Pathfinder Pathfinder CMB/CMD, Yay or Nay? [Archive]

Geddy2112

2017-08-01, 11:36 AM

I like it,

However, I don't like the absurd amount of combat maneuvers that go along with it, including the really redundant ones like drag/reposition, bull rush/overrun. CMD serves well enough as a base resistance to maneuvers, although CMB might as well be your melee attack bonus because it is BAB+str(or dex if you have weapon finesse)+relative melee modifiers+maneuver specific modifiers. So that part is a little redundant.

Psyren

2017-08-01, 12:05 PM

Dr_Dinosaur

2017-08-01, 12:53 PM

Yeah, feat scaling/consolidation does wonders for martial builds in PF. I personally houseruled that Feint was a maneuver (with a few ways to use Bluff in place of BAB) and condensed the Improved Maneuver feats down to 4:
*Deft Maneuvers (Disarm, Trip, Reposition)
*Powerful Maneuvers (Bull Rush, Overrun, Sunder, Drag)
*Tricky Maneuvers (Steal, Dirty Trick, Feint)
*Unarmed Combatant (Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike; gained by Monk/Brawler at 1st level)
Then had them count as the appropriate prerequisites. It's worked pretty well.

I do also limit CMD to Dex or Str though, whichever's higher. Slows down monsters slightly so the tripper remains relevant longer against nonhumanoids

Waker

2017-08-01, 01:06 PM

Mostly yay, but there are too many feat taxes as a result. For monsters, CMD rises too fast for martial classes to keep up without devoting their entire build to a single maneuver or two. If the feat chains were consolidated down and made to scale (see my sig for one way of doing that) I would be much more on board.

Feats are one of the big things they screwed up in PF. While you do get more feats, the extension on feat chains means that martials mostly get the short end. One of the things they did do right in PF, is limit the annoying size modifiers somewhat. In 3.5, the bonuses from size were...well sizeable.

Grapple Checks
Colossal +16, Gargantuan +12, Huge +8, Large +4, Medium +0, Small -4, Tiny -8, Diminutive -12, Fine -16.
In PF, they scaled them down by half.

Taken from Special Size Modifier, Combat Maneuver Defense
Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8.

As a concept, the idea of a static DC for special attacks in nice. It's when they screw up alot of the accompanying material that things get sketchy. Take Psyren's advice and consolidate feats.

GrayDeath

2017-08-01, 01:38 PM

As with a lot of things, they basically made it simpler, easier to grasp and more reliable...but with Caveats.

So yayish, but with some nay ? ^^

Psyren

2017-08-01, 01:45 PM

I do also limit CMD to Dex or Str though, whichever's higher. Slows down monsters slightly so the tripper remains relevant longer against nonhumanoids

My problem with this approach is that you are now adding an extra calculation step - for every monster you have to figure out which stat their CMD is based on, instead of the cleaner approach of just adding both. It also means you're adjusting the printed CMD for every monster,and in most cases, only by a point or two. As you yourself mentioned, for most monsters this isn't going to affect them much anyway - most are either really strong but sluggish, or really agile but weak, and the size adjustments play a big part of that too. That's to say nothing of what happens when their scores change mid-fight and the other one takes the lead and now needs to be tracked. It's ultimately not worth all the work.

A better solution, if CMD is too high across the board, is to reduce the constant in the calculation - say from 10 to 8 or 6. But I think CMD being too high is a symptom of the feats problem rather than the CMD calculation itself.

CharonsHelper

2017-08-01, 01:47 PM

CMB/CMD > 3.5 version

No question

But that doesn't keep them from still being a rather messy sub-system.

Tuvarkz

2017-08-01, 01:50 PM

Nay, the math is completely borked, against appropriate CR enemies you need a dedicated build to have a passable chance at completing the maneuver when compared to a baseline attack's hitrate.

