Convince me PF's CMB and CMD are better than 3.5's opposed checks

[Aotrs Commander]

I'm going to talk this over with my group in a few minutes when I go out to the club, but for the sake or arguement (especially as it means a BIIIG pass through my besitary AND re-designing all the character sheets if I elect to implement it...)

Forum goers, please make me the case why PF's CMB (including BAB) vrs CMD as attack-verses-armour class for all combat maneuvers is better than the opposed stat checks in 3.5 (aside from the opposed grapple checsk, which has BAB).

(Other than big obvious "it's standardised.")

I'mma listen'.



(Current implementation as written half-and-half, still mostly opposed checks, some with BAB; considered halfway-way house solution, CMD is D20+, not 10+)

[Hellpyre]

Well, it standardizes it :P

But really, what it does is makes it possible to apply bonuses and penalties to all combat manuveurs at once, and gives a way to integrate new systems into what is covered without a lot of text copying the bonuses applied to pre-existing actions.

So basically, I'd say what it dies better is make the system more easily extensible and more compact (look at Spheres of Might and imagine having to spell out individual checks or invent new types on the fly everywhere CMD shows up).

[Khedrac]

I think the main point is not that they are "better" (which is purely an objective measure and depends on one's personal tastes) but thay they are simpler.

3.5 D&D's rules for bullrushes, overruns, disarms, trips and sunders are notoriously complex, with different but related mechanisms for resolution.
Then grappling (which in my experience is more common) raises the complexity and confusion to a new level of magnitude!
This usually means that the rules need to be checked whenever they come up in play (unless a character specialising in them is present) interrupting the flow of the game.

Replacing these with the Pathfinder system reduces the complexity and speeds up play but at the cost of the model stepping further away from reality.

Better? - well that depends on what you want out of your game.

[Crake]

3.5 D&D's rules for bullrushes, overruns, disarms, trips and sunders are notoriously complex, with different but related mechanisms for resolution.
Then grappling (which in my experience is more common) raises the complexity and confusion to a new level of magnitude!

I mean, are they? At least, in the opposed checks department? The outcomes might be complex, but they're mostly exactly the same in pathfinder after the opposed checks. When it comes to opposed checks however, bullrush and overrun are opposed strength, trip is strength vs strength or dex, and disarm and sunder are opposed attack rolls, while grapple is just opposed grapple.

Oh, and pathfinder makes things more complicated by having weapon finesse apply to some maneuvers, while having to get a separate feat for other maneuvers, in the dextrous maneuvers feat.

I also think grapple is more complicated in pathfinder to be perfectly honest, what with having to track who's specifically grappling who, and having to actually roll every round just to maintain the grapple, making it a horrendous feat investment just to be able to do anything more than "Grab". I actually legit don't understand why people think 3.5 grappling is so complicated, when pathfinder literally has a flowchart to help people with their grapple system.

[AvatarVecna]

Consolidating everything into a couple of stats makes things simple to keep track of and makes it all one roll instead of two without anybody being shorted on their defenses. Additionally, Bull Rush and Trip do not account for BAB in the 3.5 versions, and I think general combat prowess should be useful in both attempting and resisting such maneuvers.

[Fizban]

Can't do it bub, the PF version isn't better. I will agree that tripping should include BAB though, because it's an obvious part of combat that people are trained to do and trained to resist, and it reduces the unstoppability of trips at later levels. Overrun can also knock people prone, but it's explicitly its own standard action without a pile of bonus free damage attached to it over time.

Of course, based on your other thread, you don't seem to think there's anything wrong with doubling (or more) the number of feats for fighters, so I would expect you find the unstoppability of trip a feature. Incidentally, the true answer to that question is whether the other non-casters can match the 2x fighter, and whether you consider them being able to take and spontaneously use every combat maneuver option at maximum power is okay (remembering that only Schrodenger's wizard has this power, not actual builds).

[Psyren]

I'm not really here to "convince you," so much as list some pros and cons for each approach and let you decide based on that which you prefer.

Some Pros of CMB/CMD:


More streamlined: all maneuvers are a single roll+modifier vs. a single target number. No "first I need to touch attack, then I opposed check, then I need to make another attack roll to avoid being counter-disarmed" etc etc.
Less monster math on the front-end: CMB/CMD can be calculated ahead of time (and are, if you're using PF monsters.) You can also prepare the numbers to include common party buffs if your party has a routine, and then just refer to that number when you get into a fight, or the base number if you were dispelled or didn't get buffed that encounter.
Future-proofed design: This relates to the pro above - with CMB/CMD you can add new maneuver types (which PF did) after core, without having to go back and update dozens of statblocks. We saw this with the likes of new PF maneuvers like Reposition, Dirty Trick, and Steal. You can also make unique/one-off "maneuvers" e.g. as part of spells or monster abilities, and use the same resolution mechanic of CMB vs. CMD that merely call for a CMB check without having to invent something more involved.
Easier to boost: attack rolls are easier to buff than ability checks, which creates mechanical depth and encourages teamplay.


Some Cons of CMB/CMD:


Potential scaling issues: CMD uses both Str and Dex, while CMB typically only gets one. Monsters also tend to grow in size and defenses as their CR increases, while martial PCs tend to stay in the Small->Medium range - sometimes hitting Large through buffs, and rarely going past that. This puts martials - the primary users of CMB - at a growing disadvantage that they will need multiple buff types to bridge.
More modifier tracking:This is the flipside of these statistics being easy to boost, it means you also need to be aware of things that might boost (or penalize) them unintentionally. For example, at low levels several groups miss the fact that Protection from Evil (a deflection bonus) boosts the target's CMD as well as their AC; the spell does not contain a reminder. Similarly, you need to track your CMB for maneuvers that use your weapon (which likely has myriad bonuses of its own, both from the weapon itself and from feats or class abilities) differently than ones that don't, instead of just being able to use one opposed check. Some weapons can even have variable bonuses, like Furious and Bane weapons, that change the result of your check depending on the situation. Ultimately it can be a lot of mental real estate, which I personally don't mind but one of 5e's selling points relative to 3e/PF was simplicity.


There are probably more in both columns but those stood out to me.

[Aotrs Commander]

Whelp, it's apparently going to be an easy sell, since talking it over with the parts of the group that were there, the other major DM was like, "yeah, just do it," and thus it will be done...



