[PF] Enlarge Person does nothing to CMB?

[Frosty]

Your CMB is calculated off of your BAB, Str, and misc bonuses and penalties to-hit. Enlarge person gives +2 Str, which is a +1 to CMB. However, it also gives a -1 Size Penalty to attack rolls, which drops your CMB by 1. So...in the end you get nothing except a bit more damage and more reach? Is that it?

[yougi]

From what I understand, your penalty to attack rolls doesn't apply to CMB, which only considers your BAB (which is not affected by your size). Also, being large gives you a +1 to CMB.

[Psyren]

Both Strength and Size factor into CMB. So even if the attack roll penalty applies you should be coming out ahead.

[StreamOfTheSky]

For CMB and CMD, I think you're supposed to use the special size modifier for maneuvers instead of the normal modifier for attacks and AC, not in addition to it. But PF certainly isn't clear about it...

[JeenLeen]

CMB is based off of your base attack bonus, but any bonuses or penalties to attack rolls in general does not impact it. Also, it uses a different size modifier than the accuracy rolls. At least, that's my understanding. You can see the rules on the online SRD (copied below):

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html


Combat Maneuver Bonus: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula:

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

Creatures that are size Tiny or smaller use their Dexterity modifier in place of their Strength modifier to determine their CMB. The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMB when performing specific maneuvers.



By this and your description of Enlarge Person, you'd wind up with a net +2 (+1 Strength bonus increase and +1 size mod).


Both Strength and Size factor into BAB. So even if the attack roll penalty applies you should be coming out ahead.

Strength and size factor into your entire attack bonus, but they do not factor into your BAB. The Base Attack Bonus is determined by your class levels.

[Andvare]

From what I understand, your penalty to attack rolls doesn't apply to CMB, which only considers your BAB (which is not affected).

Wrong.

"Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects."

And

"Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."


CMB is based off of your base attack bonus, but any bonuses or penalties to attack rolls in general does not impact it.

Not true, see above.

Edit: It is a very common mistake, and is actually on the list of things that is not well known (a thread in the Paizo forum). This is probably due to the piss poor way it is written.

[JeenLeen]

Wrong.

"Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects."

And

"Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."

Edit: Bah! Stupid silent ninjas everywhere,

I can see that bonuses or penalties of different types can impact both the total attack bonus and CMB, I still think the size modifier would be using the special size modifier for combat bonus and defense, not the basic one that gets added into one's attack bonus.

At least, that's pretty clearly RAI, if not RAW. (Perhaps the Pathfinder Core Rulebook goes into more detail than the SRD.)

[Frosty]

Okay, so going from Medium to Large, you get +1 Size bonus to CMB, +1 from extra Str, and -1 size penalty to Attack Rolls, so that evens out to a +1 at least. Still a bit underwhelming, but oh well.

[oldkingkoal]

Heres a odd question. Lets say you are in an all small sized group. Would that be worth using in that situation since it would not be granting reach?

[Psyren]

Strength and size factor into your entire attack bonus, but they do not factor into your BAB. The Base Attack Bonus is determined by your class levels.

Whoops, meant to write CMB there.

[Andvare]

Okay, so going from Medium to Large, you get +1 Size bonus to CMB, +1 from extra Str, and -1 size penalty to Attack Rolls, so that evens out to a +1 at least. Still a bit underwhelming, but oh well.

The primary bonus from enlarge person is actually reach. You can get +2 to strength from Alter Self, without any of the drawbacks.
Your weapons also go up in size category, though that is rarely that important, and usually only result in a +1 damage per attack.
AN added bonus, considering combat manoeuvres, is that size does matter *ahem*, because you might actually not be able to use the combat manoeuvre at all if the size difference is too great.

[Keneth]

The size bonus and size penalty do not cancel each other out. You can only get one size modifier to attack (seeing as they don't stack), and combat maneuver rules override the default modifier as they take precedence over a general modifier.

So no, enlarge person actually nets you a +2 to CMB, assuming you're medium-sized to begin with.

[Andvare]

Heres a odd question. Lets say you are in an all small sized group. Would that be worth using in that situation since it would not be granting reach?

Situational. For example, large or larger monsters are too big for small sized characters to trip.

[Vent Reynolt]

Wrong.

"Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects."

And

"Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."


Wrong.


A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula:

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

...

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.


Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

The size modifier on attack rolls is replaced with the Special size modifier for CMB.

Edit: Wait... the penalty from Enlarge Person is in addition to the penalty from being size Large, isn't it? Wow... That's... just stupid. :smallsigh:
Boy do I look like an idiot. :smallsigh:

[Andvare]

Wrong.





The size modifier on attack rolls is replaced with the Special size modifier for CMB.

