Is CMB/CMD directly back-portable into 3.5?

[Ozreth]

Getting back into 3.5 after many years and cross referencing some of the PF rules that may be improvements.

It seems to me that this can be lifted right out of PF and into 3.5, but I may be missing some key things here.

Thoughts or reasons not to do this?

Thanks

[glass]

It seems to me that this can be lifted right out of PF and into 3.5, but I may be missing some key things here.

Thoughts or reasons not to do this?Only that, if you are using CMB/CMD, it is probably easier to use Pathfinder as your base system and adapt any 3.5 content to it, rather than vice versa. The creatures in the Bestiaries (and on AoN (https://www.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx)) have CMB/CMD precalculated.

[Kurald Galain]

It seems to me that this can be lifted right out of PF and into 3.5

Yes, that works. I like this approach because it resolves faster.

The key thing to remember is that CMB is an attack roll, so pretty much any bonus that applies to attack rolls also applies to CMB (except that weapon-specific bonuses only apply if you use your weapon for the maneuver).

[Pugwampy]

Pathfinder's whole selling point was backwards compatable .

[Ozreth]

After looking at it more, it seems the one downside, if you consider it such, is that with CMB/CMD, characters continue to be able to achieve these maneuvers on very large creatures at a higher rate due to the way things scale. Whereas the 3.5 method limits this.

[Kurald Galain]

After looking at it more, it seems the one downside, if you consider it such, is that with CMB/CMD, characters continue to be able to achieve these maneuvers on very large creatures at a higher rate due to the way things scale. Whereas the 3.5 method limits this.

Martial characters being more capable? I'd consider that an upside! :smallamused:

[Darg]

[QUOTE=Kurald Galain;25920276]Martial characters being more capable? I'd consider that an upside! :smallamused:

I don't know about that. If anything PF makes it more complex for little benefit other than less reliance on party members. Martials in 3.5 are extremely capable with caster support. Then again a lot of people think reliance on party members is bad game design. *shrug*

[Ozreth]

[QUOTE=Kurald Galain;25920055]

I don't know about that. If anything PF makes it more complex for little benefit other than less reliance on party members. Martials in 3.5 are extremely capable with caster support. Then again a lot of people think reliance on party members is bad game design. *shrug*

Could you elaborate here a little? Do you think that CMB/CMD is more complex than the 3.5 approach?

And martials being extremely capable with caster support never seemed to be a popular opinion, but one I may agree with. Can you expand your thoughts on it?

[Luccan]

[QUOTE=Kurald Galain;25920055]

I don't know about that. If anything PF makes it more complex for little benefit other than less reliance on party members. Martials in 3.5 are extremely capable with caster support. Then again a lot of people think reliance on party members is bad game design. *shrug*

I disagree with the implication that it's good most characters can't do a basic combat maneuver like grappling competently unassisted. Most of the time, the basic combat maneuvers are not the most helpful thing to be doing for the team. It seems to me that on the rare opportunities that grappling a foe is the best thing for a Fighter to be doing, the Fighter should have a decent chance to succeed on their own before the fight conditions change to make it irrelevant

[Zanos]

After looking at it more, it seems the one downside, if you consider it such, is that with CMB/CMD, characters continue to be able to achieve these maneuvers on very large creatures at a higher rate due to the way things scale. Whereas the 3.5 method limits this.
Pathfinder limits size bonuses, but CMD is 10+BAB+str+dex, so no, it's actually the opposite problem. High end monsters in PF have bloated CMD scores because they have much higher physical stat totals than PCs will under normal circumstances.

[Kurald Galain]

I disagree with the implication that it's good most characters can't do a basic combat maneuver like grappling competently unassisted.
If you actually do the math on that (and don't restrict yourself to only level 20 or to only huge-sized monsters) then most melee characters have a solid chance to succeed at most maneuvers.

Like, level 10 average CMD is 31. A 10th-level fighter has stats around +10 BAB, +2 weapon training, +7 strength, +3 magic weapon; for +22 total. He hits the average maneuver on a 9+ on the die, before considering feats, CMB-specific items, buffs, flanking and so forth. So yes, martials HAVE a decent chance to succeed on their own.