One exception from porting across is the grappling rules, where I looked at PF, looked at 3.5, said "naw, neither are good enough" and entirely re-wrote them to my own satisfaction with the best elements of both (and adding in all the stuff like improved grab/constrict/swallow whole which should have been put in that grapplong section as well as the monster rules ANYWAY.




Of course, based on your other thread, you don't seem to think there's anything wrong with doubling (or more) the number of feats for fighters, so I would expect you find the unstoppability of trip a feature. Incidentally, the true answer to that question is whether the other non-casters can match the 2x fighter, and whether you consider them being able to take and spontaneously use every combat maneuver option at maximum power is okay (remembering that only Schrodenger's wizard has this power, not actual builds).

Nope, we've had fighters with that many feats for ages, and it's never been a problem (and this incuding the campaign that went to bottom Epic with a pure fighter), especially when you consider warblades are floating around. A fighter still has less feats even with 21 feats plus stuff than a wizard does spells, and still can't do stuff like Black Tentacles plus Cloudkill, which is a favorite-in-actual play tactic of one of the current wizards; so if a fighter wants to spend a load of feats trying to get good at every combat maneuver (they still ain't gonna have enough feats to get good at all of them), instead of just having Big Numbers, it's not going to be a problem. (There's also a boat-load more stuff in PF that lets you do combat maneouvers on top of other stuff, which is why fully changing over has been wearing me down.)

The other noncasters have all been boosted to at least PF levels already (and I've been looking at handbooks as a guidelines to make adjustments for stuff that still is under-par.) My attitude is always "buff to to top," rather than "bring down to lowest."




Ultimately it can be a lot of mental real estate, which I personally don't mind but one of 5e's selling points relative to 3e/PF was simplicity.


I mean, if I wanted simple, I wouldn't be basically hybridising the two arguably most crunchy rules-systems I can think off of the top of my head...!




Character sheet re-work should take care of a chunk of that, since I'll essentially just have a new row for CMD which is broken down like the AC row is. CMB for different things can probably just go in the weapon bit or the misc section where we put feats and stuff, honestly for PCs for the amount it'll be needed (and I mean, it's just notes in the monsters).

[Akal Saris]

Glad that you came to a decision, and good luck!

Personally I prefer Pathfinder's grapple rules since I find them a little easier to remember, but honestly, both systems are too damn complicated, so I applaud you for making your own rules :smallbiggrin:

[martixy]

Random game design note:

The range of operation for most resolution rolls within D&D is 19 (the max minus the min result on a D20 die), and the probability distribution is perfectly flat. The range of operation on opposed die rolls is twice that - up to 38, with a bell curve(kinda) distribution.

IMO standartizing the maneuver resolution mechanic to the default one for the game is objectively good game design.

[Aotrs Commander]

Longer job than I thought it would be, because of course it has to be...

But after a late evening's sorting of rules/feats/spells/powers wording out, started on the bestiary from my homebrew world. Since, unlike the bestiary for elsewhere, I can't save some time by now straight copying PF (ironically after all that time last time I did this recalculating 3.5 grapple when porting in PF stats...) and realised the fun that, oh bugger, on homebrew world, having taken away all +enchancement bonuses from weapons and armour/deflection/etc to have a standard progression for everything to get a level-based bonus to weapons (inc. unarmed)/armour, a different one for natural weapons (and half for secondary natural weapons) that I have to note down said + bonus with the CMB, and then factor in the level bonus I gave stuff for CMD (and add flat-footed CMD) as well for added complexity...!

Serves me right, I guess, I thought homebrew bestiary would be the quickest job...



And THEN I've got juggle the character sheets still...!



*skulldesk*

*skulldesk*

*skulldesk*

[Firechanter]

FWIW, when I first read the PF combat maneuver rules -- around 2008 or so, might be PF was still in Beta then -- I was totally thrilled, and we imported the whole bloc to our Conan D20 game (which otherwise mostly uses the 3.0 or 3.5 core rules).

Couple months later, we switched back because we were rather disappointed and bored with it. Everything feel samey. "Standardization" might be a big sell at first, but when it doesn't matter if you try a Bull Rush, Disarm or Trip or whatever, well, then it doesn't matter. What I liked about the 3E rules is how some maneuvers are better against some monsters than others.

That said, my home group has switched to Pathfinder for good some 3 years ago and we've just been using the CM system as written and everyone's okay with it. I don't really care about my previous objections anymore. It still has its issues -- cf Psyren -- but on the whole it's acceptable.

Disclaimer: Special Attacks / Combat Maneuvers were much more important in Conan than they are in PF, due to the generally low power level. In PF I hardly ever care to use them offensively -- I just attack for damage and that's much more efficient most of the time. So my main interest there is to pump my CMD so high that the enemies can't get _their_ CMs through against me.

[KillianHawkeye]

CMB/CMD isn't trying to be better than 3.5's opposed check system, it's only trying to be simpler.

[Aotrs Commander]

Okay.

Cold light of dawn.

Serious look at the system and the numbers I came at last night (even taking awya the house rules), and I'm not happy that, as it stands, it's quite right.

CMD seems to scale VERY much higher at high level for monsters and monsters with any kind of dodge or deflection bonuses are just nightmare fuel as far as CMD goes. (It appears to be fine for humanoids, so changes there ought to be minimised).

The size cap for what you can, for instance, bull rush is still there, but is somewhat less relevant, on the basis that creatures that big often have high enough Str to make it rather infeasible for a character to do it anyway.

This unfairly screws half of the combat maneuvers, re: any which don't allow weapons.

The problem appears to be mostly on the size and strength issues, compounded by high-Dex monsters with good Strength.




Reading a thread on Paizo, someone reasonably pointed out, is that size is double-dipping (triple-dipping if you account for the size limitations; big monsters typically have high HD for CR (so good BAB) AND good Strength AND there's less room for Dex to counter that (there are not many monsters with Dex of 6 or less, and that's only -2). You don't get a-8 To Dex for getting big like you geta +8 bonus to Str, so at best, Dex to CMD is a migitating factor for low Dex, and very strong for high (and insane if you happen to have, say a dragon Monk or something.)

Strength makes sense for some maneuvers, but others (dirty trick, steal) it doesn't.