Gildedragon

2017-08-01, 02:02 PM

Crake

2017-08-01, 02:10 PM

The main thing I dislike about the CMB/CMD system is that a natural 20 automatically succeeds on your maneuver, making it possible for a random peasant to disarm the seasoned knight one in twenty times (assuming the peasant isn't cut down by the knight's attack of opportunity, which, if he misses on a 1, and does enough damage to kill the peasant on a minimum damage roll, still leaves the number at one in four hundred).

NomGarret

2017-08-01, 03:49 PM

I definitely prefer the CMB/CMD system, at least as a concept. There are still numbers problems, but getting players to wrap their head around how it works is a lot easier. Maneuvers are definitely overweighted, and as a result require far too much feat and ability investment to use reliably.

Zanos

2017-08-01, 04:20 PM

The Good:
Made size bonuses less hilarious
One check to keep track of, although most people don't bother with more than one combat maneuver anyway

The Bad:
More Feat Taxes
Monster scaling is broken

For the monster scaling bit, it's because monsters tend to have high physical stats and large numbers of HD for their CR. Since you add Str, Dex and BAB to CMD, it's pretty inflated on that end.

Overall I'd call it a wash. You could pretty much fix it by consolidating the combat maneuver feats back into a single +4 feat and letting people add strength or dex to CMD, but not both.

Elder_Basilisk

2017-08-01, 04:26 PM

There are plusses and minuses to the system.

Let's compare to 3.5
Simplicity and consistency. PF. All manuevers use CMB vs CMD.
3.5 some manuevers use touch attack plus opposed roll, some manuevers use straight opposed roll, and where there is an opposed roll, sometimes it is an opposed attribute roll and sometimes it is an opposed attack roll and sometimes it is a special opposed attack roll
without many of the normally applicable attack roll modifiers (grapple).

Now, the pf system is more unified and is simpler on the whole, but it's actually easier to use many of the 3.5 system for a lot of players who aren't familiar with the system. "Make an attack roll" to disarm is easier than, "roll with your CMD" (And don't get me started on the idiocy of having the two stats be CMD and CMB. The number of times new or inattentive players have to be explained which is which is staggering. If they didn't sound alike it would be much better).

In terms of scaling, the difference is not consistent due to the vast differences in how 3.5 combat maneuvers scaled. In 3.5, for example, trip didn't have a lot of scaling to it. A low level foe could potentially trip a high level PC with reasonable chances of success. Strength checks didn't scale very quickly. In Pathfinder, that's much harder. (In both systems, it requires a lot of feat expenditure to be good enough to make tripping a viable tactic against large monsters at high levels, but Pathfinder is a little better at it than 3.5). On the other hand 3.5 sunder and disarm scaled very similarly to Pathfinder. And Pathfinder grapple scales less quickly than the 3.5 version due to lower size bonuses and more generally applicable miscellaneous bonuses.

Now, as for my preference? I think I'd like to see if all scale less dramatically so that the manuevers remain viable for non-payment characters and effective for characters who are not hyper-specialized. (You shouldn't need to be a lore warden fighter with greater trip and several more feats for improved trip to still work by level 9). In that sense I think Pathfinder consolidated combat manuevers on the wrong mechanic by essentially taking the opposed attack roll as the baseline.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-01, 04:33 PM

Just wondering what you folk's opinion is on how pathfinder handles this stuff. Is it better? Worse? Same?
Much better, because it resolves faster and is more consistent between different maneuvers.

People tend to forget that you can use maneuvers just fine without any feats, if you use e.g. a reach weapon (to avoid OAs) and flanking or buffs/debuffs to improve your odds.

The theoretical objections that players have against it just don't hold up in practice.

Ken Murikumo

2017-08-01, 05:10 PM

Cool, glad to see im on a similar wavelength to most of you folks.

Lets change the question a bit:

Lets say, i make it so they choose either strength OR dex, and fix the feat taxes (mostly per the "elephant in the room feat tax" article that i am actually using ATM). Basically, the almost unanimous suggestion. I had actually planned almost that exact fix too!

So NOW, how does it fair compare to 3.5?

