Pathfinder Retrospective: Did Combat Maneuver Changes Help

[Elder_Basilisk]

One of the significant changes Pathfinder 1e made from 3.5 was to move all combat maneuvers to a single mechanic based on two new derived stats: combat maneuver bonus and combat maneuver defense. It also gave grapple a more clear description and provided more clearly defined options and made grappling less punishing to physical combatants (no more denied dex bonus) and more punishing to casters (no more escaping with verbal only spells).

For those of you who played both systems, do you think that the rules changes actually made combat maneuvers simpler and more easy to adjudicate? Did they make them work better in game?

My take: I think it's hit and miss.
Unified mechanic? I guess I can get behind this in principle. Not having to think about whether it is an opposed strength check or an opposed attack roll or a custom pseudo attack roll like 3.x grapple made it easier to explain to new players.
But the mechanic itself is not good. It is unfortunately named (because CMB and CMD sound very similar "that's CMD like dog"), clutters the character sheet and suffers from the same lack of clarity that 3.5 grapple checks did (do I apply attack roll modifiers to my CMB? What if I'm using a weapon like with disarm or a trip weapon? Do any AC modifiers apply to my CMD?)
Grappling? In general, I think the grapple changes made grappling more clear and balanced but I think it was a mistake to eliminate the option for casters to escape grapple with dimension door/other non-somatic spells. And while I think not being able to make six grapple attempts in a round is probably a good thing, I think that the opportunity cost of grappling gets too high as levels increase. At level 1 you give up one attack to initiate and t maintain a grapple. At level 16 you could be giving up 5-7 attacks to make a grapple check which tilts the balance of grappling too far towards, 'ok, just stab the thing that's grappling you until it stops moving; trying to win the grapple is a sucker's bet.'

Missed opportunity: I think that keeping combat maneuvers essentially gated behind the improved feats to negate the OA was probably a mistake. Other than trip and grapple, the other maneuvers are not useful enough to merit spending a feat or two just for the he few times you might want to use them. Removing the gating function of the improved feats and letting them reduce the opportunity cost (like the greater x feats generally do) would have made combat More varied and dynamic.

Anyone have other thoughts?

[Kitsuneymg]

Gonna get this out of the way first

> do I apply attack roll modifiers to my CMB?

Yes.

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 only hairy issue is that you get a +4 against stunned targets.

> What if I'm using a weapon like with disarm or a trip weapon?

Yes. If the weapon is being used to do the maneuver, you apply all bonuses you have with that weapon to the maneuver attack.

> Do any AC modifiers apply to my CMD?

There’s the special size bonus section. And then

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

So I would say people who have these questions just didn’t bother to RTFM. Because it’s right there under the combat maneuvers section of the SRD.


Combat maneuvers are a great addition to the game. What’s lacking was further expansion of the system or a generalized rule to use non-hit-people combat actions with them. Feint being the elephant in the room. But also some for of close quarters fighting (it was done a a style feat unseated,) ways to psyche out opponents (3pp instead,) or any other action that is combative, not a direct attack, and not covered by a skill.

I think too that reposition, bullrush, and drag should have been the same maneuver. Overrun needed charge through and an exemption to the line of effect for charging as its base ability. Steal needed to be combined with disarm, and more examples of when and when not a weapon is used as part of a maneuver to provide guidance for GM adjudication. But the rules were very clear, IMO.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Given that one of the redesign goals was to streamline and combat maneuvers easier to use in actual gameplay, I think a frequent need to say RTFM is an indication that it didn't work out.

One of the advantages that all 3.5 maneuvers except grapple (and to a lesser extent trip and a super lesser extent disarm) had was that an opposed attack roll or a strength check didn't ask the player to calculate something new that they didn't already have calculated. Attack roll? Ok, I know that. Strength check? I've got an 18 so that's +4. It says right next to it. That meant that you could get the accurate result even if only one party (the DM in most cases) knew the rule. In Pathfinder you need to calculate a CMB and CMD which is another thing and rapidly multiplies because as you point out, the flatfooted CMD is different and so is the CMD when protection from evil counts. And CMB has so many variations that a lot of characters will really have a different CMB for every weapon and every maneuver they use. As a DM, I can say, 'ok, now roll CMB' but unless it is accurately calculated for the situation, players who didn't RTFM in great detail will get it wrong. And if it's a maneuver using the weapon like a disarm or a trip with a guisarme, I'd be a lot closer to an accurate result by telling them the wrong thing: "just roll an attack with your guisarme and we'll compare it to their CMD."

[Kurald Galain]

For those of you who played both systems, do you think that the rules changes actually made combat maneuvers simpler and more easy to adjudicate? Did they make them work better in game?
Yes, and yes.

They are simpler because they all work the same and require only one roll (as opposed to, say, touch attack then opposed strength checks). That also makes them faster. They work better because they do more; for instance, giving the entire party OAs with the Greater Trip feat is pure gold.


Removing the gating function of the improved featsThey did that, with the Dirty Fighting feat.


I think a frequent need to say RTFM is an indicationBut it's only RTFM to 3.5 players who haven't checked these rules in PF in the past thirteen years. Frankly that's not a large group of players any more :smallamused:

[Zanos]

Bundling all of the combat maneuvers into a clearly available statistic used for all of them is a good change. I only play 3.5 and I have to look up bull rush and grapple basically every time, the only one I cleanly remember is tripping.

The specific implementation of CMB/D in Pathfinder leaves much to be desired. The CMD formula is bad because it adds four things that tend to be massively inflated in monsters. Strength, Dexterity, Size, BAB. This also creates issues with countering certain maneuvers when used by monsters. A monster rolls CMB against your CMD to grapple you, but then you roll your CMB against his CMD to escape, so he's now resisting your escape from his grapple with both Str and Dex, so you aren't getting out.

Then for players, every combat maneuver feat was broken into two feats because tripping was overpowered I guess. :smallsigh:

[Eldonauran]

Personally, I think the addition of CMB/CMD was beneficial overall. I've been playing Pathfinder since its release and playing 3.X edition since shortly before the release of 3.5e. There isn't much that Pathfinder changed that I wasn't fully in agreement with, though there were a few brief 'rule changes' that I adamantly opposed which where later turned around anyway.

On a more specific note, I have a character that focuses on grappling as their backup "oh crap" tool. Level 10 and they can easily get 'hands' on a giant of equivalent CR quickly enough to pin them before the giant can slap them around with their meaty fists.

[Kurald Galain]

A monster rolls CMB against your CMD to grapple you, but then you roll your CMB against his CMD to escape, so he's now resisting your escape from his grapple with both Str and Dex, so you aren't getting out.
Grab monsters can disable you by grabbing. Spellcaster enemies can disable you with a save-or-lose spell. I fail to see what the issue is here? This is still a team game, you can escape a grab by having your teammates stun or kill the monster, or by having someone cast Grease or Dimdoor or Liberating Command on you. Or with a lucky roll, as you still have a 25%-ish chance of getting out by yourself. Why again is it a problem that monsters are competent at their job?


Then for players, every combat maneuver feat was broken into two feats
You're missing that PF's Greater Trip gives OAs to the entire party, so for two PF feats you get more power than for one 3E feat. And PF characters get more feats anyway :smallcool:

[Elder_Basilisk]

As far as the scaling goes, there's a big difference between a spellcasting enemy that can disable if you roll something between a 1 and 10 (assuming it targets your lousy save) on the saving throw and a monster that can sometimes incapacitate you on a 2 where you can't escape without a 20. Not saying there's necessarily always a problem, but there's a big disparity in how reliable the big focused grapple monsters are at disabling vs how reliable spellcaster/special ability disabling is. People rightly did complain about no save mass disable abilities like 3.5 blasphemy. Not the grapple issue was different in 3.5--it wasn't. Reducing the size modifiers actually made the effect slightly less pronounced, though there were a few more escape tools available by the end of the 3.5 era than there are in Pathfinder--but I can still see a reason for dissatisfaction there that can't just be answered with "it's a team game." So, I'd put the specific issue of grappling with monsters under the "shows improvement but didn't quite deliver on design goal" category.

[Eldonauran]

So, I'd put the specific issue of grappling with monsters under the "shows improvement but didn't quite deliver on design goal" category.Not sure exactly what 'design goal' you are comparing it to. People often play these games far outside the mechanical intentions due to a tendency to hyper focus and over specialize that no one is really going to agree on what the design goal was unless the designers actually lay out what that was.

Pathfinder made it exceedingly easier to develop your resistances to CMB based attacks than 3.5e did. I think it speaks more to the choices of the players than anything else if they chose to focus their resources on pumping up their damage rather than cover their defenses. Most classes do enough damage out the gate, when viewed as part of a group, to get along just fine. If you are part of a group that is ending encounters in less than four to five rounds the majority of the time, I am talking about you.

[Kurald Galain]

I can still see a reason for dissatisfaction there that can't just be answered with "it's a team game."
So if I understand you correctly, you are dissatisfied by effects that have a 95% or better chance to take a character out of combat?

I'm not saying I agree with that, but I get the sentiment. However, this doesn't really relate to combat maneuver rules. There just exist some methods to disable an enemy with no real chance of failure (e.g. a well-placed Silence or Wall spell), but most of these are unrelated to CMB, and the goal of CMB was never to eliminate these methods.

But yes, if a large dragon grabs a gnome wizard, or something, then the wizard is screwed. Then again, if the dragon instead full attacks the wizard, then the wizard is likely dead. Casters should invest in defense to be less squishy.

[Gnaeus]

As far as the scaling goes, there's a big difference between a spellcasting enemy that can disable if you roll something between a 1 and 10 (assuming it targets your lousy save) on the saving throw and a monster that can sometimes incapacitate you on a 2 where you can't escape without a 20. Not saying there's necessarily always a problem, but there's a big disparity in how reliable the big focused grapple monsters are at disabling vs how reliable spellcaster/special ability disabling is. People rightly did complain about no save mass disable abilities like 3.5 blasphemy. Not the grapple issue was different in 3.5--it wasn't. Reducing the size modifiers actually made the effect slightly less pronounced, though there were a few more escape tools available by the end of the 3.5 era than there are in Pathfinder--but I can still see a reason for dissatisfaction there that can't just be answered with "it's a team game." So, I'd put the specific issue of grappling with monsters under the "shows improvement but didn't quite deliver on design goal" category.