An ogre can throw sand in the face of a pixie more easily than a pixe can throw sand in the face of an ogre. That ain't right. (Especially in face of the logical that a Tiny pixie WOULD be able to do it more easily, becausde she suddenly can use Dex not Str.)

So, I'm starting to think that size ought to be a hard counter to some combat maneuvers, but but have no ability to soft-counter (let the higher Str do that). (OR at the very least, hard-counters should go away, because Ant-Man is a thing, and if a PC is good enough, they ought to damn well be able to trip/bull rush an elephant.)



Possible solutions, initial thoughts:

1) Switch CMD to Touch AC + Str + BAB. This basically penalises big size again, but they ALREADY get compensated by that by the default size bonuses to Str. The straight size caps to maneuvers mean that you can't bull-rush an elephant ANYWAY, so it doesn't need to get a bonus on that as well.

(Someone calculated that if you null the size modifiers on CMD, you get about a +10% at the 13-20 level range, where you're only at about 30% chance of success even after that - this change would likely further tweak those chances. to be better, while still ostensibly leaving it more or less unchanged for humanoids.)

2) Switch CMD to Touch AC + current special size mod + BAB, huge and bigger creatures substitute their Strength for their Dex (maybe drop that to large?). (I.e. the reverse of what Tiny and small creatures get on CMB.)

3) Switch CMD to Touch AC + current special size mod + BAB, may substitute Str for Dex is higher


(They have some fringe benefits of being a little easier for me to put on the character sheet.)


Still problems of not all maneuvers using weapons and how to deal with that issue.

Thinking ongoing.



Edit: Next thoughts:

Have CMD Dex and CMD Str, manuvers specifiy which one you attack against. (E.g Overrun/bull rush/grapple/drag = Str, Dirty Trick/steal = Dex, trip (+ reposition?) = Str or Dex, Disarm/sunder = Str unless Finesse).

CMD Dex = Touch AC + BAB (+size?)

CMD Str = Touch AC + BAB, substitute Xtr for Dex (+size?)

[Kesnit]

CMB/CMD is so much easier to use than opposed checks.

I am playing a Brawler who focuses on combat maneuvers. My feats have largely been related to CM's (allowing me to use my floating feats for higher level maneuvers). I recently switched to Spheres of Might, still focusing on abilities that give me maneuvers or make my maneuvers better (Barroom, Boxing, Open Hand, and Wrestling).

I have my attack bonuses written down for each CM (since they vary because of feats taken). Once I roll, it's very easy to look at my chart and tell the DM what my result was to compare to the enemies CMD. 20 seconds or less from when I say what I am doing until it is done. If a monster tries to use a CM on me (i.e. reverse a grapple), I have my CMDs written down as well.

In contrast, if we had to roll off using 3.5 rules every time I tried a CM, my turn would be a lot longer. Since I use CM a lot, that would slow any combat.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The problem appears to be mostly on the size and strength issues, compounded by high-Dex monsters with good Strength.
[...]
Reading a thread on Paizo, someone reasonably pointed out, is that size is double-dipping (triple-dipping if you account for the size limitations; big monsters typically have high HD for CR (so good BAB) AND good Strength AND there's less room for Dex to counter that (there are not many monsters with Dex of 6 or less, and that's only -2).
[...]
2) Switch CMD to Touch AC + current special size mod + BAB, huge and bigger creatures substitute their Strength for their Dex (maybe drop that to large?). (I.e. the reverse of what Tiny and small creatures get on CMB.)

3) Switch CMD to Touch AC + current special size mod + BAB, may substitute Str for Dex is higher
[...]
CMD Dex = Touch AC + BAB (+size?)

CMD Str = Touch AC + BAB, substitute Xtr for Dex (+size?)

I'd suggest just dropping size modifiers; as noted, bigger and higher-CR creatures already get more HD and more Str than they should, so throwing in another +10 or more gets excessive.

Alternately, if you want certain maneuvers to be easier to use against larger and stronger creatures, you could have a small non-scaling bonus (+4 or so) that applies to either the smaller creature or the larger creature based on the maneuver. A pixie throwing sand in the face of anything from a human to a great wyrm dragon gets a flat +4; an ogre bull rushing anything from a human down to a mouse gets a flat +4. That makes size an obvious factor without having size bonuses dominate the total modifier, and could work instead of or alongside the Str/Dex CMD split to help differentiate maneuvers nicely and counter the sameyness Firechanter mentioned.

[Aotrs Commander]

I'd suggest just dropping size modifiers; as noted, bigger and higher-CR creatures already get more HD and more Str than they should, so throwing in another +10 or more gets excessive.

Alternately, if you want certain maneuvers to be easier to use against larger and stronger creatures, you could have a small non-scaling bonus (+4 or so) that applies to either the smaller creature or the larger creature based on the maneuver. A pixie throwing sand in the face of anything from a human to a great wyrm dragon gets a flat +4; an ogre bull rushing anything from a human down to a mouse gets a flat +4. That makes size an obvious factor without having size bonuses dominate the total modifier, and could work instead of or alongside the Str/Dex CMD split to help differentiate maneuvers nicely and counter the sameyness Firechanter mentioned.

After a lot of rumination, I'm leaning that way - actually a little further, by keeping the attack/AC modifiers for size normally.

It would also benefit much smaller creatures perhaps disproportionally (again, because stats scle upwards indefinately, but don't have a lot of room to scale down), but that said, there are WAAAAY more large plus monsters than tiny down creatures.

So, then, make CMD = Touch AC + BAB + Str. (Which is fundementally combining the melee touch attack with a grapple check from 3.5.)

I was looking at stuff like splitting the CMD, but honestly, as I start to go through the numbers, it actually doesn't seem like it needs it? It seems to buff very small creatures up to a passable level (their Str is low, but their Dex is not as stratoscopic as big creatures, which tend to have either a bigger Str than a small one's Dex and/or good Dex), so putting the CMD of small stuff to a passable level at maybe 10-ish for what I've looked at so far?

If anything, it might almost be fractionally too severe, but I think I need to actually do the numbers more to see.

(Does make it easy to calculate, though, so that's a bonus!)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Here's a question: how much are you tweaking monster stat blocks, exactly? Because it kinda sounds like you're open to making fairly large changes to every monster you've written up, and in that case, why not just modify the monster rules to not give high-level monsters more HD than their CR, large monsters big bonuses to Str, and so on?

