doesn't immobilize a target. It has an even larger range of things that are immune to it than grappling does (like anyone who flies without wings). If the fighter trips the adjacent dragon, and the prone dragon replies with a full attack killing the fighter, is that a win?

[Reverent-One]

I wasn't misrepresenting the math, I was talking about grappling. I dont think there is a + grappling weapon. If there is, then I still wasn't misrepresenting the math, I was just wrong :smallsmile:.

Fair enough, I crit failed my comprehend post check. Sorry about that. Still, most of what I said still applies, the only thing that doesn't is the +4 weapon (unless there is a grapple weapon, which I'm not aware of, though I could be wrong). But in the case of a grapple fighter, a better strength boosting item than the belt of giant strength +2 I assumed in my strength calculations would be more important, as would weapon focus/greater weapon focus. Which leaves the fighter grappling the dragon on an 8, costing him 5 out of 15/16 feats (3 of which have some use outside of grappling) and a rather minor amount of wealth.

EDIT: And I forgot to take into account the size issue with our fighter grappling the huge dragon. He has to get an enlarge person spell cast on him, or buy some potions, but assuming he does so, that's another +2 to his grapple check.


Greater trip requires 3 feats. Combat Expertise is a prereq.

True.


Tripping IS easier. But tripping doesn't immobilize a target. It has an even larger range of things that are immune to it than grappling does (like anyone who flies without wings). If the fighter trips the adjacent dragon, and the prone dragon replies with a full attack killing the fighter, is that a win?

Sure, the fighter is sacrificing himself so that the spellcasters have another round to actually beat the thing. :smalltongue:

[Starbuck_II]

The fact that the dragon should really be flying is the big problem with tripping, but that doesn't change that you're misrepresenting the math.

The immunity to tripping from flying is a silly rule.
Only way to knock prone a flying character is the monk with punishing kick (awesome image, but otherwise less useful than stunning fist)

[Curious]

You know, for all this discussion on whether CMB/CMD makes it harder or easier or whatever to complete a combat maneuver, I still like it better than the old system. Because on the rare occasion that I actually do use a maneuver, I like being able to slap together my BAB and Strength and roll a die, no muss, no fuss.

[subject42]

(unless there is a grapple weapon, which I'm not aware of, though I could be wrong)

The Garrote and Mancatcher are both two-handed exotic melee weapons that have the grapple quality.

The garrote, however, is very situational.

[Gnaeus]

Fair enough, I crit failed my comprehend post check. Sorry about that. Still, most of what I said still applies, the only thing that doesn't is the +4 weapon (unless there is a grapple weapon, which I'm not aware of, though I could be wrong). But in the case of a grapple fighter, a better strength boosting item than the belt of giant strength +2 I assumed in my strength calculations would be more important, as would weapon focus/greater weapon focus. Which leaves the fighter grappling the dragon on an 8, costing him 5 out of 15/16 feats (3 of which have some use outside of grappling) and a rather minor amount of wealth.


You're missing a number of ways for the fighter to boost his CMB, most of which don't require focusing on just tripping, since anything that boosts his attacks also boosts his trip attempts. Without any real effort into boosting trip other than the two trip feats, a level 14 fighter can easily have a CMB of: 14 (BAB) + 6 (22 Strength, which is likely a bit low) + 4 (trip + greater trip) + 3 (Weapon Training) + 4 (a +4 magic weapon) = 31. He only needs an 8 to trip the dragon

OK, so lets assume that we have a dedicated grappler. He spends 5 feats (and frankly, only combat expertise helps him outside of grappling), and Weapon Training: Unarmed strike (which could have gone to an actual weapon, so more opportunity cost). CMB of: 14 (BAB) + 6 (22 Strength, which is likely a bit low) + 4 (grapple+ greater grapple) + 3 (Weapon Training) + 2 ( WF + GWF) = 29-2 (Frightful Presence). He succeeds on a 12 or better, or 45%.

This is also assuming that the DRAGON has no usable magic items, which is a pretty bad assumtion.

Of the CR 14 monsters, almost all fly. Almost all are intelligent. Many auto escape, by gaseous form, teleport, plane shift, D Door, permanent freedom of movement, or are so darn big they are just immune. The dragons are all casters. There are a very few with 37 CMD, many with 39-41, but lots have 42+

[Reverent-One]

OK, so lets assume that we have a dedicated grappler. He spends 5 feats (and frankly, only combat expertise helps him outside of grappling), and Weapon Training: Unarmed strike (which could have gone to an actual weapon, so more opportunity cost). CMB of: 14 (BAB) + 6 (22 Strength, which is likely a bit low) + 4 (grapple+ greater grapple) + 3 (Weapon Training) + 2 ( WF + GWF) = 29-2 (Frightful Presence). He succeeds on a 12 or better, or 45%.

Which is still far better than the 10% you hypothesized earlier. And throw in another +3 for strength (assuming a +6 belt of giant strength instead of a +2, plus the strength boost from becoming enlarged) and +1 size bonus for being large and you have success on a 8 or better.