I really don't see this as a problem at all.
Wizard? Yeah, you succeed on a 2. After you beat the mirror images and concealment. Why is your unbuffed wizard in melee?
Witch or shaman? Yep, I'm grappled. Hexes don't care.
Cleric? Is your holy symbol in your hand/around your neck/a convenient birthmark (trait)? Channel energy.
Druid? Wild shape into a fire elemental. Or for that matter many druids are quite good at grapple.
PF familiars are significantly more robust than 3.5 ones. Lots of familiar options that can just DDoor you out of it or otherwise wand you loose.
Freedom of movement or equivalent is still an auto fail.
Escape artist is still really easy to optimize, especially if your familiar carries a wand of grease or liberating command.
And then if you took none of the options that let you ignore or nope grapples, you have a very difficult concentration check.

I would say save or loses are pretty significantly more reliable than grapple.

My problem with PF monster grapples is that it tends to be TOO difficult for the monsters. Few grapple monsters have the feats to grapple as a move, because they are poorly optimized. So a monster gets a free grapple from a grab attack, and then to do anything on its turn it needs to let you go. My games see a lot more grapple/release than anything else. And heaven forbid the monster is trying to do something fancy like fly away with grappled prey.

[icefractal]

If you are part of a group that is ending encounters in less than four to five rounds the majority of the time, I am talking about you.Guilty. :smalltongue: But I'm gonna keep doing that, because fights already take plenty long IRL when they last 1-3 rounds.

Although IDK how much trade-off there even is between those things. As a martial type, boosting Str or Dex for damage purposes also boosts CMD. As a caster, the best defense remains not being in melee and/or contingent effects and/or items, which is true whether you're optimized or not.


On the OP - personally, I'd say it's an improvement, yes. I was lukewarm on it at first, and I still think many of the combat feats are underpowered (not unusual for Paizo at all), but overall it's a better system.

Grappling is a bit less extreme than 3.5, but not at the 4E level of "maybe an inconvenience, maybe not even that". And by having a unified system, you can easily handle cases where something is conceptually a combat maneuver, but none of the existing ones exactly fits.

[ciopo]

I've got a shorthand for CMD, which is "highest attack bonus plus touch AC", making it relatively easy to have a number on the fly for it given that these two values should generally be on the sheet already and most player should know their attack bonus and touch AC "by heart", generally.
It falls apart when finesse and size get concerned, but for medium character that aren't using finesse, that should be an accurate number

[Troacctid]

Here's my take. The issue with combat maneuvers in 3.5e was never "I don't know what bonus to use." Unifying them to all be the same roll is fine in theory, I guess, but it doesn't solve the REAL issue, which is that nobody can remember what grappling actually does! And in practice, while PF made all the combat maneuvers the same roll, it also introduced a crapton of additional modifiers that apply to that roll depending on the circumstance, and you now have to remember all of them—thus, calculating your bonus ends up being harder instead of easier.

I do like blunting the impact of size modifiers, and the addition of new and interesting combat maneuvers. I'm less a fan of splitting up the feats into so many pieces, and of making every high-level enemy have CMD out the wazoo.

[Kurald Galain]

making every high-level enemy have CMD out the wazoo.

That's an urban legend though. If you look at bestiary statistics, the spread (standard deviation) on CMD is fairly high; so in practice only few enemies have a wazoo here. Like, for CR 15 monsters the minimum CMD is 15, that's clearly not a wazoo.

I mean sure, if you want to build a character that always uses maneuver X on everything and has no fallback options, then you're in trouble. The system isn't meant to support one-trick ponies (and that's not limited to maneuver ponies, either).

[Kesnit]

One of the advantages that all 3.5 maneuvers except grapple (and to a lesser extent trip and a super lesser extent disarm) had was that an opposed attack roll or a strength check didn't ask the player to calculate something new that they didn't already have calculated. Attack roll? Ok, I know that. Strength check? I've got an 18 so that's +4. It says right next to it. That meant that you could get the accurate result even if only one party (the DM in most cases) knew the rule. In Pathfinder you need to calculate a CMB and CMD which is another thing and rapidly multiplies because as you point out, the flatfooted CMD is different and so is the CMD when protection from evil counts.

The same issue applies for AC and saves. Are those systems bad?


And CMB has so many variations that a lot of characters will really have a different CMB for every weapon and every maneuver they use.

I played a Brawler, using the options in Spheres of Might and focusing on combat maneuvers. Yes, I had a different CMD and CMB for each maneuver. So how did I keep them straight? I wrote them down. I kept a "cheat sheet" with my character sheet laying out the base numbers for each, as well a write-up of what each Sphere ability did.

The player should know what their PC can do. It's no different than a caster knowing what their spells do.


As a DM, I can say, 'ok, now roll CMB' but unless it is accurately calculated for the situation, players who didn't RTFM in great detail will get it wrong.

Same as if the DM tells the player to roll a save, which also has to be calculated for the specific situation.

If the base number is known (and it should be. There's even a place for it on the default character sheet), then situation-specific adjustments can quickly be added.


And if it's a maneuver using the weapon like a disarm or a trip with a guisarme, I'd be a lot closer to an accurate result by telling them the wrong thing: "just roll an attack with your guisarme and we'll compare it to their CMD."

Why is the DM telling the player how to roll? The player should know the numbers for themselves and be able to say "My CMB is +X with this weapon for this maneuver." If there is a question, the DM can ask and the player can explain.

Again, the player should know what their character can do. That goes for any class using any system (caster, melee, combat maneuver, psionics, etc).

[Elder_Basilisk]

It is true that AC (and attack rolls) and saves have similar issues to CMB and CMD. However saved have fewer situational modifiers (depending on the party, there may be modifiers for fear effects but mostly it's going to be protection from evil (which disappears as soon as natural resistance conus s hit +2), haste, and heroism (if the party had a bard), and maybe prayer if the party cleric bothers with it). For AC and attack rolls, there are a similar number of effects to maneuvers and they mostly have the same effect but by treating CMB/CMD separately from AC and attack, Pathfinder 1e tends to obscure and that and since characters who are not built to explicitly rely on them rarely use them, newer or less mechanically engaged players generally don't know how to figure it out.

Looking at things from a "how would I do it?" Perspective, it looks like the only point to CMB as opposed to just saying, "make an attack with your weapon/unarmed" is to change how size modifiers work. If I were revising Pathfinder 1e, I'd probably just drop size modifiers to attack entirely (maybe keeping them defensively for CMD) and eliminate CMB as a separate entry.

I'd probably also revise improved grab to let creatures with improved grab maintain a grapple as a part of a full attack action by expending an attack with the limb used for the grab. No more required grapple/release shenanigans.

[Kurald Galain]

newer or less mechanically engaged players generally don't know how to figure it out.
Newer players have no issue with it. It's older players who have trouble figuring it out, if they're 3E players who haven't checked PF rules in the past thirteen years :smallamused:

[Elder_Basilisk]

Newer players have no issue with it. It's older players who have trouble figuring it out, if they're 3E players who haven't checked PF rules in the past thirteen years :smallamused:

I'm sure that's true for some players who have trouble but I can confirm that at least in my group, newer players do indeed have trouble with it. There's the old guys who skipped straight from 1e to Pathfinder after a long hiatus and the young guys who are coming from 5e.

In both cases I think part of the trouble is reliance on apps to handle character status. The 1e guy uses herolab which is great... if you put in everything correctly and can figure out who to enter everything, but that is evidently harder than it sounds. The 5e guys use pathbuilder which is usually good for generating a static baseline character sheet, but not doing it manually means that they don't have the full understanding of where the numbers on their sheet come from and have trouble updating on the fly. The idea that new players will devour the book/srd and understand how the system works is overly optimistic in my experience. There are a lot of players who just want to get a character and play and don't really care if they understand the intricacies or not. Or maybe there's something to the learning styles garbage and they learn better by doing than by reading/hearing.

[Elves]

Homogenizing the procedure for special combat maneuvers is a good thing.
Creating 2 new stats (CMB/CMD) isn't. It's unnecessary and makes things more complicated, not less.

[icefractal]

How's it any more complicated? 3.5 already had an extra stat - the grapple bonus.
So it could be considered replacing one with two, an increase.

However, most of the other maneuvers, while they may have theoretically used existing numbers, had modifiers to that. Trip had stability bonuses from legs, disarm had modifiers based on weapon, and bull rush, I can't remember. More importantly, if you actually intended to use any manuevers by choice, you had modifiers to those. So a Trip check was not just a Strength check, it had +4 from the feat at the very least, and preferably as many other bonuses as you could get.

Also, CMB and CMD are pre-calculated on the character sheet, which in terms of usability is a significant improvement over being calculated on the fly.

[Seward]

Played both systems, 3.5 with a grapple/trip type character from 1-15, Pathfinder with a character designed to tank anything from 1-15, pretty up on the combat maneuver mechanics in both systems.

3.5 had several issues with combat maneuvers.

#1 they took two rolls instead of one, which slowed down the game, and touch AC had a weird effect of either not mattering (because it was so low you only miss on a 1) or behaving a lot like a miss chance, not letting you get to the basic roll. This stacked with other miss chances to make things even slower. Also double the chances for a natural 1, which many GMs caused the attack-roll-style maneuvers to fail on, although not usually the opposed ability check varieties, but a nat 20 didn't guarantee success or crit at most tables, so you had annoying table variation on those points.

#2 each mechanic was different (opposed str rolls, opposed str vs str or dex, opposed attack rolls with modifiers based on weapon type, opposed attack rolls, all of which inverted the size mechanic, making size an advantage on both attack and defense, instead of a disadvantage on attack roll) This also slowed play, because it was unusual for both GM and player to be up on all the potential mechanics.

#3 because of #1 and #2, many monster abilities went unused, or were stupidly powerful because misused (if you don't grapple at -20, you don't get the rest of your natural weapon attacks was a nuance that killed many a character)

#4 ability score checks are just plain prone to wild swings. The d20 is much larger compared to the ability score than compared to an attack roll. This leads to bizzare outcomes sometimes.

Pathfinder addressed these problems as followed.

#1 - single attack roll simply eliminated this issue. Touch AC was folded into CMD. Auto-success and failure (and no crit mechanic) explicitly spelled out, as was which maneuvers are standard actions, vs actions that can be mixed with a full attack or aoo.

#2 - Single mechanic for all maneuvers - attack vs defense, with both using str+bab and inverted size modifier (it helps rather than hurts as in attack/ac) and defense getting your touch AC added instead (instead of flat +10 for a normal attack). It reduced it to a single number that could be put on a character sheet, both attack and defense. Feats and equipment (weapon bonuses etc) then modified it from there.

People still sometimes didn't know how it worked, but you only had to learn one thing for all combat maneuver attacks, and if you didn't use them, you just needed somebody to calculate your CMD for you or you just learn the defense mechanic for your specific character (eg, for a medium character the player never needs to learn the size table, they just know their character is a "0" on that part).