Like, if a 1st-level fighter and a CR 1 Large humanoid both have the same 3-to-18-plus-maybe-+2-racial-bonus scale for Str with no size bonuses involved at all, and a 20th-level fighter and a CR 20 Colossal giant both have 20 HD and 25 Str, it is a heck of a lot easier to sprinkle in some size modifiers to get the desired combat outputs you want than it is when you're dealing with a scenario in which a CR 20 creature can be anywhere from 20 HD and 20 Str to 48 HD and 45 Str before you even consider size.

[Aotrs Commander]

Here's a question: how much are you tweaking monster stat blocks, exactly? Because it kinda sounds like you're open to making fairly large changes to every monster you've written up, and in that case, why not just modify the monster rules to not give high-level monsters more HD than their CR, large monsters big bonuses to Str, and so on?

Like, if a 1st-level fighter and a CR 1 Large humanoid both have the same 3-to-18-plus-maybe-+2-racial-bonus scale for Str with no size bonuses involved at all, and a 20th-level fighter and a CR 20 Colossal giant both have 20 HD and 25 Str, it is a heck of a lot easier to sprinkle in some size modifiers to get the desired combat outputs you want than it is when you're dealing with a scenario in which a CR 20 creature can be anywhere from 20 HD and 20 Str to 48 HD and 45 Str before you even consider size.

That would be an even more extensive issue, though. One of the reasons I basically have my own generic bestiary is because I have always hated running creatures out of a book and so I want the stats on hand in the quest; the last round of upgrades was to bring the monsters up to PF levels. As one the weekly games, we run on Golarion and adventure paths, going much closer to PF than not means it requires less complete rebuilds when I run those, and when I run across something that's not in the generic bestiary - in it does, for future referece. Tweaking PF stuff (which, after the last major upgrade, is mostly skill and occasionally feat tweaks (and the latter is probably less now I'm porting another boat-load of feats over) than rebuilding the besitary, like AGAIN.

(For the day quests I run on my homebrew, the mosnters are entirely all homebrew anyway, but there's about 80 entries in that compored to *whimper* 400 in the generic. And yes, the last upgrade every single one of those was checked and updated to 3.Aotrs standards, and painstaking converted from CMB and CMD to BAB/Grapple and i'm now reversing that... Eh, it happens.)

But really, though changing the line BAB/ GRAPPLE +x/+y to BAB +x CMB +z CMD v/w isn't exactly hard going, compared to everything else I've been doing, since having got to CMD being Touch + Str + BAB it's easy. (And toss-up whether it's quicker to calculate CMB or crib it directly off Nethys, as that's the same.) And, honestly, havign CMB and CMD written down sepcially is more conveniance - it's going to tax no-one's brain to add touch AC to grapple bonus (from stat block or character sheet) on the fly anyway, especially with the buff numbers floating around!



Got as far as "a" in the generic bestiary, thus far before I'm quitting for the night, a random but reasonably enough selection of critters (along with the ones in my own homebrew I've done) to asuage me the idea that they way I'm going about it seems reasonable numerically. At this point, I can basically leave off that task; it is a low priority one I can deal with whenever I feel like, since it's almost a cosmetic adjustment.

[martixy]

Since we're now going there I'll give you my implementation.

It is based off of this:
http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/

So in my game I have 2 types of maneuvers - Deft and Powerful.
These use Dex and Str respectively for both CMB and CMD and have the appropriate feat (none of that 1 feat per maneuver).

I have not removed any size modifiers (which are greatly reduced in PF anyway). The only numerical change is that CMD generally ends up lower, because it uses only one ability score.

This has worked quite well for my game so far.

[Aotrs Commander]

Since we're now going there I'll give you my implementation.

It is based off of this:
http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/

So in my game I have 2 types of maneuvers - Deft and Powerful.
These use Dex and Str respectively for both CMB and CMD and have the appropriate feat (none of that 1 feat per maneuver).

I have not removed any size modifiers (which are greatly reduced in PF anyway). The only numerical change is that CMD generally ends up lower, because it uses only one ability score.

This has worked quite well for my game so far.

I had looked at that through Psyren's signature.

I have not myself felt the feat taxes especially a problem up until now, but as I was considering whether or not to give mor feats, maybe I will do some folding in while I'm doing feats; am, I think, going to unhook the the CM from Combat Reflexes and stuff and drop the "improveds" to no prereqs and I may consider folding the "greaters" in.

TWF I'm definitely not touching; it's very popular at my table and plenty good enough as it gets full off-hand damage and is allowed to work with flurry and stuff (and the dex requirements have long-gone.) Ditto PA (and we've not long had deadly aim and stuff) and both of those are running off 3.5 PA, not PF PA1. (There is NO way I'm going to allow something that doesn't punish Heedless Charge as hard as it does, the TWF, lion-totem headless charging barbarian is bad enough without me being able to slap him back hard when something survives the charge!) My approach to TWF was the opposite of most people, that rather than "it should have less feat investment", it was "it should be worth investing loads of feats." As it stands, given how much it sees use, I think it's fine.

PBS... Ehhh... I can sort of see this, and there ARE a lot of feats now, so I might split the difference a bit, and grant it a bit of Precise (within PBS range) and then fold Co-ordinated Shot into Precise proper.



1Fun fact: PF's change (nerf, really, despite it giving you a better return) to PA and the nerfs to Dispel Magic - which I consider the single most ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL spell in the entire game, as it ALONE is the counter to mass buffs and area spells (I have a rule - anything that can cast it will have at least one dispel loaded; anything else is suicidal, on the level of going out to fight a modern war without any anti-aircraft capability) - and to a much lesser extent the percieved cleric nerf by removing heavy armour, were more or less the elements that made me not adopt so much of PF years ago (on the basis that with that, I assumed their "house-rules" could not be better than my house-rules) and not look into it very hard; and they are ironically, pretty much the ONLY bits of PF I think were a unilateral step back. (Okay, the wizards did NOT need those extra powers from arcane school and I haven't let them have those, nor have I let the clerics have PF domain powers (save in replacement for me removing all the Turn/Rebuke creature powers.)