Waker

2017-08-01, 05:16 PM

Lets say, i make it so they choose either strength OR dex, and fix the feat taxes (mostly per the "elephant in the room feat tax" article that i am actually using ATM). Basically, the almost unanimous suggestion. I had actually planned almost that exact fix too!

So NOW, how does it fair compare to 3.5?

You mean getting rid of Agile Maneuvers and simply making the the attribute used a character choice for CMB? Or do you also mean to apply one of the stats to CMD?

Psyren

2017-08-01, 05:28 PM

You mean getting rid of Agile Maneuvers and simply making the the attribute used a character choice for CMB? Or do you also mean to apply one of the stats to CMD?

I believe it's the latter. Though I wouldn't mind getting rid of Agile Maneuvers too, and just baking it into Weapon Finesse. Then getting rid of that and simply making a "finesse" property that gets added to all light weapons and some 1H weapons, similar to how 5e does it.

Waker

2017-08-01, 05:37 PM

Getting rid of Agile Maneuvers is fine in my book. Like Psyren, I'm not much a fan of it or Weapon Finesse. But as far as making Str or Dex the stat used for CMB and CMD, it will make a difference. On the players' side, it will help with CMB a bit. On the monsters' end, not a big difference, since as was pointed out, most creatures are typically one or the other.

Dr_Dinosaur

2017-08-01, 06:14 PM

How would you guys fix the CMD scaling on monsters so that it's possible to keep up with some investment without basing your whole build on it?

BWR

2017-08-01, 06:24 PM

On the whole, I'm very much in favor of it. A single system that works for all combat maneuvers and similar mechanics to normal attacks is vastly preferable to the way it was before. The fact that you can be a 20th level rogue with Str 10 and still probably resist a 1st level barbarian with the correct feats, something which wasn't likely in 3.5, is a very good thing.
I'm also very much in favor of using CMB as the DC for avoiding AoOs from folks. Again, it's good that a 1st level guy can't freely tumble around a 20th level combat expert.
The aforementioned feat taxes by splitting up the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feats from 3.5 was a bad idea, but easily fixed with a simple house rule.

Psyren

2017-08-01, 06:40 PM

How would you guys fix the CMD scaling on monsters so that it's possible to keep up with some investment without basing your whole build on it?

I wouldn't; I would fix the feats and items. That's much less work than editing every current and future monster entry.

1) Consolidate the feat chains as you mentioned (e.g. Deft Maneuvers, Powerful Maneuvers etc) and let them automatically upgrade to their Greater and Quick versions at the requisite levels.

2) PF has a rule that if you use a weapon to perform a maneuver, you get to add its enhancement bonus to your check. I would let this apply to some maneuvers that currently don't get to benefit. For example, Amulet of Mighty Fists, and any weapon with the grapple property, should let you apply this to grapples. That gets you a free +5 to most maneuvers.

That would bridge the gap with minimal investment, allowing a character to specialize in multiple maneuvers at once, or to focus on just one while having lots of feats left over for other things, like crafting, style feats, item mastery etc.

CharonsHelper

2017-08-01, 07:13 PM

I wouldn't; I would fix the feats and items. That's much less work than editing every current and future monster entry.

1) Consolidate the feat chains as you mentioned (e.g. Deft Maneuvers, Powerful Maneuvers etc) and let them automatically upgrade to their Greater and Quick versions at the requisite levels.

2) PF has a rule that if you use a weapon to perform a maneuver, you get to add its enhancement bonus to your check. I would let this apply to some maneuvers that currently don't get to benefit. For example, Amulet of Mighty Fists, and any weapon with the grapple property, should let you apply this to grapples. That gets you a free +5 to most maneuvers.

That would bridge the gap with minimal investment, allowing a character to specialize in multiple maneuvers at once, or to focus on just one while having lots of feats left over for other things, like crafting, style feats, item mastery etc.

Those aren't bad, but the KISS method would probably be to piggyback off of Unchained's Stamina system and add a feat which lets you use Stamina to count as a size equal to your target with proportional bonus to your roll equal to the size & standard STR modifiers.