#3 - less problems here. Still some, it is still a complex game and not all GMS or players will understand everything. What happens if you are tripped or grappled or whatever can still lead to bad outcomes, but with less complexity on the "did it work" part, you have more brainspace to learn the effects, and I saw less table problems. OTOH, Pathfinder came out after 8 years of d20, and more folks at the table had years of experience than back in 2003 when I started Living Greyhawk, or 2001 when I played my first 3.0 game.

#4 - This really helped. It helped a lot. There are still hard size limits on what you can affect offensively (which some feats modify) where no bonus will allow it to work, but in general if you are good at CMB you'll affect who you expect to, just as with attack/aC, and if your CMD is high, it takes a beast to move you. My "tank" was a 5 strength, size small character but her touch AC was so stupidly high it made up for her -7 penalty (and lack of any bonuses, and only medium bab from various multiclassing) so that her CMD was in the high end for a high strength typical heavy-armor tank - simulating a medium sized character with very high strength or an enlarged character with typical fighter strength and full or near full bab. She was still more vulnerable to a Combat maneuver than a straight up AC attack (she did after all have mage armor and sometimes drank a potion of barkskin or had shield up for 1 minute/day and the -7+med bab still hurt) but she wasn't weak there and could routinely shake off the Evard's tentacle-type level of difficulty attacks that a tank normally can. (something that in 3.5 wouldn't have worked because those tentacles always hit you, no matter how high your touch ac, so she'd be all penalties and no bonuses against it)

This meant that while being big and strong was always helpful, on defense agile characters had a chance that wasn't just a "miss chance" type mechanic. Bab also mattered a lot more for bull rush/trip than it did in 3.5, which I liked, as skill should count as well as pure size/str. To be actually good at it, it was best to be big, strong AND full bab. To be good at defense, any 2-3 of big, strong, high bab, agile could get success against CR appropriate enemies but you want all 4 to be excellent vs nearly any opponent.

On a related note, changing incorporeal miss chance to a flat 50% damage reduction was just so much better. Halved the time of incorporeal encounters and made them a lot less "swingy". A similar thought process I think to folding touch AC into the basic defense number instead of making it an extra roll.

[Faily]

Seward summarizes my opinion on it. CMB/CMD isn't perfect, but by golly did it streamline things from how they used to be.

Just comparing the two texts for the Trip maneuver/special attack makes it clear which one is more efficient.


You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.
Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.
If your attack succeeds, make a Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check (whichever ability score has the higher modifier). A combatant gets a +4 bonus for every size category he is larger than Medium or a –4 penalty for every size category he is smaller than Medium. The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable
than a normal humanoid (such as a dwarf). If you win, you trip the defender. If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you.
Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack.
Being Tripped (Prone): A tripped character is prone (see Table 8–6: Armor Class Modifiers). Standing up is a move action.
Tripping a Mounted Opponent: You may make a trip attack against a mounted opponent. The defender may make a Ride check in place of his Dexterity or Strength check. If you succeed, you pull
the rider from his mount.
Tripping with a Weapon: Some weapons, including the spiked chain, dire flail, heavy flail, light flail, guisarme, halberd, and whip, can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you donÂ’t provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped.


You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack exceeds the target’s CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.

When making a trip combat maneuver, you don’t have to use a weapon with the trip special feature–you can use any weapon. For example, you can trip with a longsword or an unarmed strike, even though those weapons don’t have the trip special feature. Note that there is an advantage to using a weapon with the trip special feature (a.k.a. a “trip weapon”) when making a trip combat maneuver: if your trip attack fails by 10 or more, you can drop the trip weapon instead of being knocked prone.

So we have 3.5's three rolls (attack, and the opposed rolls) and possibly 5 rolls (the two rolls for opposing eachother if you fail your attempt), and possibly different modifiers ("on the offensive opposed roll I use Strength but my Dexterity is higher so I'll roll that on my defensive opposed roll", and "the defender is mounted so they roll Ride to resist lol good luck applying your +6 bonus vs my Ride-skill if I'm a mounted-type"). And on the other side we have Pathfinder with one roll.


I played a Brawler, using the options in Spheres of Might and focusing on combat maneuvers. Yes, I had a different CMD and CMB for each maneuver. So how did I keep them straight? I wrote them down. I kept a "cheat sheet" with my character sheet laying out the base numbers for each, as well a write-up of what each Sphere ability did.

The player should know what their PC can do. It's no different than a caster knowing what their spells do.
Again, the player should know what their character can do. That goes for any class using any system (caster, melee, combat maneuver, psionics, etc).

Can I get an amen!

[Seward]

Can I get an amen!

Indeed. In pathfinder the complexity of a combat-maneuver guy with several maneuvers is about the same as a 3.5 power attacker, who needs to recalculate attack and damage mods for various options (and in pathfinder, power attack was simplified too, less options = less paralysis by players frozen over possibilities).

If I did my 3.5 grapple/trip dude in Pathfinder I'd need to track only two CMB modifiers and his CMD (which would vary if enlarged or otherwise buffed/debuffed, a problem for any melee character in any d20 game). He didn't really do bull rush, disarm etc, but on rare occasion for something he might have done (that reposition maneuver in Pathfinder was more in his mode than just pushing somebody away) he'd just use his base cmb instead of the one modified for feats.

[Troacctid]

Indeed. In pathfinder the complexity of a combat-maneuver guy with several maneuvers is about the same as a 3.5 power attacker, who needs to recalculate attack and damage mods for various options (and in pathfinder, power attack was simplified too, less options = less paralysis by players frozen over possibilities).
3.5 attack rolls are more complicated and fiddly to calculate than any 3.5 combat maneuvers. There are a bunch of situational modifiers that can apply to melee attacks that wouldn't apply to ability checks or grapple checks, and you need to remember what they are and when they apply. There are also a lot of buff and debuff effects that force you to recalculate on the fly. Bringing all of that baggage to CMB makes it more complicated, not less.


If I did my 3.5 grapple/trip dude in Pathfinder I'd need to track only two CMB modifiers and his CMD (which would vary if enlarged or otherwise buffed/debuffed, a problem for any melee character in any d20 game).
...That's two different numbers to track, which is the same as 3.5's status quo before PF changed it.

[Kurald Galain]

3.5 attack rolls are more complicated and fiddly to calculate than any 3.5 combat maneuvers.
What you're missing is that 3.5 attack rolls are also more complicated and fiddly than PF attack rolls. :smallamused:

[Troacctid]

What you're missing is that 3.5 attack rolls are also more complicated and fiddly than PF attack rolls. :smallamused:
How so? I haven't gotten that impression in the PF games I've played.

[Seward]

...That's two different numbers to track, which is the same as 3.5's status quo before PF changed it.

Two different numbers per maneuver in 3.5 (each maneuver used a different mechanic). Sometimes 3 when touch AC was also involved, 4 if you count the initial touch attack roll, although that one is usually pretty similar to any other attack roll the PC would use.

Two different numbers total in Pathfinder. And all the cruft between maneuvers is mostly the same (size works the same for all, defensive touch AC bonuses to cmd work the same for all, what is left is only weapon modifiers and feat modifier)

[Elves]

All you need is attack rolls and opposed ability rolls. I don't see what CMB/CMD add as separate stats -- they seem to only exist because of the different size modifiers, and since size is in statblock that info is already there.

[icefractal]

and since size is in statblock that info is already there.No thanks. Maybe in your group all players can all do that calculation quickly, but in many groups there's at least one person who's slow at math, and having it pre-calculated on the sheet is a big improvement on stumbling through it every time it comes up.

Also, sometimes you want to add things to combat maneuvers in general, or to non-maneuver attacks in general, and separate stats make that easy.


Also, opposed ability rolls suck:
1) Opposed rolls are slower than a single roll vs a static DC.
2) Opposed rolls are more volatile, and stat mods are small relative to the die size. Result: Combat maneuvers are way more volatile than normal attacks, making something like "a scrawny child knocks down a brawny veteran soldier, and said soldier fails to do anything in return" more likely. Not a good outcome, IMO.
3) Combat skill (BAB) doesn't affect ability to trip people in combat? That's dumb.

[Seward]

Also, opposed ability rolls suck:
1) Opposed rolls are slower than a single roll vs a static DC.
2) Opposed rolls are more volatile, and stat mods are small relative to the die size. Result: Combat maneuvers are way more volatile than normal attacks, making something like "a scrawny child knocks down a brawny veteran soldier, and said soldier fails to do anything in return" more likely. Not a good outcome, IMO.
3) Combat skill (BAB) doesn't affect ability to trip people in combat? That's dumb.

A good expansion of my above comment (problem 4, opposed ability checks are swingy).

Imagine rolling a d20 on every armor class roll instead of getting a flat +10 every time an attack roll was made, and also imagine that attack mod and armor class modifer to that d20 roll typically only ranged from -2 to +10.

I've actually played a game like that once, using percentiles instead of a d20. (I think it was Stormbringer, based on the Runequest engine in the 1980s but set in Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone world) It had critical hits and fumbles for extra stupidity, but the basic mechanic was attacker rolled to hit, defender rolled to dodge or parry, depending on which of their skills was higher, and of course parry needed a shield or a weapon. So both parties are rolling d100+skill that can't get lower than 5 or higher than 95 with fumbles/crits if your d100 falls out of that range. (I might be a bit off on the mechanics, but the result of this system is burned into my memory...anecdote follows)

The very first round of combat played in this system by any of us my character swung a magical greatsword at some random thug with a dagger. I rolled to hit, got a critical hit. He made a parry check, he critted. If the parry check succeeds in that system it doesn't matter what you roll on offense. Worse a crit rolls on some table and in my case my magic greatsword was broken by a random dude with an ordinary, nonmagical dagger. Also my critical hit didn't happen, so the random mook laughed at my weaponless melee brute. That incident alone caused us to use that system strictly for mage-type characters in future games, as melee combat was obviously stupid. Runequest was famous for veteran soldiers cutting off their own arms due to fumbles...they had an extensive and bizzare critical hit and fumble section and it tended to be a flat 5% to get that ball rolling, so in any large scale battle situation you could calculate that many, many of the serious casualties were self inflicted, as the first round 1 in 20 soldiers would fumble in some fashion.

Bottom line though, opposed rolls with auto-success and auto-failure could also have lead to an unskilled person randomly parrying a critical hit from a greatsword with a coffee mug. And even in normal cases with no crits/fumbles a veteran with high skill could be outdone by a random civilian just with a decent d100 roll, as average agility gave you a base 15-20% dodge with a 5% chance of auto-success in any event, and you could be epic and still never exceed 95% on your attack skill, and defense skills trumped offense skills if both "hit".