[Psyren]

Eh, the Power Attack nerf made perfect sense to me. If PA represents abandoning precision to swing for the fences, having fine control over that abandonment doesn't really track.

At the levels where buff stacking becomes a true tactical problem, Greater Dispel Magic is available anyway.

[Crake]

At the levels where buff stacking becomes a true tactical problem, Greater Dispel Magic is available anyway.

Except even greater dispel magic is pretty meh in pathfinder. The thing I hate the most about it is that it's one check, so if you roll badly nothing is dispelled, and when you roll high, you're still only limited to 1/4 caster level in spells dispelled on a targetted dispel.

3.5 you have one roll per spell, meaning one bad roll doesn't screw you, and you have a chance against every spell on the target, so I'd say its still a pretty significant nerf. Don't get me wrong, I like that pathfinder made the spells actually function differently, rather than simply making it so they scale up to a different cap like they do in 3.5, but I think greater dispel should have been left to function completely as the 3.5 version. Being limited to only dispelling 3-4 spells per dispel if you roll high on the single roll you get just makes the spell to flip-floppy to me to the point where I rarely ever wanted to prepare it.

[Psyren]

Except even greater dispel magic is pretty meh in pathfinder. The thing I hate the most about it is that it's one check, so if you roll badly nothing is dispelled, and when you roll high, you're still only limited to 1/4 caster level in spells dispelled on a targetted dispel.

3.5 you have one roll per spell, meaning one bad roll doesn't screw you, and you have a chance against every spell on the target, so I'd say its still a pretty significant nerf. Don't get me wrong, I like that pathfinder made the spells actually function differently, rather than simply making it so they scale up to a different cap like they do in 3.5, but I think greater dispel should have been left to function completely as the 3.5 version. Being limited to only dispelling 3-4 spells per dispel if you roll high on the single roll you get just makes the spell to flip-floppy to me to the point where I rarely ever wanted to prepare it.

1) You'd have to roll realllly badly to get nothing. Failing against the high CL spells doesn't end the dispel attempt, it moves your check down to the lower CL ones.

2) I'd rather not have to roll 20 times whenever I cast a spell, maybe that's just me. Not to mention the metagaming it enables, since you can figure out how many spells are on a target by how many times you have to roll, even if your character had no way of getting that information.

[Crake]

1) You'd have to roll realllly badly to get nothing. Failing against the high CL spells doesn't end the dispel attempt, it moves your check down to the lower CL ones.

Except lets be honest, most of the time all of the spells will be of the same caster level, so fail against one means fail against all.


2) I'd rather not have to roll 20 times whenever I cast a spell, maybe that's just me. Not to mention the metagaming it enables, since you can figure out how many spells are on a target by how many times you have to roll, even if your character had no way of getting that information.

The metagaming portion can be handled by the DM rolling a bunch of dice behind the screen, or simply just by asking for A set amount of rolls, say, 10, and just comparing the relevant number of rolls for the buffs in question.

As for handling large numbers of rolls, there are tools for that, but simply having the DCs ready and just listing off the numbers post roll shouldnt be too difficult, in my experience, the difficult part is in re-doing the stat block post dispel, not the dispel itself.

[Aotrs Commander]

Getting a bit off-topic, but...



Eh, the Power Attack nerf made perfect sense to me. If PA represents abandoning precision to swing for the fences, having fine control over that abandonment doesn't really track.

PF gives you more fine control because it doesn't impair your accuracy as much for more damage.


At the levels where buff stacking becomes a true tactical problem, Greater Dispel Magic is available anyway.

You clearly don't play in very buff-and/or-caster heavy enviroment, then. Four or five casters (of which most will be primary) out of seven characters is not uncommon composition in our parties (along with the fact that the players work together like a well oiled team 99% of the time); the "party buff sheet" and "party buff cards to put in front of the DM's screen" exist for good reason, and that's before taking in account self buff or area spells (e.g. Black Tentacles, Grease), or save or sucks that may be floating around that need to be dealt with.

Area dispel is absolutely necessary WELL before level 11, and continues to be a critical tool throughout the game, especially once frackers start using Greater Invisibility and tossing spells over from the one in forp'nnies.

And this is just MY side of the screen, nevermind theirs. If my Rise of Runelords party was using PF dispel, they wouldn't have made it past book 2.

Dispel Magic is the single biggest counter for spells that doesn't require you to have the foreknowledge load explict hard-counters. It's just about the best tool in the caster's toolbox for dealing with other casters.




2) I'd rather not have to roll 20 times whenever I cast a spell, maybe that's just me. Not to mention the metagaming it enables, since you can figure out how many spells are on a target by how many times you have to roll, even if your character had no way of getting that information.

I think that might just be you, my friend. We've never had a problem with that, ever.

(In fact, when I so much as suggested PF's version of Black Tentacles as but one roll to compare to evey creature per round, and not one check per creature per round, there was practically a mutiny, and that was lead by the resident dice god most likely to USE said spell and roll absurdly high every time.)




Except lets be honest, most of the time all of the spells will be of the same caster level, so fail against one means fail against all.

Or it'll be against the NPC boss cleric, who will be buffed up to the gills with high single-digit, if not double digit spells (unless things radically changed in later APs, the boss monsters in AP frequently have half-a dozen buff alone) and one low roll means you entire turn is wasted.


The metagaming portion can be handled by the DM rolling a bunch of dice behind the screen, or simply just by asking for A set amount of rolls, say, 10, and just comparing the relevant number of rolls for the buffs in question.

I don't even bother to worry about that, it doesn';t even qualify as metagaming at my table, I just tell them to roll me dice until I say stop. It's not like active buff spells don't make you bleedin' obvious, because you're covered in shiny, glowy-crap (and MAYBE only not if you're a beguiler or something). You wanna count and go "he's got three spells left," that's fine, you can dispel him 'till he stops glowing, that's not a problem (especially since he can do the same to you).


As for handling large numbers of rolls, there are tools for that

More than one D20? (I mean seriously, anything with TWF is rolling 6-7 attacks every round, how is this different?)


, but simply having the DCs ready and just listing off the numbers post roll shouldnt be too difficult, in my experience, the difficult part is in re-doing the stat block post dispel, not the dispel itself.

Also yup, but you get plenty of practise.

[Psyren]

Except lets be honest, most of the time all of the spells will be of the same caster level, so fail against one means fail against all.