Funny how what I quoted is the same as what you quoted. You might want to actually read what you quote before you quote something.

BAB is not the only thing that applies to CMB, as is clearly stated in that quote you quoted.
Clear as mud, but still.

Just for fun, let's try this again:


Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.

[Keneth]

See my post above, size modifier to CMB overrides the size modifier to attack. They don't stack, and that's reflected in every stat block ever made for Pathfinder.

[Vent Reynolt]

See my post above, size modifier to CMB overrides the size modifier to attack. They don't stack, and that's reflected in every stat block ever made for Pathfinder.

While that is exactly the point that I'm getting at, the issue is that the Enlarge Person spell doesn't seem to reference the size category rules for its penalty on attacks. Meaning that, apparently... an enlarged creature (Assuming medium size) would have on a normal attack: +1 from Str, -1 from size (Large), /and/ -1 from Enlarge Person, for a net of -1 to all normal attack rolls.

That's... remarkably backwards.

[Andvare]

It is a long standing tradition that combat manoeuvre rules should be poorly written and poorly implemented. Paizo is only following tradition.

:smalltongue:

[Lord Vukodlak]

Funny how what I quoted is the same as what you quoted. You might want to actually read what you quote before you quote something.

BAB is not the only thing that applies to CMB, as is clearly stated in that quote you quoted.
Clear as mud, but still.

Just for fun, let's try this again:

That line DOESN'T APPLY TO SIZE. Because size is already mentioned in the base CMB calculation. By your logic you'd apply your strength and base attack attack modifier twice. Size is already counted as a bonus in the base formula there is no reason to apply it a second time as a penalty.

But to prove my point lets look at a few pathfinder monsters.

An Ogre has a CMB of +9.
Base Attack +3
Strength +5
Size +1
Equals nine

A hill giant has a CMB of +15
Base Attack +7
Strength +7
Size +1
Equals fifteen

Purple Worm CMB of 32
Base Attack +16
Strength +12
Size +4
Equals thirty-two

Pixie CMB of -1
Base Attack +2
Strength -2
Size -1
Equals minus one.

Size is applied once in the base formula.

[Vent Reynolt]

Funny how what I quoted is the same as what you quoted. You might want to actually read what you quote before you quote something.

BAB is not the only thing that applies to CMB, as is clearly stated in that quote you quoted.
Clear as mud, but still.

Just for fun, let's try this again:

You're right. Your post was clear as mud. :smalltongue:

I had thought you were trying to say that that the special size modifier on CMB (From being Large sized) applied as well as the Size modifier penalty on attack rolls (From being Large sized), which, isn't the case.

Looking at Enlarge Person again, I see how backwards it's written, considering that before I checked, I thought that the text was /reminding/ players of the penalty on attack rolls from being Large sized, not acting as an additional and separate penalty.


It is a long standing tradition that combat manoeuvre rules should be poorly written and poorly implemented. Paizo is only following tradition.

:smalltongue:

In this case, though, the problem isn't with the Combat maneuver rules, and simply with the text of the Enlarge person spell.

[Andvare]

That line DOESN'T APPLY TO SIZE.

When did I say it did?

Edit: You might actually want to read the post you quoted. Yeah I didn't cut off all of the post that I should have, but the post you quoted was relatively clear.

[Keneth]

the issue is that the Enlarge Person spell doesn't seem to reference the size category rules for its penalty on attacks

Seems like a pretty clear reference to me. :smalltongue:


and a -1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size

If the modifiers were meant to be separate from standard size modifiers, they would have worded it quite differently.

[Andvare]

You're right. Your post was clear as mud. :smalltongue:

I had thought you were trying to say that that the special size modifier on CMB (From being Large sized) applied as well as the Size modifier penalty on attack rolls (From being Large sized), which, isn't the case.

Looking at Enlarge Person again, I see how backwards it's written, considering that before I checked, I thought that the text was /reminding/ players of the penalty on attack rolls from being Large sized, not acting as an additional and separate penalty.



In this case, though, the problem isn't with the Combat maneuver rules, and simply with the text of the Enlarge person spell.

Granted, I should have been more careful about what part of the post I quoted.

[Frosty]

The size bonus and size penalty do not cancel each other out. You can only get one size modifier to attack (seeing as they don't stack), and combat maneuver rules override the default modifier as they take precedence over a general modifier.

So no, enlarge person actually nets you a +2 to CMB, assuming you're medium-sized to begin with.So does everyone agree with this? This makes Enlarge Person somewhat more useful.

[Vent Reynolt]

Seems like a pretty clear reference to me. :smalltongue:



If the modifiers were meant to be separate from standard size modifiers, they would have worded it quite differently.