[SangoProduction]

That's an urban legend though. If you look at bestiary statistics, the spread (standard deviation) on CMD is fairly high; so in practice only few enemies have a wazoo here. Like, for CR 15 monsters the minimum CMD is 15, that's clearly not a wazoo.

I mean sure, if you want to build a character that always uses maneuver X on everything and has no fallback options, then you're in trouble. The system isn't meant to support one-trick ponies (and that's not limited to maneuver ponies, either).

It's... not a legend. What you say about the immense spread is true. I mean there's a CMD 92 at CR 3. At least if that statistic aggregators I've got are right. I can't even guess which monster has that. If someone wants a fun way to spend an afternoon so we can all dunk on level 3 CM users, go ahead and find it.

But outliers are outliers. Which, surprisingly, doesn't actually modulate the average all that much, in this case.
What really matters is what are you likely to face, which are better modeled by median and most. Given a true random generation from the available monsters.
Which isn't the case, but in order to be any more specific, you'd need to know the GM, and the campaign, and innumerable other variables that affect the chances of a creature being chosen. For example, if you're told the campaign involves a crime syndicate, you have an above average chance of facing humanoids with class levels, which have low-to-no CMD growth, by comparison to say giants and other beasties. And thus you can safely spec into playing a CM character. But that's a bit of a tangent.

So, given that we do not know we are going to face CM-easy targets, and instead it might be a random assortment of things from the monster manual (let alone homebrew), we need to look at what can be reasonably statistically expected. Again, this is modeled best by the median and most.

And these grow at roughly 2 to 2.5 per CR. The equivalent of Improved X's bonus, but every single level. Just keep pace with the average creature of that CR. And even with the stacking Improved X bonus feat each level, you still slowly begin to lose ground.

Compared to AC's roughly 1:1 CR growth, and Touch AC's almost N/A growth, the difference is astounding, and very solid evidence that something's wrong with the CMD formula.

I mean, Full BAB can roughly match the statistical AC growth without items, and still everyone says martials absolutely require items to remain relevant at their one job.
And that's even disregarding that you can't even actually use any combat maneuvers in the base system, without provoking AoO, unless you specifically pick up feats to allow you to unlock precisely one CM. That's just ridiculous, and Elephant in the Room is so needed for this very simple reason.

[icefractal]

It's... not a legend. What you say about the immense spread is true. I mean there's a CMD 92 at CR 3. At least if that statistic aggregators I've got are right. I think the aggregator is wrong, I've never seen anything remotely like that.

Potentially it's "CMD vs trip specifically" for something with a very large number of legs. Since there are a number of creatures straight-up immune to Trip (in both 3.5 and PF1), that doesn't really change the situation.

[SangoProduction]

I think the aggregator is wrong, I've never seen anything remotely like that.

Potentially it's "CMD vs trip specifically" for something with a very large number of legs. Since there are a number of creatures straight-up immune to Trip (in both 3.5 and PF1), that doesn't really change the situation.

Yeah. I'm definitely thinking it's probably wrong. But I've also not going through and reviewed the stats of monsters.

[Elves]

No thanks. Maybe in your group all players can all do that calculation quickly, but in many groups there's at least one person who's slow at math, and having it pre-calculated on the sheet is a big improvement on stumbling through it every time it comes up.
If you want to include that info in the sblock, do so -- no need to create a new conceptually separate game statistic.

[RandomPeasant]

Yeah. I'm definitely thinking it's probably wrong. But I've also not going through and reviewed the stats of monsters.

Does the aggregator not link to the specific monster? If not, that seems like an oversight.

[SangoProduction]

Does the aggregator not link to the specific monster? If not, that seems like an oversight.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E2-s8weiulPoBQjdI05LBzOUToyoZIdSsLKxHAvf8F8/edit#gid=3

Here's the link. It also includes contact information for questions.

[Seward]

So to respond to the last few posts on how combat maneuvers are worthless in 3.5 or pathfinder anyway because of how monsters scale.

It is well understood that a reasonable opponent is somebody your size who is about your strength or weaker for a combat maneuver. Such enemies become less common as levels progress unless you remain absolutely dedicated to boosting your bonus by all means possible (full bab, boosting strength, boosting size, getting specific items that help with it and for some maneuvers weapons as well AND getting all the basic attack buffs you can get from your party in actual combat vs anything difficult).

That said, the exact same thing is true about armor class. Only in the baby levels where fullplate is affordable and monster attack mods have not caught up is a martial relatively immune to melee attacks. By level 6 that vanishes unless you are seriously dedicated to AC.

It can be done on either front. I've done both (once in 3.5 once in Pathfinder for maneuvers, once in pathfinder for AC and saves). But you can't expect to resist primary attacks of big strong, cr appropriate enemies from level 6-20 with a generic amount of effort spent on bab, strength and size (Tordek) for combat maneuvers, or with a generic amount of effort spent on every form of AC you can possibly get - armor+5 shield+5, deflect+5, nat armor+5, insight from ioun stone and as many dodge bonuses as you can find), as soon as you can possibly get it without compromising your offense to irrelevance. This is done with some mix of feats, spells and gear. A magic heavy party will have to spend less wbl on it, but likely won't have as many feats to invest unless they are willing to dump buffs on a martial tank who invested in such things, and more esoteric gear. (also everybody, without exception needs to keep up with their cloak/vest of resistance and preferably dex/con/wis stat items if they want any chance of passing a saving throw even in their stronger saves. Anything you don't invest in only avoids getting hit on a "1" and saves on a "20")

For most characters, with a normal "martial" investment in AC, it is only a way to mitigate incoming damage against strong enemies (they can't power attack full safely without risking missing and their iteratives will likely miss) and CMD is more like saving throws - it works sometimes or fairly reliably vs weaker opponents, it won't tend to hold up well vs somebody built strong to get a high CMB, just like you are quite unlikely to shake off a greater spell focus, max attribute saving throw just by relying on it being a "good save" and a moderate investment in a resistance item. Generally a decent benchmark for adequate CMB/CMD on a martial is keeping up with effects like Black Tentacles (caster level+8)...you should be able to shake off/avoid such effects at least half the time and recover from or escape without aid from anybody else on your own given a couple rounds to work with. If you get grabbed by a Collossal Squid, you expect your party members or your buffs or your gear to get you out (via free movement, dimension door or just killing the damn thing while you distract it). Nobody expects you to actually beat it with a grapple check, not in 3.5 or in pathfinder.

On offense nobody expects you to bull rush the squid. But if a low str similar size rogue who just pickpocketed the item you want to destroy is standing right next to the volcano your average fighter should be able to shove them over the side (relying on ac if nothing else they have can avoid the aoo). Just like in Lord of the Rings. (indeed that outcome is more likely in Pathfinder and to some extent in 3.5 because of how bab scales, and how much more the fighter likely would have invested in boosting his strength level by level in either system). My 3.5 maneuver character stopped winning against enemies larger than him as early as level 8 with those things, but he never stopped being able to stick them on anybody his size or less through level 15, barring some absolute block like free movement vs grapple or having a snake lower body with trip. It mostly got easier because his bonuses got larger relative to the d20, and the gap between him and non-melee-brutes in those maneuvers got wider, while similar-sized-melees he had the same chance as at level 1, but with more attacks/round to stick one.

That's how it is. High level play has such huge and rapid monster scaling because WBL really is that powerful, as are high level buffs that either now last all day, or if prepared for a fight the minute/lvl last as long as a low level 10 min/level, and round/level can clear several encounters if they aren't too far apart.

[Morphic tide]

All things considered, CMB and CMD helped, but they did not actually fix the underlying issues, because the devs were not willing to commit to using them as a straight alternate to AC. You still have the feat taxes to avoid AoOs, you still need feats to make the action economy work out, you still have independent situational modifiers, and they split most of the feats and the "unified" numbers themselves query situational modifiers.

It plays faster, but it works worse. They also threw out most of the ways to deal with monster-math bonuses, more firmly entrenching per-maneuver investment because there's so little way to use it yourself and they steadfastly refused to introduce any real "meat" of subsystems outside Vancian.

[Blackhawk748]

Yeah. I'm definitely thinking it's probably wrong. But I've also not going through and reviewed the stats of monsters.

On a whim, I was wondering if it was one of the Centipedes (because they tend to be a tad silly) and I found that the CR 3 Giant Whiptail Centipede has a CMD of 22. Which is pretty substantial, but not that silly

[Elder_Basilisk]

So which ways to deal with monster math problems do you think were present in 3.x but were removed in Pathfinder?

The big one I can think of is removing close quarters fighting (which I liked as a feat but disliked as a design choice because it makes abilities conditional: oh, you have improved grab/improved grapple, except I have close quarters fighting so your improved grapple doesn't prevent AoOs anymore--maybr someone will publish "Even More Improved Grapple" sometime so then my CQF feat won't work anymore). Most of the other things are general changes like ray of enfeeblement getting a save, and some reduce the monster math problem as well (enlarge gives a smaller bonus but the monsters also get a smaller bonus for being large). I guess some of those were a bigger deal for things that were straight ability checks and thus avoided the HD/BAB dependent element of monster math problems.

[Morphic tide]

So which ways to deal with monster math problems do you think were present in 3.x but were removed in Pathfinder?

The big one I can think of is removing close quarters fighting (which I liked as a feat but disliked as a design choice because it makes abilities conditional: oh, you have improved grab/improved grapple, except I have close quarters fighting so your improved grapple doesn't prevent AoOs anymore--maybr someone will publish "Even More Improved Grapple" sometime so then my CQF feat won't work anymore). Most of the other things are general changes like ray of enfeeblement getting a save, and some reduce the monster math problem as well (enlarge gives a smaller bonus but the monsters also get a smaller bonus for being large). I guess some of those were a bigger deal for things that were straight ability checks and thus avoided the HD/BAB dependent element of monster math problems.

Mostly, it's a matter of there being recurring themes of things that were never introduced from 3.5 splatbooks. Your Primevals, Bear Warriors, the benefits of actual-statblock Wild Shape, Totemist, Psychic Warrior, basically the reams of stuff to get either large specific modifiers or directly take them from the monsters for yourself. The escalations that brought things back in line just never happened in PF1e, because they wanted to "balance 3.5" and "leave things open for third parties".

You have to focus your build on maneuvers one at a time, because there's nothing with a low footprint or easy fungibility or alternate uses to do it with. The only viable choice, to my knowledge, is dedicating a sizable chunk of the character to one specific maneuver.