[Pugwampy]

Then again a lot of people think reliance on party members is bad game design. *shrug*

I thought the point of DND was a group of Adventurers working together each filling a specific role to overcome problems . One player can do X but he cannot do Y . His friend is good at Y but cannot do X .

[glass]

If you actually do the math on that (and don't restrict yourself to only level 20 or to only huge-sized monsters) then most melee characters have a solid chance to succeed at most maneuvers.

Like, level 10 average CMD is 31. A 10th-level fighter has stats around +10 BAB, +2 weapon training, +7 strength, +3 magic weapon; for +22 total. He hits the average maneuver on a 9+ on the die, before considering feats, CMB-specific items, buffs, flanking and so forth. So yes, martials HAVE a decent chance to succeed on their own.Firstly, how is our hypothetical fighter grappling with a weapon?

Secondly, for those things you can do with a weapon (like trip, which often has a higher effective CMD due to extra legs or flat out immunity due to no legs at all), the Fighter is an extreme case. Other martials (except ranging barbarians) would be lower.

Thirdly, "before considering feats" we also have to take into account the penalty for the damage on an AoO. How do the Fighter's chances look with that extra -33 penalty?

[Kurald Galain]

the Fighter is an extreme case. Other martials (except ranging barbarians) would be lower.
Really now, you think the fighter is one of the strongest martials? :smallbiggrin:

Bloodrager can match him in rage. Swashbuckler also has weapon training. Brawler has manuever training and can hot-swap his feats. Slayer has studied target. It's not just the fighter who can reliably use maneuvers, it's pretty much all martials.


Thirdly, "before considering feats" we also have to take into account the penalty for the damage on an AoO.
You either play a high-AC build so the AoO misses, or even simpler, use a reach weapon, problem solved.

[glass]

Really now, you think the fighter is one of the strongest martials? I think its the one with the highest consistent numbers when it comes to weapon use. Which is a long way short of being "strong".



You either play a high-AC build so the AoO misses, or even simpler, use a reach weapon, problem solved.You still haven't explained how your Fighter is grappling with any weapon, let alone one with reach.

[Kurald Galain]

I think its the one with the highest consistent numbers when it comes to weapon use.
And why do you think so? Please read the pages on the barbarian, slayer, swashbuckler, and brawler and what bonuses they get.


Which is a long way short of being "strong".
Which is connecting on a 9+ before considering buffs, flanking, feats, and CMB-specific items, yes. I'd call that prett strong :smallbiggrin:


You still haven't explained how your Fighter is grappling
Nowhere in my posts have I mentioned grappling, so this argument strikes me as a simple strawman.

[Darg]

Could you elaborate here a little? Do you think that CMB/CMD is more complex than the 3.5 approach?

And martials being extremely capable with caster support never seemed to be a popular opinion, but one I may agree with. Can you expand your thoughts on it?

In 3.5 maneuvers are generally just 1d20 + BAB + str + size rolls (with the exception of sunder using your normal attack roll) after an attack roll.

In PF maneuvers are 1d20 + BAB + str + size + x bonus type that seems applicable vs defense being 1d20 + BAB + str/dex + size + specific y bonuses to AC.

I'm just saying there are more moving parts to keep track of. What I mean about martials being capable with caster support is like thinking of them as vessels for buffs and support. They tend to be able to benefit the most from buffs and support magic thanks to their higher base combat stats and features. Monk is considered widely here as the weakest core class, but given ample magical support it will out perform the other core martials with similar levels of support.