Of the CR 14 monsters, almost all fly. Almost all are intelligent. Many auto escape, by gaseous form, teleport, plane shift, D Door, permanent freedom of movement, or are so darn big they are just immune. The dragons are all casters.

Certainly, and that's a flaw with going the grappling route, but it doesn't affect the math to make the attempt. Even autosuccess wouldn't help in any of those cases. Really, grappling anything that relies on natural attacks is likely to be a bad idea, as natural attack use is not disallowed within a grapple, though 3.5 gives grapplers a -4 to all attacks and PF gives a -2. The dragon is still able to simply go chomp chomp chomp on anyone that decides to grapple with it.

[Drelua]

and Weapon Training: Unarmed strike (which could have gone to an actual weapon, so more opportunity cost).

Slight problem; weapon training applies to a group of weapons, not just one. Unarmed strike is included in close, natural, and monk weapons, close probably being the best option in this case because it also includes daggers, shield bashes, etc. It is still an opportunity cost, of course, and would probably serve better as your secondary choice.

[stainboy]

The immunity to tripping from flying is a silly rule.
Only way to knock prone a flying character is the monk with punishing kick (awesome image, but otherwise less useful than stunning fist)

Skip Williams did a Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040706a) on this. It's all house rules (he explicitly states this), but it's there if you want it.

Short version: Any creature that flies with wings and has less than Perfect maneuverability can be tripped in the air. A tripped flier falls 150'. Flying creatures get modifiers based on maneuverability to resist trip attempts. Unfortunately it's +4 per step above Poor.

[Gnaeus]

Which is still far better than the 10% you hypothesized earlier. And throw in another +3 for strength (assuming a +6 belt of giant strength instead of a +2, plus the strength boost from becoming enlarged) and +1 size bonus for being large and you have success on a 8 or better.

Because I was assuming 2 feats instead of 5 and wasted weapon training. In other words, a fighter who had given himself a handicap, instead of one who had cut off his arm. I think a melee fighter under those circumstances would be better to take 5 archery feats and weapon training in bows, which will help him in a lot more circumstances. Focusing on your fighting style is even better of course.

And give the dragon a ring of deflection +2 and Heroism and it is back where it started. You don't think you are the only one with magic items or spells, do you? In a PF +3.5 game scintillating scales makes dragons immune to grapple, along with its other benefits.

And also remember, the purpose, as you pointed out, of the fighter using his maneuvers to delay the dragon was to give the casters time to kill it. If the caster has to delay to buff the fighter and debuff the dragon, in order to give the fighter...not a chance to kill the beast, but a chance to make the monster waste its turn, that seems like a pointless loop to me.

[Person_Man]

Still, most of what I said still applies, the only thing that doesn't is the +4 weapon (unless there is a grapple weapon, which I'm not aware of, though I could be wrong).

The Scorpion's Grasp (Sandstorm) feat gives you a free Grapple check whenever you hit an enemy, as do the the Mancatcher (Complete Warrior), Pincer Staff (Underdark), and Sharktooth Staff (Savage Species). Scorpion Claws (Sandstorm) also give you a +4 untyped bonus to Grapple checks (but no free check).

[Reverent-One]

Because I was assuming 2 feats instead of 5 and wasted weapon training. In other words, a fighter who had given himself a handicap, instead of one who had cut off his arm. I think a melee fighter under those circumstances would be better to take 5 archery feats and weapon training in bows, which will help him in a lot more circumstances. Focusing on your fighting style is even better of course.

Like focusing a bit on grappling/unarmed combat if one of your fighting styles is grappling/unarmed combat? Spending 5 feats on it still leaves a level 14 fighter with as many, if not more, feat slots than a level 14 character of any other class has in total.


And give the dragon a ring of deflection +2 and Heroism and it is back where it started. You don't think you are the only one with magic items or spells, do you?

Nitpick/ Heroism doesn't boost CMD /Nitpick
Which is about even odds, if Heroism did somehow boost CMD. And if you're grappling something you should be grappling, a humaniod of some sort using a weapon you can prevent them from using by grappling or a spellcaster, the math will often move more into the grappler's favor as they're less likely to be huge and/or have such an extremely large strength.


In a PF +3.5 game scintillating scales makes dragons immune to grapple, along with its other benefits.

Yep, and as I mentioned eariler, immunity to X trick affects whether or not you should be using X trick in the first place, not the math behind the trick.


And also remember, the purpose, as you pointed out, of the fighter using his maneuvers to delay the dragon was to give the casters time to kill it. If the caster has to delay to buff the fighter and debuff the dragon, in order to give the fighter...not a chance to kill the beast, but a chance to make the monster waste its turn, that seems like a pointless loop to me.

Well, hypothetically speaking, you could have buffs set from before the fight begins, and the casters could use debuffs for their own sake that also help the fighter's grapple attempts as a side effect. It depends on the casters and their spells really. Though if you're in the sort of party that thinks grappling the dragon is a good idea, then I could well see them going into the pointless loop you mentioned.