[Eldonauran]

You have to focus your build on maneuvers one at a time, because there's nothing with a low footprint or easy fungibility or alternate uses to do it with. The only viable choice, to my knowledge, is dedicating a sizable chunk of the character to one specific maneuver.You can spend your favored class bonuses from various races on certain classes to boost your CMD against specific maneuvers (or various ones with the Fighter class). It'll cost you 20 HP or 20 skills (or a mixture of both) to do this, but that's about equal to one to 1.5 feats.

[Seward]

It plays faster, but it works worse. They also threw out most of the ways to deal with monster-math bonuses, more firmly entrenching per-maneuver investment because there's so little way to use it yourself and they steadfastly refused to introduce any real "meat" of subsystems outside Vancian.

As with most things system mastery gets around most of the problems. In Pathfinder I saw a few effective combat maneuver specialists at my table (granted in 1-12 range) and they all had this in common.

1. They were as strong and high bab as possible
2. They had a reliable way to enlarge
3. They used reach weapons if not grappling, said reach weapons providing extra bonuses as needed
3a - there is an extra-d space item in pathfinder that lets you swap reach weapons. The higher level one I saw used this
4. They generally also fit in decent dex+combat reflexes into the build.
5. In spite of being large, they had adequate armor class, which helped vs weaker enemies when they couldn't get a reach advantage with the aoo.
6. They generally picked useful trait, race and archetype options that supported CMB/CMD in general, as well as giving extra boosts to their specialty or filling in gaps that are not their specialty. They typically only had 1-2 feats actually spent on combat maneuvers as such, how many depended on how demanding the rest of their build was in terms of eating up feats and how likely they were to feel worried about avoiding the aoo. Very few higher tier feats in pathfinder gave a huge advantage (improved trip is an exception, the tier 2 feat was great), and it was easier to avoid the aoo on non-specialist maneuvers usually than to invest a feat to get a +2 and avoid aoo.

They didn't actually need all the specific feat options to avoid aoos because of the reach. Usually they were only deeply invested in one thing (one was a grappler, who used reach weapons bonuses to avoid aoo's and give a similar CMB advantage in other maneuvers. One was a trip expert who managed to mix whirlwind attack with feats that gave extra aoo's for everybody when the guy got tripped.). But they were pretty solid at any other combat maneuver if the situation demanded it, because size, strength and BAB work for all of them, as does combat reflexes, and they also tended to be very strong against combat maneuvers because str+dex+bab+sometimes feats or racial bonuses = good cmd vs most anything.

No, they still can't outdo the colossal squid. But they were hell on wheels at lesser opponents, including other martials that didn't happen to be huge.

It's possible in higher levels they'd go deeper into single maneuver feats, as the basic chasse feats have been spent and they get new ones every 2 levels (or faster if they get bonus feats). But in the levels I played pathfinder it was more important to build a CMB/CMD foundation with traits, race, size, strength, bab and appropriate WBL expenditure than to go deep to be effective at your specialty.

[Kurald Galain]

The only viable choice, to my knowledge, is dedicating a sizable chunk of the character to one specific maneuver.
Three possibilities that come to mind are
(1) wield a reach weapon and invest nothing; you can use weapon-based maneuvers at need against anything without reach. If you're a full-BAB class that's really all you need at low to mid level.
(2) Dirty Fighting feat.
(3) Magus. Have some defensive buff up so enemy can't hit you with its OA (e.g. Mirror Image; this is standard operating procedure anyway) then use spell combat to cast True Strike and attack in the same turn. With +20 you'll likely connect any maneuver against anything not immune.
(4) ETA: Anyone with flex feats, such as the Brawler, and various archetypes for other classes.

I mean yes, if you want a character that always and against every enemy uses a maneuver with no fallbacks, you're out of luck. But occasionally or frequently using maneuvers is quite doable with minimal investment, except at high level.

[Seward]

Three possibilities that come to mind are
(1) wield a reach weapon and invest nothing; you can use weapon-based maneuvers at need against anything without reach. If you're a full-BAB class that's really all you need at low to mid level.
(2) Dirty Fighting feat.
(3) Magus. Have some defensive buff up so enemy can't hit you with its OA (e.g. Mirror Image; this is standard operating procedure anyway) then use spell combat to cast True Strike and attack in the same turn. With +20 you'll likely connect any maneuver against anything not immune.

.

Brawler. I got a lot of mileage with my dragon disciple "stack every feat that adds str bonus to unarmed strike" build with shifting in a unusual maneuver perfect for the current situation as a move action and using it with my massive strength (and sometimes extra size, usually from an enlarge potion - he could use a scroll but std action vs 1 round to activate is worth an extra 25gp). I was somewhat limited because I didn't have combat expertise (although brawler lets you buy that feat without needing int 13, so I could have). Had I taken combat expertise everything would have opened up to me (not just stuff like improved grapple, bull rush or blindfight, as I actually did have the prereqs for)

[AsuraKyoko]

In general, I like rolling the maneuvers into a single largely unified mechanic. Having differing bonuses for each maneuver is a pain, but it's not especially difficult to manage, and no more so than managing the different maneuvers in 3.5.

I do think that there were several mistakes made with CMB and CMD in PF, though. The first is a simple one, that was mentioned earlier: the letters B and D sound too similar when said, so it causes a little bit of confusion. It's nothing major, just mildly annoying. More problematic is that things diverged from the unified mechanic a bit more than they should have: each maneuver has its own set of options and things that apply to only it, and it somewhat defeats the point of unifying them in the first place.

The Elephant in the Room homebrew system largely addresses this by combining the maneuver feats into two broader ones by type; one feat for the more dexterous maneuvers such as Dirty Trick, and one for the more strength based ones, such as Bull Rush.

The other major problem is that monster CMD outscales PC CMB rather significantly. It's tricky to come up with a simple solution to this, but only adding one stat to CMD instead of two would be a good start.

Honestly, I think that combat maneuvers could be handled better in general. Thinking about it, you could fix the scaling problems by using saves instead of attack rolls. Have a simple formula for determining the save DC of a maneuver, and which save its opposed by, and you're golden. it allows those who want to use maneuvers to target the weak saves of enemies, and the scaling is much more evenly matched.

[Blackhawk748]

Honestly, I think that combat maneuvers could be handled better in general. Thinking about it, you could fix the scaling problems by using saves instead of attack rolls. Have a simple formula for determining the save DC of a maneuver, and which save its opposed by, and you're golden. it allows those who want to use maneuvers to target the weak saves of enemies, and the scaling is much more evenly matched.

I feel like this is how DDO did it. I can't confirm this but it feels like that when you click the button. This and making Cleave a cone attack in front of you are some pretty great changes they made to accomodate the MMO mechanics that I feel would be fun to backport to the table top

[SangoProduction]

I feel like this is how DDO did it. I can't confirm this but it feels like that when you click the button. This and making Cleave a cone attack in front of you are some pretty great changes they made to accomodate the MMO mechanics that I feel would be fun to backport to the table top

If we're talking homebrew, and similar such backporting, I was actually setting up a game with the follow house rule, and have been modifying it a bit based on this very interesting thread.


Unified Maneuvers

All combat maneuver checks are replaced with a reflex save. DC equals 10 + 1/2 BAB + (highest of non-Con stat bonus), and no longer provoke on use.

Steal and Disarm are combined as just Disarm. (Tentatively having related Spheres of Might talents affect each other. Playing that by ear.)

Reposition, bull rush, and other such maneuvers are all combined into Movement, along with Overrun. (Again, related talents affect each other.)

Improved (Maneuver) feats no longer grant bonus CMB, and instead allow you to swap it with a fortitude save when used.

Tentatively, allowing what would be CMB modifiers to instead affect the DC at 1/2 the rate. This is the playtest. Expect things to potentially change (and free respec offered) if things get out of hand.

[Blackhawk748]

I like the concept and I'd be curious to see how it plays out at the table.

Personally I'd just make some of them Vs Fort natively and the others against Reflex but that's me

[Seward]

The other major problem is that monster CMD outscales PC CMB rather significantly. It's tricky to come up with a simple solution to this, but only adding one stat to CMD instead of two would be a good start.


This is a problem baked into how monsters scale in d20 engine.

Because PC's are expected to be wearing a junkyard of magical loot and glowing with buffs in most encounters at higher levels, the monsters get a lot of hit dice bumps per cr, plus tend to get generous physical benefits from getting bigger or gaining a template vs advancing by classes.

Which means that yeah, your basic magical beast advances 3 BAB + 1 in all bad saves, +1-2 in all good saves and gets one feat per CR, plus every time you advance by size (assuming large or greater) they get +8 strength, a con bump and a natural armor bump. Thus the "Collossal Squid will just win combat maneuvers" assertion (animals aren't quite as bad as monstrous beasts but they advance CMB/CMD nearly as quickly). At least in Pathfinder, the dex loss from size growth hurts the CMD a little.

There's a reason monsters only get gear based on character classes they take, gear is part of how CR is balanced, and the massive boosts by monster hit die advancement assume they're naked, or at best have hide armor+greatclub or similar L1 level gear.

Messing with that dynamic is risky as a lot of the game system is designed around it. If you are running a "low magic low WBL" type game, CR advancement by hit dice need to be toned down to match (if you keep npc wealth and magic use low to match, class-based advancement should still be ok)



All combat maneuver checks are replaced with a reflex save. DC equals 10 + 1/2 BAB + (highest of non-Con stat bonus), and no longer provoke on use.


Note that monsters scale on saving throws very quickly too, if advancing on monster hit dice. Which is why "save or suck/die" on single targets becomes just as futile as combat maneuvers vs big strong critters if you don't overspecialize a caster to be extremely strong at it in a way similar to how you have to overspecialize a martial maneuver critter to be able to compete with stuff larger than him which advances with monster hit dice beyond level 6-9.

Reflex save though really? So your big/strong critters are now easy meat to a tiny fay critter? That seems to invert the basic dynamic entirely. If you were to base it on anything, fort save would at least scale more like how the current str+size+bab mechanic does.

[Blackhawk748]

Note that monsters scale on saving throws very quickly too, if advancing on monster hit dice. Which is why "save or suck/die" on single targets becomes just as futile as combat maneuvers vs big strong critters if you don't overspecialize a caster to be extremely strong at it in a way similar to how you have to overspecialize a martial maneuver critter to be able to compete with stuff larger than him which advances with monster hit dice beyond level 6-9.

Reflex save though really? So your big/strong critters are now easy meat to a tiny fay critter? That seems to invert the basic dynamic entirely. If you were to base it on anything, fort save would at least scale more like how the current str+size+bab mechanic does.

Saves do scale quickly, but generally it's most pronounced on things like Undead and Get, both of which have critical holes in that. Undead lacking Con and Get generally having poor Con to boost it.