Yeah and? The same goes for a success, where under the old system you could roll well against one spell and then fail all the others.


The metagaming portion can be handled by the DM rolling a bunch of dice behind the screen, or simply just by asking for A set amount of rolls, say, 10, and just comparing the relevant number of rolls for the buffs in question.

The GM having to make a bunch of fake rolls to disguise a game mechanic suggests it's not a very well-designed mechanic.

Not to mention, padding rolls makes combat take even longer. God forbid you have to target-dispel multiple enemies too.



I think that might just be you, my friend.

Clearly it's not given that, y'know, they changed it.

[Crake]

Yeah and? The same goes for a success, where under the old system you could roll well against one spell and then fail all the others.

The same doesn't go for a success, because a good roll doesn't remove everything, it only removes 1/4 CL spells.

[martixy]

You clearly don't play in very buff-and/or-caster heavy enviroment, then. Four or five casters (of which most will be primary) out of seven characters is not uncommon composition in our parties (along with the fact that the players work together like a well oiled team 99% of the time); the "party buff sheet" and "party buff cards to put in front of the DM's screen" exist for good reason, and that's before taking in account self buff or area spells (e.g. Black Tentacles, Grease), or save or sucks that may be floating around that need to be dealt with.

Area dispel is absolutely necessary WELL before level 11, and continues to be a critical tool throughout the game, especially once frackers start using Greater Invisibility and tossing spells over from the one in forp'nnies.

And this is just MY side of the screen, nevermind theirs. If my Rise of Runelords party was using PF dispel, they wouldn't have made it past book 2.

Dispel Magic is the single biggest counter for spells that doesn't require you to have the foreknowledge load explict hard-counters. It's just about the best tool in the caster's toolbox for dealing with other casters.

Wait, wait, wait, wait....

7-man parties are pushing it already, without 4/5 being full casters, and without the optimization levels uberschargers play in anyway.

You are playing a completely different game than most of the rest of us.

The action economy is already heavily skewed towards the party. Chuck in a party's worth of full casters and you get a stew very few DMs can swallow.

[Crake]

The action economy is already heavily skewed towards the party. Chuck in a party's worth of full casters and you get a stew very few DMs can swallow.

Unless the DM also has 7 enemies in the encounters, and he really enjoys wargames :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

The same doesn't go for a success, because a good roll doesn't remove everything, it only removes 1/4 CL spells.

Yes, I know that; I still don't see the issue. After all, it goes both ways - an enemy getting a lucky roll can't strip all of your buffs with a single cast either, and the PCs are usually more likely to be the ones going around swaddled in buffs, so if anything this is a player-centric change. If you want a way to strip all of a target's buffs regardless of quantity with a single spell, use Disjunction.

[Zombimode]

Unless the DM also has 7 enemies in the encounters, and he really enjoys wargames :smalltongue:

I have no idea why apparently many people think that single enemy encounters are the norm/a good idea. They should be (and are at my table) the exception. 3.5 and pathfinder work that much better if most encounters consist of mixed groups of enemies.

[martixy]

I have no idea why apparently many people think that single enemy encounters are the norm/a good idea. They should be (and are at my table) the exception. 3.5 and pathfinder work that much better if most encounters consist of mixed groups of enemies.

Me too. But I find it hard to run enough enemies to challenge a party of 7 of that optimization level without resorting to sheer numbers advantage.

[noob]

Except lets be honest, most of the time all of the spells will be of the same caster level, so fail against one means fail against all.



The metagaming portion can be handled by the DM rolling a bunch of dice behind the screen, or simply just by asking for A set amount of rolls, say, 10, and just comparing the relevant number of rolls for the buffs in question.

As for handling large numbers of rolls, there are tools for that, but simply having the DCs ready and just listing off the numbers post roll shouldnt be too difficult, in my experience, the difficult part is in re-doing the stat block post dispel, not the dispel itself.

Then what happens against an opponent with 500000000000 buffs?
Normally the gm does statistics on the odds of dispelling a buff then remove a proportion of those.
Now the gm is supposed to roll 10 dices with your weird rules even if none of those are useful for the situation.
Imagine the opponent have 11 buffs.
Do you decide that the eleventh buff can not be dispelled?
If there is a cap on the dispelled buff number for npcs(when targeted by dispelling) will that not make pcs angry about lopsided rules in their disfavour in case of buff stacking wars?

[Crake]

Yes, I know that; I still don't see the issue. After all, it goes both ways - an enemy getting a lucky roll can't strip all of your buffs with a single cast either, and the PCs are usually more likely to be the ones going around swaddled in buffs, so if anything this is a player-centric change. If you want a way to strip all of a target's buffs regardless of quantity with a single spell, use Disjunction.

Opinions on what's better aside, you seem to agree that it is in fact a nerf then? It's less consistent, and more swingy, and even when it does swing in your favour, it doesn't swing as far in your favour as it does swing away from your favour when it goes badly.


I have no idea why apparently many people think that single enemy encounters are the norm/a good idea. They should be (and are at my table) the exception. 3.5 and pathfinder work that much better if most encounters consist of mixed groups of enemies.

I feel much the same way honestly.


Then what happens against an opponent with 500000000000 buffs?

Uhh... ok?


Normally the gm does statistics on the odds of dispelling a buff then remove a proportion of those.

Sure, that sounds like a fine way to deal with it?


Now the gm is supposed to roll 10 dices with your weird rules even if none of those are useful for the situation.

Uhh... what? My weird rules? Well, no the players were supposed to roll those dice anyway, if the GM is rolling, he can just roll behind the screen? Or you know, just use an electronic dice roller so the players can't hear how many dice roll? Or use a list of pre-rolled numbers? Or... you know, any other method that works for the DM? Did you think this was some kind of hard and fast rule that must be adhered to down the the exact number?


Imagine the opponent have 11 buffs.

I genuinely feel like you've missed the point.


Do you decide that the eleventh buff can not be dispelled?

This is just being facetious.


If there is a cap on the dispelled buff number for npcs(when targeted by dispelling) will that not make pcs angry about lopsided rules in their disfavour in case of buff stacking wars?

Nice strawman I guess? You're arguing with yourself about a point that nobody's brought up.