Really - CMB/CMD mostly just breaks down against really big things.

stack

2017-08-01, 08:10 PM

Those aren't bad, but the KISS method would probably be to piggyback off of Unchained's Stamina system and add a feat which lets you use Stamina to count as a size equal to your target with proportional bonus to your roll equal to the size & standard STR modifiers.

Really - CMB/CMD mostly just breaks down against really big things.

I assembled a spreadsheet awhile ago, showing CMD without size bonuses as part of a discussion for Spheres of Might. Didn't bother with CR below 10. Only covers the monsters in the database I was using.

Here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Sd8AtCqtXcaIOj1AaTIgYPYwHbjJhmeil1hb3POvGAs/edit?usp=drivesdk).

Psyren

2017-08-01, 08:43 PM

Those aren't bad, but the KISS method would probably be to piggyback off of Unchained's Stamina system and add a feat which lets you use Stamina to count as a size equal to your target with proportional bonus to your roll equal to the size & standard STR modifiers.

Really - CMB/CMD mostly just breaks down against really big things.

I don't know that I like that. Sure it lets you keep pace with big things, but it means that maneuvering against medium things doesn't get much easier either. I feel like if you put in the investment to be able to grapple a dragon, that pinning an orc warlord should be cake; I just want that investment to be smaller and leave room in the build for other fun things.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-02, 12:57 AM

Lets say, i make it so they choose either strength OR dex, and fix the feat taxes
Bear in mind that feats like improved trip in 3E say "you get a free attack after a trip" whereas in PF they say "everyone gets a free attack after a trip". This is why they get prerequisites; whether the bonus is +2 or +4 is ultimately not a huge deal.

Getting rid of Agile Maneuvers is fine in my book. Like Psyren, I'm not much a fan of it or Weapon Finesse.
The likely result of this change is that nobody ever plays a str-build again, since dex-builds will be automatically better at everything. I'm not convinced that's an improvement.

Dr_Dinosaur

2017-08-02, 01:02 AM

Dex builds are worse at dealing damage, but yes shockingly dexterous characters will be better at wrestling and tripping

Kurald Galain

2017-08-02, 01:09 AM

Dex builds are worse at dealing damage,

Not with piranha strike, dervish dance, or an agile weapon.

Sayt

2017-08-02, 02:06 AM

Dex doesn't get the +50% from twohanding, but they do fine anyway.

Overall, yay, definately in favor of CM. I'd maybe kick the scaling up on the feats that give bonuses to reduce the need for item bonuses to CMB.

RedWarlock

2017-08-02, 03:27 AM

I like the idea of compiling it together, mostly. (3e was definitely a mess) But, I wish it had divided into an agility-based concept and a force/stability-based one.

Mostly I love that 4e made use of the Fort defense as a stability defense for some combat maneuvers, as well as merging Touch AC into Reflex def, and then used the Acrobatics and Athletics skills as the active check. Two offenses and two defenses, gives some variability.

Also, the CMB/CMD acronyms are annoying as all getout. I wish they'd devised a new term for each.

Psyren

2017-08-02, 10:17 AM

The likely result of this change is that nobody ever plays a str-build again, since dex-builds will be automatically better at everything. I'm not convinced that's an improvement.

You already don't need Agile Maneuvers for many of them, and Unchained Rogues get WF for free too. That hasn't sounded a death knell for STR builds yet, nor will it.

Strength has its own advantages, like encumbrance. Sure magical storage exists, but if you die before you can afford any of it because you were trying to adventure with a heavy load all the time or you drown, it's kind of moot.

Zanos

2017-08-02, 10:21 AM

The likely result of this change is that nobody ever plays a str-build again, since dex-builds will be automatically better at everything. I'm not convinced that's an improvement.
I think it's something to be careful with, certainly. If you could take two feats to replace dex stuff with Strength(in particular AC/Ref Saves/Skills), every strength build in the game would be all over them. Strength to AC and reflex saves? Yes please.