Most of why Fort saves are nuts is because Monsters have really high Con scores, partially because of Size.

And for optimizing saves, well... That's most of what casters do normally, simply because they are encouraged to do so. Pick a school and be good at it.

[SangoProduction]

I did forget the size bonus. Thanks.

[Gnaeus]

Is there a separate colossal squid from the giant squid I find in PFSRD? Because it's kind of pathetic.

CR 9. No feats or specials that let it grapple as anything but a standard. +22 grapple, CMD 31.

So first, it actually is trash at grappling. It makes a bunch of attacks, hits with a grapple, and then spends standard actions to construct for 24 average damage. My not very optimized level 6 party could take it without breaking a sweat if it did anything other than grapple/release.

2 +22 is hardly auto success at CR 9. Figure a cloth caster has a base 10+4bab+2dex so 16, but that's before deflection, haste, grease, bonuses to Dex, so MAYBE it can grapple the wizard on a 2. Figure a cleric has +6bab, +2 Str, +1 Dex, +3 deflection (ring or shield of faith). Monster is still good as long as cleric 9 only casts 1 level 1 spell and has no relevant gear. Fighter with enlarge person (level 1 spell or potion) probably has something like +9BAB, +7str, +1 size, +2 Dex. So a 29 CMD with no deflection bonus, no buffs other than enlarge or equivalent, no relevant weapon/armor training no CMD bonuses at all.

3. CMD 31. So let's say we have a fighter who likes maneuvers. BAB+9, Str +8 (started at 20, +2 level, enhancement, enlarge), +2 weapon training unarmed, +4 greater grapple, +1 size, +1 haste or prayer. That's +25. So a 75% chance to grapple a huge freaking squid of equivalent CR. Using 3 of his 10 feats. No particular fancy opti Fu. Core. Single classed fighter. It assumes that he has a 50 gp potion, a +2 Str belt, and a caster who can give him a +1. He doesn't have an amulet of mighty fists. Nor did he bother taking weapon focus unarmed. In a cooperative party or with a touch of optimization (like not fighter 9...) The fighter could grapple the squid on a 2. I doubt there is anyone on the thread who couldn't scrape together another +5-7 without trying too hard.

A freaking Kraken is CR18, CMD 44. So give that fighter 9 more BAB, +1 more STR bonus from levels, +2 more weapon training and other than the fact that he needs to be larger because it is gargantuan he's down to wrestle the Kraken with no other optimization. The kraken has improved trip for some reason, but STILL HAS TO USE ITS STANDARD ACTION TO MAINTAIN A GRAPPLE.

[Eldonauran]

Hmm, I can't remember the last game where I had a level 9 melee character with a 24 strength even with magic items boosting it. A Barbarian for a brief time in their rage, maybe, but ... wow. I'd hate to see what that fighter's other stats look like even with 20 point buy. A 18/14/14/10/10/10 spread, maybe? Or 19/14/14/10/10/8? Dumping two level ups into it and spending 40,000gp out of their 46,000gp expected wealth by that level into could get you there with an Enlarge spell.

I have to ask. What kind of game are you playing?


+22 is hardly auto success at CR 9. Figure a cloth caster has a base 10+4bab+2dex so 16, but that's before deflection, haste, grease, bonuses to Dex, so MAYBE it can grapple the wizard on a 2.Yeah, it can grapple that wizard when it rolls a 2, for a total of a 24 on its grapple check vs that 16 (rolling a 1 is an autofailure). Giving the wizard the benefit of the doubt and giving them +2 deflection, +1 from haste, and the +10 from being greased (if they have time to get those buffs off), thats a target of a 29 to hit. Which the monster can do on a roll of a 7 or higher.

Most monsters that are grapple 'monsters' tend to be great as ambush predators and are not as effective against a full party of enemies. That is why I never just throw one of them at the players at a time.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Starting strength 20, assuming enlarge person, greater grapple, haste or prayer, and the first weapon training on unarmed Is a little bit atypical. If you assume starting strength 18, only improved grapple, and second weapon training on unarmed (a fighter who is not built to use grapple as his first combat option) and don't assume that he has multiple short duration buffs, then you end up dropping 8 points off the CMB and he needs a 15 to beat the squid's CMD despite being built with grapple capability in mind as a secondary attack mode. His party can get him up to 50/50 with haste and enlarge person though.

The real problem with the Squid is that the Pathfinder maintain grapple rules force it to lose all it's attacks to keep a single enemy grappled and at the same time double its damage if it does hit/grapple/release shenanigans rather than just hit/grapple. IMO, that's backwards. It should be able to maintain multiple grapples and should want to do so rather than almost always wanting to grapple and release. Proposed solution: change to Construct. Instead of dealing damage on a successful grapple check, it enables the creature to maintain one or more grapples as part of a full attack action by using one attack with construct to maintain each grapple. Successfully maintaining a grapple in this manner deals lethal damage equal to the normal damage of the attack.

While we're discussing grapple in particular does anyone else think that concentration DC to cast a spell in a grapple is too high? Looking it up under concentration in d20pfsrd says it is 10+CMD+spell level which will usually be impossible. 20+spell level like 3.5 was too low and often made it trivial but it should be just CMD+spell level IMO. That will often amount to 10+HD+two ability scores and probably a size modifier. When compared to concentration which is generally clvl+casting ability, it will usually result in a reasonable but not guaranteed chance depending on the level of the spell. 10+CMD+spell level is almost always "nat 20 only."

[Gnaeus]

Hmm, I can't remember the last game where I had a level 9 melee character with a 24 strength even with magic items boosting it. A Barbarian for a brief time in their rage, maybe, but ... wow. I'd hate to see what that fighter's other stats look like even with 20 point buy. A 18/14/14/10/10/10 spread, maybe? Or 19/14/14/10/10/8? Dumping two level ups into it and spending 40,000gp out of their 46,000gp expected wealth by that level into could get you there with an Enlarge spell.

I have to ask. What kind of game are you playing?
.

A not very optimized one. 24 strength for a strength melee character at level 9 is low balling it. That's a 18 starting stat +2 racial, +2 level, +2 enhancement, +2 enlarge person. Spent 4000 on a strength +2 belt and 50gp on a potion. I find it unlikely that a Str fighter will be below that. Very likely that he will be above

An optimized level 9 strength monster is more like: 22 starting STR (18+4 for Orc or another strength paragon race), +6 enhance (18000 gp for a +6 belt the party wizard can almost certainly rapid craft), +2 level, +4 morale from rage, +4 alchemical from mutation warrior's mutagen, +2 size from enlarge person =40. That's +15 Str, +9 BAB, +2 weapon group unarmed, +1 size +2 amulet of mighty fists +2 or greater magic fang, +1 weapon focus unarmed +2 untyped gauntlets of skilled maneuver so +34 CMB before maneuver specific feats or party buffs, 1 feat spent. (Or +32 Not grapple CMB) I can hit similar numbers with a Druid. I could certainly beat them with a proper martial build that was better than fighter 8 Barbarian 1.

Starting strength 20, assuming enlarge person, greater grapple, haste or prayer, and the first weapon training on unarmed Is a little bit atypical. If you assume starting strength 18, only improved grapple, and second weapon training on unarmed (a fighter who is not built to use grapple as his first combat option) and don't assume that he has multiple short duration buffs, then you end up dropping 8 points off the CMB and he needs a 15 to beat the squid's CMD despite being built with grapple capability in mind as a secondary attack mode. His party can get him up to 50/50 with haste and enlarge person though

The fighter who wasn't a maneuver specialist was starting strength 18. +2 level, +2 enhance, +2 size =24.

His only buffs are enlarge person, which he can't grapple the huge squid without, and is a first level potion every not large fighter carries and prayer or haste. That's a pretty low load out. Remove the second grapple feat, 2str and take unarmed second and you lose a whopping 4 points. Again, he has 0 enhancement bonus. No party druid, or bard. Just a potion and a haste. So a low op core single classed fighter, without BASIC maneuver gear, with pretty much minimum buffs still has a better than 50/50 chance to grapple a giant squid at equal CR when not specifically built around grappling. How easy do you think it should be for a not grapple specced, unbuffed character to wrestle a giant squid? I'd say that's very generous. It's very certainly not ungrappleable for PCs who put in effort. And if anything should be impossible to grapple, it SHOULD be a huge squid.

And really, the point of the grapple feat chain is the grapple as a move of greater grapple. It's what actually lets you do things in a grapple. I can't see investing IUS and improved grapple and not getting the feat that makes it all worth it.

[Eldonauran]

A not very optimized one. 24 strength for a strength melee character at level 9 is low balling it. That's a 18 starting stat +2 racial, +2 level, +2 enhancement, +2 enlarge person. Spent 4000 on a strength +2 belt and 50gp on a potion. I find it unlikely that a Str fighter will be below that. Very likely that he will be aboveYeah, we have vastly different definitions of what optimized means. Your 'floor' is well above what I consider a decent 'ceiling' to stay under. To provide an example: I consider starting with a 17 in your 'main stat' (including racial bonus, up to an 18 if you really want that +1 early) to be an acceptable and expected score to have. After that, it is not worth the point investment when it takes away from your other ability scores.


An optimized level 9 strength monster is more like: 22 starting STR (18+4 for Orc or another strength paragon race), +6 enhance (18000 gp for a +6 belt the party wizard can almost certainly rapid craft), +2 level, +4 morale from rage, +4 alchemical from mutation warrior's mutagen, +2 size from enlarge person =40. That's +15 Str, +9 BAB, +2 weapon group unarmed, +2 amulet of mighty fists +2 or greater magic fang, +1 weapon focus unarmed +2 untyped gauntlets of skilled maneuver so +33 CMB before maneuver specific feats or party buffs, 1 feat spent. (Or +31 Not grapple CMB) I can hit similar numbers with a Druid. I could certainly beat them with a proper martial build that was better than fighter 8 Barbarian 1.No wonder you think the system is not balanced properly. You aren't playing the same kind of game that the system was designed around. I can certainly optimize with the best of them and see exactly how far the system can be stretched beyond its breaking point, but I never bring those kinds of builds into an actual game. By all means, play the game your way but please refrain from commenting on how the system doesn't work in your games. You are far from having a reasonable and unbiased perspective on the challenge a CR appropriate encounter should be.

[Kurald Galain]

Is there a separate colossal squid from the giant squid I find in PFSRD? Because it's kind of pathetic.

CR 9. No feats or specials that let it grapple as anything but a standard. +22 grapple, CMD 31.
Yeah, arguments that maneuvers suck oh so badly tend to vanish in the face of simple math :smallamused: Except possibly at level 20, if you even play there in the first place.