Oh, I completely agree with you that this is the most obvious and clearly intended way to read that phrase, though I do think it might be possible to parse "...due to its increased size" as being distinct from a phrase like, "A large sized creature has a penalty..." Since the former could be attributed to clumsiness from suddenly doubling in size, while the latter applies to all creatures no matter how much of their lives were spent being 15 feet tall.


In the end, I think that by the intent of the spell, Enlarge Person should (Assuming a Medium sized creature to start) provide a net +0 on attack rolls, and a net +2 to CMB.

[Lord Vukodlak]

When did I say it did?

Edit: You might actually want to read the post you quoted. Yeah I didn't cut off all of the post that I should have, but the post you quoted was relatively clear.

Yougi was referring to the size penalty to attack rolls from being large, which made your quoting of the post appear to read the size penalty to attack rolls applied to CMB.

No it wasn't clear, if your post had been clear three people wouldn't have misunderstood what you were talking about.

[gr8artist]

yes, Enlarge person usually grants a total +2 to CMB, +1 to CMD, +0 to normal attack rolls, -2 to AC, +5' to reach, and a +1 step in weapon damage. You're mostly taking it for reach.
Note that using agile maneuvers or weapon finesse changes these rules. Get reduce person instead for much better perks.

[Dapple Birch]

Creatures in the bestiaries and the NPC codex do not have size modifiers to their attack rolls being applied to their CMB. Short of calling out every monster in all three bestiaries as written incorrectly I don't see how one can argue for size modifiers to attack rolls applying to CMB.


Off-topic time!(slighty)
I find the CMB numbers in the NPC codex's fighter section peculiar http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/npcCodex/core/fighter.html

Specifically there's a halfling fighter14 in there. The halfling's disarm CMB is listed as +23 after buffs:
+14 bab
+4 str
+2 morale(heroism)
+2 improved disarm
+2 greater disarm
-1 size
-----------
+23 total


What doesn't enter into that +23 is:
+1 enhancement(+1 bastard sword)
+3 weapon training(heavy blade)
+1 weapon focus(bastard sword)
+1 size bonus to attack rolls

Aside from the size bonus to attack rolls I'm pretty sure all of those apply to a disarm maneuver made with a bastard sword. I assume this is a concession made to simplicity, but short of being disarmed herself I can't think of a good reason for the fighter to not be using her sword when she attempts a disarm and a +5 to the check is a pretty substantial difference to leave out.

[Frosty]

yes, Enlarge person usually grants a total +2 to CMB, +1 to CMD, +0 to normal attack rolls, -2 to AC, +5' to reach, and a +1 step in weapon damage. You're mostly taking it for reach.
Note that using agile maneuvers or weapon finesse changes these rules. Get reduce person instead for much better perks.That sounds about right. y'know, the 3.5 Enlarge Person was never this complicated...

[StreamOfTheSky]

That sounds about right. y'know, the 3.5 Enlarge Person was never this complicated...

I'm quite aware, in fact!

[Lord Vukodlak]

That sounds about right. y'know, the 3.5 Enlarge Person was never this complicated...

No it was equally complicated, the 3.5 Enlarge person just didn't mention how size effected bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip at all. And if you consider how those maneuvers worked in relation to size, strength and dexterity it makes the 3.5 version more complicated.

[gr8artist]

The NPC is probably listed as doing his disarm check empty handed, so that he can immediately grab the enemy weapon as it becomes disarmed. It's the best way to disarm, and most people would find it easier to add 5 when he's just swatting it away with his weapon, than to subtract 5 when he's trying to grab the item.
Although, now that I think about it, I believe that there's a penalty when attempting to disarm empty handed... So maybe they just listed the base, or maybe they forgot.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The NPC is probably listed as doing his disarm check empty handed, so that he can immediately grab the enemy weapon as it becomes disarmed. It's the best way to disarm, and most people would find it easier to add 5 when he's just swatting it away with his weapon, than to subtract 5 when he's trying to grab the item.
Although, now that I think about it, I believe that there's a penalty when attempting to disarm empty handed... So maybe they just listed the base, or maybe they forgot.

There is a penalty for disarming empty handed but your point is still valid, just because the halfling is equipped with weapon X doesn't mean they'll be using it to disarm. They could use a gauntlet or a shield to avoid the risk of being counter-disarmed of their own weapon if they role low enough.

[Dapple Birch]

It does seem to go against their usual design philosophy for NPC's. If the NPC has mage armor prepared, or a potion of heroism on them the main stat block will use the modified stats with that buff. At the bottom the unmodified stats will be listed for clarity but in a condensed format.

P.S. sorry for hijacking your thread.