So when people think two feats for dex to hit and damage and other stuff are fair I look at the reverse.

Psyren

2017-08-02, 10:24 AM

I wasn't talking about dex to damage though (I actually agree that shouldn't be quite as easy as PoW makes it.) I was talking about getting Dex to combat maneuvers more easily.

Zanos

2017-08-02, 10:26 AM

I wasn't talking about dex to damage though (I actually agree that shouldn't be quite as easy as PoW makes it.) I was talking about getting Dex to combat maneuvers more easily.
Yeah, dex for maneuvers isn't something that's going to supplant strength builds on it's own. In general replacing other stats is something to watch out for.

CharonsHelper

2017-08-02, 10:42 AM

You already don't need Agile Maneuvers for many of them, and Unchained Rogues get WF for free too. That hasn't sounded a death knell for STR builds yet, nor will it.

I will point out - it did sound a death knell for STR U-Rouge builds.

(I remember a guy ranting about it on the Paizo boards, because apparently he was a fan of STR Rogue builds b4 the U-Rogue and going with a STR build Ninja or Slayer instead wasn't good enough.)

It's just that a 3 level dip into U-Rogue is too high of a cost to get Dex to dmg for most builds. (Though a 3-4 level dip isn't terribly uncommon either.)

Psyren

2017-08-02, 10:50 AM

Even assuming that one guy's alleged rant is accurate, I'm not sure how significant it is to kill something that barely existed before and probably shouldn't have in the first place.

Besides, free WF doesn't stop your rogue from benefiting from Strength, if you really want to build "Bozzok." It's not like Finesse Training keeps them from adding Str to damage with every weapon or makes Power Attack illegal for them to take. Just ignore that one class feature, it's not hard.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-02, 10:52 AM

Strength has its own advantages, like encumbrance.
Hahahaha!

That's the most ridiculous argument I've heard all week. If dex builds get their feats for free, then str builds are still balanced because even though they're inferior in every other way, they can carry useless stuff around... :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

CharonsHelper

2017-08-02, 10:56 AM

Hahahaha!

That's the most ridiculous argument I've heard all week. If dex builds get their feats for free, then str builds are still balanced because even though they're inferior in every other way, they can carry useless stuff around... :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

I mean - STR builds don't have to spend any money buying a donkey at low levels to carry their stuff until they can afford a Handy Haversack!

Besides, free WF doesn't stop your rogue from benefiting from Strength, if you really want to build "Bozzok." It's not like Finesse Training keeps them from adding Str to damage with every weapon or makes Power Attack illegal for them to take. Just ignore that one class feature, it's not hard.

It is one of the class's 3 major combat features. (Dex to attack/damage, Sneak Attack, and Debilitating Strike.) You are inherently gimping yourself if you ignore one of them.

Psyren

2017-08-02, 11:02 AM

Hahahaha!

That's the most ridiculous argument I've heard all week. If dex builds get their feats for free, then str builds are still balanced because even though they're inferior in every other way, they can carry useless stuff around... :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Reading is fundamental, I didn't say anything about Dex to damage. Even with free Agile Maneuvers, Str still has the advantage.

It is one of the class's 3 major combat features. (Dex to attack/damage, Sneak Attack, and Debilitating Strike.) You are inherently gimping yourself if you ignore one of them.

If you're worried about gimping yourself, why the hell are you playing a Strength rogue? :smallconfused: Is such a person aware of the reason parties recruit rogues in the first place?

CharonsHelper

2017-08-02, 11:12 AM

If you're worried about gimping yourself, why the hell are you playing a Strength rogue? :smallconfused: Is such a person aware of the reason parties recruit rogues in the first place?

I'm not. And neither is anyone else. That's was sort of the point.

Snowbluff

2017-08-02, 11:12 AM

CharonsHelper

2017-08-02, 11:17 AM

Nay.