[Gnaeus]

Yeah, we have vastly different definitions of what optimized means. Your 'floor' is well above what I consider a decent 'ceiling' to stay under. To provide an example: I consider starting with a 17 in your 'main stat' (including racial bonus, up to an 18 if you really want that +1 early) to be an acceptable and expected score to have. After that, it is not worth the point investment when it takes away from your other ability scores.

No wonder you think the system is not balanced properly. You aren't playing the same kind of game that the system was designed around. I can certainly optimize with the best of them and see exactly how far the system can be stretched beyond its breaking point, but I never bring those kinds of builds into an actual game. By all means, play the game your way but please refrain from commenting on how the system doesn't work in your games. You are far from having a reasonable and unbiased perspective on the challenge a CR appropriate encounter should be.

I don't think the system isn't balanced properly. I think the claims that monsters are ungrappleable are unfounded. (Except for the grapple/release bit, that's dumb). But the half orc barbarian built by a casual player who routinely gets beat up in APs in my adventure group figured out a 20 strength. As did my then 12 year old daughter, in her Goliath druid. But even if that were an issue, that's a 2 point difference on a 25-high 30s CMB. There is literally a set of 4kgp gloves that would offset that.

And right back at you. Your optimization level is below what I expect from children and casual players who haven't played the game in years. This is a game based around math, which has been out of print for years, so both guides and highly experienced players are common. There are literally full guides to individual combat maneuvers, of which I've barely scratched the surface. And all the pieces are in the PFSRD. Anyone who can do a Google search can meet or exceed those numbers (and still have a harder time than if they just wrote Wizard at the top of their sheet.)

[Elder_Basilisk]

I will point out that, RAW, it actually is impossible for the unbuffed fighter to grapple the giant squid due to size difference. Buffing is what makes it possible.

But comparing fighter 9 to a giant squid is not really a comparison that should always advantage the squid (and here its important to remember that just because a lot of board members have bought into the "fighters sux, only T-1 casters are real characters rhetoric" the bailey version of that motte and bailey argument is always about narrative options and magic item dependence, not fighters actually sucking at hitting things with hunks of metal or being unable to grapple things. Fighters are actually pretty good at both of those things--especially if they have the key potion on hand (which may or may not look like a can of spinach)). The CR 9 monster is not meant to be a major threat to a level 9 party (that would be CR 11 to be a moderately challenging encounter and CR 12 before there should be a meaningful chance of the party losing) so the fact that a fighter 9 could potentially down a potion and grapple it is not necessarily out of the realm of expectations. If Beowulf can grapple Grendel and rip off his arm, I don't have a thematic problem with a level 9 fighter who is designed to be good at grappling and gets his key buffs in place ahead of time having the potential to outwrestle a CR 9 monster who is also good at grappling. Level 9 grapplers should be able to do awesome things.

That said, given the balance of the squid's abilities including reach, implied aquatic environments, base attacks and damage, etc, I'm still probably wouldn't bet on the fighter in a 1v1 duel.

[Gnaeus]

I will point out that, RAW, it actually is impossible for the unbuffed fighter to grapple the giant squid due to size difference. Buffing is what makes it possible.

But comparing fighter 9 to a giant squid is not really a comparison that should always advantage the squid (and here its important to remember that just because a lot of board members have bought into the "fighters sux, only T-1 casters are real characters rhetoric" the bailey version of that motte and bailey argument is always about narrative options and magic item dependence, not fighters actually sucking at hitting things with hunks of metal or being unable to grapple things. Fighters are actually pretty good at both of those things--especially if they have the key potion on hand (which may or may not look like a can of spinach)). The CR 9 monster is not meant to be a major threat to a level 9 party (that would be CR 11 to be a moderately challenging encounter and CR 12 before there should be a meaningful chance of the party losing) so the fact that a fighter 9 could potentially down a potion and grapple it is not necessarily out of the realm of expectations. If Beowulf can grapple Grendel and rip off his arm, I don't have a thematic problem with a level 9 fighter who is designed to be good at grappling and gets his key buffs in place ahead of time having the potential to outwrestle a CR 9 monster who is also good at grappling. Level 9 grapplers should be able to do awesome things.

That said, given the balance of the squid's abilities including reach, implied aquatic environments, base attacks and damage, etc, I'm still probably wouldn't bet on the fighter in a 1v1 duel.

You can't point it out because I already mentioned it twice.

As to the second bit, is your point that a not terribly optimized, not very buffed fighter should be able to use any combat maneuver on any creature in it's level range? Because that's the way it is. I don't think an equal CR monster should be worse at it's supposed strength than a character who isn't particularly good at that thing. I don't have an issue at all with a grapple fighter (and Beowulf is a grapple fighter) out wrestling a squid. I think it's a bit odd that any appropriate level martial Str character who can hit size large can out wrestle the squid, or that Beowulf can roll a 2 and our wrestle the squid, but not really a problem. The point was rather that the argument that monster numbers are unbeatable or go up at an unfair rate isn't supported by the math. Their numbers are entirely beatable, even by a solo martial with a potion, let alone a party with real buffing chops.

[Eldonauran]

I don't think the system isn't balanced properly. I think the claims that monsters are ungrappleable are unfounded. (Except for the grapple/release bit, that's dumb). But the half orc barbarian built by a casual player who routinely gets beat up in APs in my adventure group figured out a 20 strength. As did my then 12 year old daughter, in her Goliath druid. Oh, then I misunderstood your position on the matter. It is entirely possible to grapple those monsters and succeed at it should you push it far enough. I have a level 10 character than can easily hit a +36 CMB to grapple in a Giantslayer game. It isn't terribly hard to do but that kind of maneuver isn't what my character does. They are a party buffer first, utility caster second, ranged switch hitter to protect the actual archer third, and uses their grapple ability to make any monster that thinks its a good idea to tackle the cackling witch realize it made a big mistake.


And right back at you. Your optimization level is below what I expect from children and casual players who haven't played the game in years. This is a game based around math, which has been out of print for years, so both guides and highly experienced players are common. There are literally full guides to individual combat maneuvers, of which I've barely scratched the surface. And all the pieces are in the PFSRD. Anyone who can do a Google search can meet or exceed those numbers (and still have a harder time than if they just wrote Wizard at the top of their sheet.)Considering that I actively play and GM in multiple PF1e games, and run a gestalt/mythic game once a week, I ought to take some measure of offense from that statement but I really don't. I stand by what I said before, you aren't playing the game the way it was designed. This game isn't just about math. Math is just one of the ways we interface with it and emulate the reality in which the game exists. Just because the math is there and the resources exist in order to completely break the system, it does not mean they should all be used to do so. What people SHOULD be doing is using those resources to broaden the abilities of their characters, not hyperfocus on being good at one or two things at the expense of everything else.

This isn't an issue of system mastery or experience in the system. This is a difference of how we approach the game. You appear to be playing to win. And that might be fun for you. I play to tell a story and let the math and inherent randomness of the dice arbitrate the results. Otherwise, you are going to turn PF1e into the same beast that 3.5 D&D mutated into. A rapid arms race of mutually assured destruction.

[Elder_Basilisk]

You can't point it out because I already mentioned it twice.

As to the second bit, is your point that a not terribly optimized, not very buffed fighter should be able to use any combat maneuver on any creature in it's level range? Because that's the way it is. I don't think an equal CR monster should be worse at it's supposed strength than a character who isn't particularly good at that thing. I don't have an issue at all with a grapple fighter (and Beowulf is a grapple fighter) out wrestling a squid. I think it's a bit odd that any appropriate level martial Str character who can hit size large can out wrestle the squid, or that Beowulf can roll a 2 and our wrestle the squid, but not really a problem. The point was rather that the argument that monster numbers are unbeatable or go up at an unfair rate isn't supported by the math. Their numbers are entirely beatable, even by a solo martial with a potion, let alone a party with real buffing chops.

The numbers are beatable, but not by just any str based martial--your example is a guy who is specced for grappling. He can't do any combat maneuver to the same degree--only the one or two he's spend feats on. And even then he depends on a potion with 1 minute duration, so if he wants to use grapple in the non-ideal situation, he probably needs to blow his most potentially consequential action of the combat to have a chance of doing it--and even then, he's only getting up to a 70% of so chance of pulling it off--next round--in the scenario where he spent three feats on it and started with a 20 stat. For that kind of build and action investment, he ought to get something good out of it (especially since he's probably dead in the solo scenario if the squid wins initiative and grabs him before he can drink the potion). Without limited grappling specialization, the "any str based martial" guy is still going to be behind the numbers and even with the numbers, other factors (like aquatic environment, constrict, and hit points) mean that only the fully grappling specialized martial has a meaningful chance of solo victory.

Given the high opportunity cost (of actions) for players, combat manuevers need to be high percentage moves to be worth it. Grapple is an outlier in that regard because it has more potential impact than other maneuvers--to the degree that "we all buff and aid other and heal the fighter and he wrestles the encounter till he wins" is often a viable strategy. Trip is probably the next most impactful maneuver but there is no way to "trip him till we win"--you have to land the OAs and deal damage or it's an underpants gnome scheme. Thus even if the complete party effort to overcome the numbers is enough to be worthwhile in the case of grapple, that doesn't meant that other maneuvers can usefully overcome the numbers in the same way.

[Gnaeus]

Oh, then I misunderstood your position on the matter. It is entirely possible to grapple those monsters and succeed at it should you push it far enough. I have a level 10 character than can easily hit a +36 CMB to grapple in a Giantslayer game. It isn't terribly hard to do but that kind of maneuver isn't what my character does. They are a party buffer first, utility caster second, ranged switch hitter to protect the actual archer third, and uses their grapple ability to make any monster that thinks its a good idea to tackle the cackling witch realize it made a big mistake..

Then why were you giving me grief about the +25 grapple check on a level 9? Because in your oh so perfect opinion people don't allocate points that way and it's op to start with a 20 because you should get those 2 points from stats, you need +11 points from somewhere else?



Considering that I actively play and GM in multiple PF1e games, and run a gestalt/mythic game once a week, I ought to take some measure of offense from that statement but I really don't. I stand by what I said before, you aren't playing the game the way it was designed. This game isn't just about math. Math is just one of the ways we interface with it and emulate the reality in which the game exists. Just because the math is there and the resources exist in order to completely break the system, it does not mean they should all be used to do so. What people SHOULD be doing is using those resources to broaden the abilities of their characters, not hyperfocus on being good at one or two things at the expense of everything else.