[Aotrs Commander]

Unless the DM also has 7 enemies in the encounters, and he really enjoys wargames :smalltongue:

Second point first, I literally make wargames models for an unliving, and I own about 1500 starships alone. (BattleTech, a game I consider something I play "casually," I have, like 150 and I just got another 30 in the recent kickstarter to come about this time next year...) So, yah, a wargamer who roleplays, not a roleplayer who wargames. So encounters that are just "this thing does and recieves hit point damage" = boring for me.

(Giants, yes, I'm looking at you specifically, and especially Fortress of the Stone Giants.)



First point... Only seven?

My record is over 50, actually (on which only 15 were NOT some form a caster/manifester/adept/invoker), though that experiment is likely one we won't repeat.



A typical encounter proper encounter is very frequently equal or higher numbers than the PCs, though.

The most fun encounters are when the party fights evil adventurers of equal number (sometimes slightly more, if said bad guys are slightly lower level.)

An encounter with twenty enemies is not uncommon at mid levels; a goodly chunk will be lower-level chaff, screening (or providing ranged support for) higher level classed enemies.

For APs, merely doubling the number of enemies might be the quick solution, but that's boring (and gives the casters too much freedom with counter), so I will generally much prefer to add fewer enemies with higher class levels though, for fewer if they are higher; bare minimum ensuring there is ranged support. (Pile of ogres? Add maybe +50% as ones with a class level or so and spec from throwing things, plus maybe one or two orges with cleric levels.) A decent non-single-monster encounter will comprise melee, ranged, arcane, divine and optimally, skirmisher (re rogue et al).

But let me not speak in broad terms, and list a handful of examples.

Example of Bleakbane boss encounters,

For very small (by Bleakbane standards) of 4 PC +1 NPC at level 3, (basically there as healbot, so that my nieces and their mates didn't have to do that role).

Spirit Shaman 5
Bard 4
Rogue 3 x 2
Barbarian 3


An enemy command element, verses approx 7 level 6 PCs (at the end of the day quest, with them being on a time-limit and thus having to do it on one rest's worth of abilities - though the PCs also may also have had the support of one of the character's contuberium of fighter 3s, I forget)

Fighter 1 x 10 (melee)
Marshal 6
Wight cleric 5
Tracker 6 (home brew more fighter-ish, non-spell ranger-y class)
Soulknife 9

(Fun aside - the PCs, not used to being on an actual timer, screwed that adventure, and ended fighting said command element as part of the fighting retreat from the field hospital, because they didn't press on fast enough to kill them before the enemy teleported their whole army in (the enemy army's overall commander was well out of the level range, so this was a side-skirmish in the main battle. Had they pressed on and knobbled these guys earlier, they would have prevented the loss of the hospital, as the bad guys wouldn't have teleported the rest of the army after this advance force.)



Evil adventuring party (added encounter into AP vs regular weekly group's Rise of the Runeloards 8 characters at approx level 8, consisting of fighter/barbarian (shock trooper early), wizard, druid, cleric, rogue/swordsage. bard/dragon shaman, bard), battle fought on lake after Flash Freezing PC's rowing boat with 30' x 20' ice field)
Cleric 7
Druid 7 (plus alligator compannion)
Psychic Warrior 7
Warblade 7
Warlock 7
Tracker 7
Archivist 1/Wizard 1/Mystic Theurge 5 (MT prereqs have been reduced so the class can be taken at level 3)



Encounter, again of Rise of the Runelords (down the bard, as a couple of players rotated out and only on rotated in, party level 10), originally verses two lamia cleric 8, upgraded to

2 lamia cleric 8 (i.e. 17HD) (improved spell load-out)
2 lamia crusader 8 (i.e. 17HD)

That was FUN, that pressed 'em actually nice and hard (the crusaders had spiked chains (3.5 spiked chains).




Wait, wait, wait, wait....

7-man parties are pushing it already, without 4/5 being full casters, and without the optimization levels uberschargers play in anyway.

You are playing a completely different game than most of the rest of us.

The action economy is already heavily skewed towards the party. Chuck in a party's worth of full casters and you get a stew very few DMs can swallow.

Solved the action economy thing a good while ago as well for when it IS just a single boss monster (this is more a solution for APs than when I write for myself), by stealing 4E's idea of a solo and using that as a spring board. In extreme short, created a stackable templte that increment hit points as a block, an undamaged one of which can be expended to, essentially, psuedo-ironheart surge away any effect they don't like, or if anything would instakill them. (Encouraging the save or loses to be saved for the finishing blow, but also meaning thatb they are not simply wasted as they would be by just ramping a dave DC high.) Funnily enough, video games were right, skewed action economy does say you have to skew the enemy defences.

(No reason it has to be for individual monsters, either, I have on occasion stuck a single level on an encounter with a few monsters if padding it otu with other stuff was inconveniant.)

Works brilliantly, best thing 4E ever did, no sarcasm, was invent solo so thag I could invent my defiant template... it's great. Never looked back.



On the flip side, when we do Rolemaster parties, the emphasis tends to away from combat (and, in fact, the main party now (having retired the twenty-lus yera old aventuring party) was explictly designed for exploratory games.

[Psyren]

Opinions on what's better aside, you seem to agree that it is in fact a nerf then? It's less consistent, and more swingy, and even when it does swing in your favour, it doesn't swing as far in your favour as it does swing away from your favour when it goes badly.

Oh no, not a nerf to casters! How ever will we cope?

And whose "favor" do you mean exactly? You can have dispellers on both sides (PC or NPC), remember?

[Crake]

Oh no, not a nerf to casters! How ever will we cope?

And whose "favor" do you mean exactly? You can have dispellers on both sides (PC or NPC), remember?

Keep in mind that it was you who said that greater dispel magic was the counter to buff stacking as a tactical issue, but clearly, being able to 50/50 (assuming equal caster level) dispel a handful of buffs vs dispelling nothing, greater dispel magic no longer fills that niche in pathfinder. What's 3-5 buffs out of 10? 15? 20? So I mean, the issue is that technically greater dispel magic being nerfed is a buff to casters, because it's now harder than ever to dispel their buffs.

Your favour, being the caster's favour by the way, doesn't have to be specifically the PCs or not.

[Aotrs Commander]

Oh no, not a nerf to casters! How ever will we cope?

It's a direct nerf to the only counter to spells aside from the hard counter of antimagic.