Adding BAB too the equation messes with the scaling with class that don't have full bab, and monsters that scale with high HD. I'm more partial to an approach with some bonded accuracy like the old way or 5e.

Except the OP was about Pathfinder being better/worse than 3.5's maneuver rules - which also works off BAB. 5e has nothing to do with it.

Psyren

2017-08-02, 11:33 AM

I'm not. And neither is anyone else. That's was sort of the point.

And my point is that if you want to play a Strength rogue, you should be willing to accept that not every rogue feature is going to be applicable to your situation. Finesse Training being one of them.

I mean, you don't have to accept that, but dental reconstruction for the teeth grinding is probably going to be expensive.

CharonsHelper

2017-08-02, 11:34 AM

And my point is that if you want to play a Strength rogue, you should be willing to accept that not every rogue feature is going to be applicable to your situation. Finesse Training being one of them.

I mean, you don't have to accept that, but dental reconstruction for the teeth grinding is probably going to be expensive.

That's fine.

My entire initial point was to use it as a proof that if Dex were able to replace Str's attack & damage easily, Str builds would become obsolete.

Zanos

2017-08-02, 11:39 AM

Except the OP was about Pathfinder being better/worse than 3.5's maneuver rules - which also works off BAB. 5e has nothing to do with it.
Not all the 3.5 combat maneuvers factor BAB in. Trip is Strength vs. Strength or Dex. Bull rush is Strength vs Strength. Sunder and grapples are opposed attack rolls with size bonuses, so only those two count BAB.

Psyren

2017-08-02, 11:45 AM

That's fine.

My entire initial point was to use it as a proof that if Dex were able to replace Str's attack & damage easily, Str builds would become obsolete.

I agree, which is why (for yet another time) I said nothing about Dex to Damage.

Necroticplague

2017-08-02, 02:46 PM

CMB/CMD is a good idea. Rolling attack vs. static defences improves the game flow, especially for online plays like these forums (since you don't need both parties to roll to figure out what happened). As does standardizing the defense used, so you don't have to memorize as much. The fact that CMD tends to rise too fast was actually a problem in 3.5 as well, it was just a harder to notice one because the statblock didn't have a specific line for it.

martixy

2017-08-02, 05:11 PM

It's a universal improvement upon 3.5, but not a panacea.

...but not through fault of its own. The problem detailed in this thread by many others, of the artificially inflated monster ability scores and HD, is not a problem of the subsystem, but a significantly more fundamental issue that affects not just maneuvers but a whole host of other aspects of the game.

I wouldn't; I would fix the feats and items. That's much less work than editing every current and future monster entry.

1) Consolidate the feat chains as you mentioned (e.g. Deft Maneuvers, Powerful Maneuvers etc) and let them automatically upgrade to their Greater and Quick versions at the requisite levels.

2) PF has a rule that if you use a weapon to perform a maneuver, you get to add its enhancement bonus to your check. I would let this apply to some maneuvers that currently don't get to benefit. For example, Amulet of Mighty Fists, and any weapon with the grapple property, should let you apply this to grapples. That gets you a free +5 to most maneuvers.

That would bridge the gap with minimal investment, allowing a character to specialize in multiple maneuvers at once, or to focus on just one while having lots of feats left over for other things, like crafting, style feats, item mastery etc.

1) is a neat idea that I'm gonna nick. Well, the second part anyway.

And now, some waxing lyrical for my own benefit:
I personally like the idea of relegating Str for Powerful maneuvers and Dex for Agile maneuvers. This also neatly resolves the redundancy problem as Reposition now becomes Dex based and Drag - Str based. Granted you might view this as a solution caused by an artificial divide, but if the only argument is the reduction of feat taxes, there are other things to do.

For example, I allow some of the most basic feat taxes to be "bought" with BAB - i.e. every multiple of a certain BAB you reach you get one free feat from a very specific list.

Given the availability of 2 flaws and PF's faster feat progression, most mock builds I did under the arrangement have enough feats left over to branch out into whatever tactical, creation or fun-expanding feats as suit your whimsy.