This isn't an issue of system mastery or experience in the system. This is a difference of how we approach the game. You appear to be playing to win. And that might be fun for you. I play to tell a story and let the math and inherent randomness of the dice arbitrate the results. Otherwise, you are going to turn PF1e into the same beast that 3.5 D&D mutated into. A rapid arms race of mutually assured destruction.

Just because I know how to optimize strength or build an optimized character doesn't mean anything about that. And where do you come up with I'm not playing the game as designed when you just admitted you are PLAYING IN A GAME a character with higher CMB than my example which is also a caster? How is making a character with 40 strength in any way more broken than a witch with 36 CMB? I am entirely capable of playing within the gaming culture of my games, the high op and low op ones, and the only game I can think I would enjoy breaking right now would be yours.

[Seward]

And for optimizing saves, well... That's most of what casters do normally, simply because they are encouraged to do so. Pick a school and be good at it.

In my experience, it's about 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 casters that goes down that road. Your typical "batman" mage focuses on stuff that just works (most battlefield control has no save or SR) and your typical cleric goes with a lot of buffs that just work, and your typical druid works with summons or wildshape or pet instead of trying to stick save/suck effects. All of them rack some just for unusually weak targets though - same idea as a combat maneuver guy tripping and grappling an easy medium-sized enemy when the opportunity arises.

YMMV with the campaigns you have played, but one reason the ratio was so low in my experience is that it was generally assumed that it was too big an investment for what you get to really rely on single target saves, and multi-target save spells will generally work on somebody, as the d20 looms large and bigger enemy groups = lower saves on average due to how CR scales.

I find the parallel pretty similar. Your average martial with zero investment in combat maneuvers beyond a decent BAB and strength can also tend to pick on weaker non-martial, similar sized enemies using combat maneuvers in situations where they can't kill them outright (typically on approach, to lock them in place for a full attack). The specialists will be able to stick their stuff on a much wider range of enemies, that's what you get for the deep investment in feats/class features/etc.


Is there a separate colossal squid from the giant squid I find in PFSRD? Because it's kind of pathetic.

Base monsters in the level 6-10 range aren't usually the problem so much as those advanced with 4 hit-dice per CR. Scale that dude up to CR15 and check again. He's got 16 more hit dice, 12 more BAB, 5 more feats in 3.5, 8 feats in Pathfinder, when your fighter has got another 6 bab and at best a +4 strength bump, probably only +2 and unless a specialist, has spent nothing else on grappling.



Hmm, I can't remember the last game where I had a level 9 melee character with a 24 strength even with magic items boosting it.


Baseline Tordek is about 20 str by then (16 starting, 2 stat bumps, +2 stat item). If he started with a half orc or wood elf and invested in a str+4 item, which isn't impossible by level 9 (although it competes with boots of haste and some other important stuff that is also barely affordable by tehn) he could be at 24. Any barbarian will be there when raging.



The real problem with the Squid is that the Pathfinder maintain grapple rules force it to lose all it's attacks to keep a single enemy grappled


The way to deal with multiple grapple attempts by critters with lots of natural weapon in 3.5 and pathfinder is the same. Do all the early grapple attempts at -20 (you'll be surprised how many non-martials you can nail with that, and a bad opposed roll on a martial will sometimes succeed too). The -20 lets you act as if not in a grapple and get more attacks.

Final attack goes at full grapple strength.



What people SHOULD be doing is using those resources to broaden the abilities of their characters, not hyperfocus on being good at one or two things at the expense of everything else.


There is a place for being a generalist and a place for being a specialist at the same table. If you are not so overspecialized that you can't adequately fill the rest of your role, why not be really good at something? For some characters that is "be good enough at almost anything to fill the role adequately, but not be truly specialized in anything" - that BTW is increasingly challenging to play as you level, because what you have to do relevant to do "damage dealing" or "healing" or "buffing" or whatever to be "Adequate" advances on all fronts, and takes considerable system mastery to advance on so many fronts at once.

To pick my favorite example from fiction, Shapeshifter is a legendary Taken, an undead sorcerer whose abilities focus on changing his own form, and changing those of others (he turned his wife who cheated on him into a magical staff, for example). But he also casually carpet-bombed an island with fireballs without comment in one scene, and in another goes "well, I'm not good at weather magic but sure" and provided a needed battlefield scale fog cloud. He's the best of the best at his specialty but he can still do the other things expected of an arcane caster of his stature, at least adequately, and many at a normally solid level.

Most combat maneuver folks are still pretty solid raw melee damage dealers and fill one of the light infantry (mobile but vulnerable to direct attack) or heavy infantry (less mobile but able to eat a martial full attack from CR appropriate enemies and not need rescue), in the same way that most archers in an underwater adventure can grab a spear and still kick a lot of ass. Because the system rewards high strength and bab in physical combat, and the basic chasse for any martial tends to have that, plus some stuff to support it outside the specialty.


And even then he depends on a potion with 1 minute duration, so if he wants to use grapple in the non-ideal situation

Like the squid beats him in initiative and grabs him before he can get it out, or, the situation that happened to my grappler all the time, the squid grabs somebody else and he needs to dive in and rescue that person before they are constricted to death right now, not after I've spent an entire turn getting out and drinking a potion. Generally "rescue" vs a giant squid type enemy meant "beat the crap out of it till it dies" not attempting to grapple it. Less ferocious grapplers who just grabbed the low str size small rogue, yeah, I could grapple and pin them to release their victim, but I didn't waste time trying that on the big, strong brute type enemies after level 6.

I actually took a feat that let me pre-drink the potion in his later levels, activating it as a swift action. I wasted a few potions that way, but I got my grapple/trip on a lot more reliably after that. But didn't have a feat free for that till level 13ish.

[Eldonauran]

Then why were you giving me grief about the +25 grapple check on a level 9? Because in your oh so perfect opinion people don't allocate points that way and it's op to start with a 20 because you should get those 2 points from stats, you need +11 points from somewhere else? {Scrubbed}I never claimed to be perfect or that my opinion is how it must be done. I simply stated that starting with scores above a certain point is an inefficient use of ability score allocation. Just not in so many words. My comment about how high I was able to get a grapple check was simply meant to serve as a compliment to your claim that high bonuses are indeed possible.


Just because I know how to optimize strength or build an optimized character doesn't mean anything about that. And where do you come up with I'm not playing the game as designed when you just admitted you are PLAYING IN A GAME a character with higher CMB than my example which is also a caster? How is making a character with 40 strength in any way more broken than a witch with 36 CMB? I am entirely capable of playing within the gaming culture of my games, the high op and low op ones, and the only game I can think I would enjoy breaking right now would be yours.Just because I am playing in a game that contains a character able to do such things does not invalidate my statement about how your 'baseline' level of optimization is set much too high for the base game design. If you have any questions about what level of optimization the base game is designed around, you only need to look at the CR (Challenge Rating) system itself and compare your character's capabilities to the expectations of the monsters to be faced. If an average creature (not just a specific one) of a certain CR equivalent to your character level is not at least using some of your daily resources to deal with, you are operating at a higher level of optimization.

I am not here to defend the existence of my CMB +36 witch or the level of brokenness it is (it's not, based on the expectations of what we are fighting). This whole issue stems from a belief that the CMB/CMD system of Pathfinder is flawed or not 'good enough' and I was commenting on the baseline figures you gave that easily exceeded the fairly mild expectations of the CR system. Nothing more and nothing less.

{Scrubbed}

[icefractal]

This whole issue stems from a belief that the CMB/CMD system of Pathfinder is flawed or not 'good enough' and I was commenting on the baseline figures you gave that easily exceeded the fairly mild expectations of the CR system. Nothing more and nothing less.I'm somewhat confused by your position, because I feel like this discussion went in a loop.

Personally, no, I don't think that monsters have unbeatable CMD, I think that martial characters (or casters using TK) can use maneuvers effectively against most opponents. Do you disagree?

[Blackhawk748]

In my experience, it's about 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 casters that goes down that road. Your typical "batman" mage focuses on stuff that just works (most battlefield control has no save or SR) and your typical cleric goes with a lot of buffs that just work, and your typical druid works with summons or wildshape or pet instead of trying to stick save/suck effects. All of them rack some just for unusually weak targets though - same idea as a combat maneuver guy tripping and grappling an easy medium-sized enemy when the opportunity arises.

YMMV with the campaigns you have played, but one reason the ratio was so low in my experience is that it was generally assumed that it was too big an investment for what you get to really rely on single target saves, and multi-target save spells will generally work on somebody, as the d20 looms large and bigger enemy groups = lower saves on average due to how CR scales.

I find the parallel pretty similar. Your average martial with zero investment in combat maneuvers beyond a decent BAB and strength can also tend to pick on weaker non-martial, similar sized enemies using combat maneuvers in situations where they can't kill them outright (typically on approach, to lock them in place for a full attack). The specialists will be able to stick their stuff on a much wider range of enemies, that's what you get for the deep investment in feats/class features/etc.


.

Probably should have been more specific, but I generally agree. Most mages either through out things that have no save, or the save doesn't matter or, if they use things that have saves, pump the hell out of it.

[Eldonauran]

I'm somewhat confused by your position, because I feel like this discussion went in a loop.I feel the discussion went in a loop as well. Just go back to my original post and ignore what came after, as that wasn't relevant to the topic at hand.


Personally, no, I don't think that monsters have unbeatable CMD, I think that martial characters (or casters using TK) can use maneuvers effectively against most opponents. Do you disagree?I do not disagree. In fact, I firmly agree with you, adding in that excessive optimization (as I defined it) is not necessary to do so. It may be necessary if you are attempting to pit yourself against against monsters that are specifically designed to be very good at certain maneuvers but, then again, they are not most opponents.

[Kurald Galain]

I feel the discussion went in a loop as well. Just go back to my original post and ignore what came after, as that wasn't relevant to the topic at hand.
The posts after your original strike me as very relevant, they just don't agree with your opinion.

And that's totally fair. If you open a post with "I feel X" then you should expect people to come by and post that they "feel not X". Most posters here appear to have a far more favorable view of PF's combat maneuvers than you do.

[Eldonauran]

The posts after your original strike me as very relevant, they just don't agree with your opinion.

And that's totally fair. If you open a post with "I feel X" then you should expect people to come by and post that they "feel not X". Most posters here appear to have a far more favorable view of PF's combat maneuvers than you do.I think there is still a misunderstanding. I have a very favorable view of PF's combat maneuvers. I don't have a favorable view of breaking the CR system in order to be the best at them against every single monster. I enjoy a good bit of theoretical optimization and engage in it all the time. But it doesn't actually belong in play for most games, nor in fair and balanced assessments of how it could be an improvement from 3.5e D&D.