[Psyren]

It's a direct nerf to the only counter to spells aside from the hard counter of antimagic.

Once again, it applies to your buffs being dispelled too. Do only the PCs use targeted dispels in your games?


Keep in mind that it was you who said that greater dispel magic was the counter to buff stacking as a tactical issue, but clearly, being able to 50/50 (assuming equal caster level) dispel a handful of buffs vs dispelling nothing, greater dispel magic no longer fills that niche in pathfinder. What's 3-5 buffs out of 10? 15? 20? So I mean, the issue is that technically greater dispel magic being nerfed is a buff to casters, because it's now harder than ever to dispel their buffs.

Martials don't get buffed in your games?

[Crake]

Once again, it applies to your buffs being dispelled too. Do only the PCs use targeted dispels in your games?

Why do you keep bringing up PC vs NPC? Whether it's a PC or not is entirely irrelevant to the impact of the nerf.


Martials don't get buffed in your games?

The fact that personal buffs exist means that casters will generally be more buffed than martials, so it still tips in the caster's favour.

[Aotrs Commander]

Once again, it applies to your buffs being dispelled too. Do only the PCs use targeted dispels in your games?

Doesn't matter which side of the screen it's on; Dispel is ONLY counter to spells, including but not limitied to buffs, battlefield control, a good chunk of save or sucks, summon spells for that matter...

[Psyren]

Why do you keep bringing up PC vs NPC? Whether it's a PC or not is entirely irrelevant to the impact of the nerf.

So if you agree it hits both sides equally, why does it matter?


The fact that personal buffs exist means that casters will generally be more buffed than martials, so it still tips in the caster's favour.

Except casters generally aren't on the front lines.


Doesn't matter which side of the screen it's on; Dispel is ONLY counter to spells, including but not limitied to buffs, battlefield control, a good chunk of save or sucks, summon spells for that matter...

All of which can be used by PCs, so it's now harder for enemy casters to deal with yours.

[Crake]

So if you agree it hits both sides equally, why does it matter?

You understand that this whole thing came up because you said that greater dispel magic is the counter to stacking buffs, to which we both responded that, with the pathfinder nerf, it's not really a counter anymore? What you're basically saying here is "yeah, ok, it's not really a counter, but that applies to both sides of the screen". You understand how that's... not actually an argument right?


Except casters generally aren't on the front lines.

Doesn't really affect the argument at all?


All of which can be used by PCs, so it's now harder for enemy casters to deal with yours.

Ok, but the point is that your claim that "stacking buffs aren't an issue when you can just greater dispel the buffs off" is objectively untrue, no matter how much you try to make it into a PC vs NPC argument.

[Aotrs Commander]

All of which can be used by PCs, so it's now harder for enemy casters to deal with yours.

Yes...?

I'm really not sure what your point is. Dispel magic being nerfed means that less spells are being taken out on both sides of the screen AND THAT'S BAD. More spells getting dispelled = GOOD.

It's the metaphorical equivilent of dropping Armour Class from, like, base 10 to base 5; yes, it hits both sides equally, but that's not the point; the net result is not a gain for anyone except rocket tag (and the game is rocket tag enough).

I mean, if your arguement here is rooted in "but I wouldn't want my character's spells to be dispelled more and negate my actions," then, like, I don't have any sympathy, because the martials don't want you to not have your spells dispelled more, and, like have their actions always negated by spells that no-one can do anything about.

Flying characters much prefer it when the enemy doesn't have any ranged attacks, (especially warlocks), but they very really get that lucky in my games there, either.

[Psyren]

Dispel magic being nerfed means that less spells are being taken out on both sides of the screen AND THAT'S BAD. More spells getting dispelled = GOOD.

That would be what I disagree with, yes. If you want one spell that can strip 5000 buffs, that's what Disjunction is for.

But you're talking about your houserules, right? So there's no point in continuing to go round and round on this; I'm fine with the rule as-is and you've made your decision not to use it, so let's agree to disagree and drop it then.

[Aotrs Commander]

That would be what I disagree with, yes. If you want one spell that can strip 5000 buffs, that's what Disjunction is for.

Which doesn't come nearly low enough level.


But you're talking about your houserules, right? So there's no point in continuing to go round and round on this; I'm fine with the rule as-is and you've made your decision not to use it, so let's agree to disagree and drop it then.

No, not really, spells are one thing I have not looked bringing in from Pathfinder, they are running from 3.5, bar a few tweaks here and there.

[Psyren]

Which doesn't come nearly low enough level.

Good.


No, not really, spells are one thing I have not looked bringing in from Pathfinder, they are running from 3.5, bar a few tweaks here and there.

Then you've made your decision not to consider it in the first place, whatever - either way, let's agree to disagree.

[Crake]

I'm fine with the rule as-is and you've made your decision not to use it, so let's agree to disagree and drop it then.

I mean, being fine with it as is doesn't change the fact that it's not really an appropriate countermeasure to the stacking buff issue, but I guess you've already kinda admitted that, which is all I was really after.

[Psyren]

I mean, being fine with it as is doesn't change the fact that it's not really an appropriate countermeasure to the stacking buff issue, but I guess you've already kinda admitted that, which is all I was really after.

Whatever "stacking issue" you seem to perceive is less of a concern to me than metagaming and a dozen rolls for every targeted dispel. And evidently for Paizo as well.

[Crake]

Whatever "stacking issue" you seem to perceive is less of a concern to me than metagaming and a dozen rolls for every targeted dispel. And evidently for Paizo as well.

You say "you percieve" like you disagree that stacking buffs become a problem? I mean, you did say


At the levels where buff stacking becomes a true tactical problem, Greater Dispel Magic is available anyway.

So one has to imagine that you percieve the issue as well? You're basically saying "A is a problem, B is the solution" while simultaneously saying "Ok, B isn't the solution to A, but I'm fine with that". Sure, great, you're happy with the way greater dispel works in pathfinder... It still doesn't provide an answer to the times where "buff stacking becomes a true tactical problem" due to its swingy nature, and the limited number of buffs it dispels.

[Psyren]

What I meant by that, was that by the time removing more than one buff at a time is an expected part of combat, GDM is available. Not that removing a dozen buffs at a time with a single cast and a corresponding number of rolls would ever be.