I disagree with the implication that it's good most characters can't do a basic combat maneuver like grappling competently unassisted. Most of the time, the basic combat maneuvers are not the most helpful thing to be doing for the team. It seems to me that on the rare opportunities that grappling a foe is the best thing for a Fighter to be doing, the Fighter should have a decent chance to succeed on their own before the fight conditions change to make it irrelevant

In 3.5 characters do have a decent chance at success. In 3.5 you can't normally use a maneuver on a creature 2 or more size categories larger than you, so the size bonus doesn't really mean much except on defense. Take a dire lion for example. If you want to grapple it it has a grapple bonus of +17 at CR 5. A fighter at level 5 using the elite array could have a str of 16 and BAB of +5 for a bonus of +8. The dire lion has a roll of 18-37 while the fighter has a roll of 9-28. In this case the fighter has a 25% chance of success or 43.75% chance if taking a TWF penalty for an extra attempt. Improved grapple + enlarge person increases that to 47.5/72.4%. Of course, this is against a high str opponent. Against a Barbazu for example it would be just a straight 50/75% without the feat or spell. The dire lion has lower AC vs the bearded devil so there are advantages to just normal attacking instead of grappling, while with the latter there are advantages to grappling instead.

[Luccan]

To clarify, I don't really know if 3.5 or PF warrior characters actually have a baseline good chance of succeeding at the basic combat maneuvers. It has been way too long since I've tried in 3.5 and I never got to play a long enough game in Pathfinder that it came up. It's just that the notion it would somehow be preferable if warrior characters had to have support for something as basic as grappling seems off to me. Because that isn't the Fighter getting support because this a team game. That is the Fighter needing support to contribute to the team in the sort of niche scenario you'd expect the Fighter to be able to handle.

[Morphic tide]

To clarify, I don't really know if 3.5 or PF warrior characters actually have a baseline good chance of succeeding at the basic combat maneuvers. It has been way too long since I've tried in 3.5 and I never got to play a long enough game in Pathfinder that it came up. It's just that the notion it would somehow be preferable if warrior characters had to have support for something as basic as grappling seems off to me. Because that isn't the Fighter getting support because this a team game. That is the Fighter needing support to contribute to the team in the sort of niche scenario you'd expect the Fighter to be able to handle.
If you're facing mostly "Rogue-like" Humanoid enemies, then a Fighter can do quite a bit with unsupported Grappling, Bull Rushing, Tripping, and so on, because the two are built by the same basis but the Fighter has just plain more to work with. Trading HP for battlefield control is a bad idea in the "expected" paradigm, but wand-banked healing is so ridiculously cheap that it's perfectly worthwhile. The trouble seems to mostly be that Monster-Math relying on Strength for attack rolls where players accrue Enhancement bonuses diverges the Strength checks by a huge margin.

[Darg]

The trouble seems to mostly be that Monster-Math relying on Strength for attack rolls where players accrue Enhancement bonuses diverges the Strength checks by a huge margin.

This is the big problem. A monster gets a +8 to str per size increase over medium on top of the size modifier the checks give. Players don't get that advantage. PF mellows this out I think. Though polymorph does sort of even the playing field.

[Morphic tide]

This is the big problem. A monster gets a +8 to str per size increase over medium on top of the size modifier the checks give. Players don't get that advantage. PF mellows this out I think. Though polymorph does sort of even the playing field.
I'm looking at it going down one level: Loads of monsters are working on 3/4ths BAB RHD, and 90% or more don't use weapons, let alone enhanced ones. So where the Fighter goes from +6 to +16 and the monster does the same, the Fighter got a +2 weapon and a +2 BAB advantage, so the monster needs that +8 Strength to have the attack bonus scale at the same pace.

[rel]

Sure, the pathfinder version works about as well as the existing 3.5 systems.
You might want to modify the CMD equation to only use the higher of strength and dex.

[JNAProductions]

If you're facing mostly "Rogue-like" Humanoid enemies, then a Fighter can do quite a bit with unsupported Grappling, Bull Rushing, Tripping, and so on, because the two are built by the same basis but the Fighter has just plain more to work with. Trading HP for battlefield control is a bad idea in the "expected" paradigm, but wand-banked healing is so ridiculously cheap that it's perfectly worthwhile. The trouble seems to mostly be that Monster-Math relying on Strength for attack rolls where players accrue Enhancement bonuses diverges the Strength checks by a huge margin.

Doesn't an AoO spoil the ability to Grapple/Trip/other maneuver?
And don't they provoke without the Improved [Maneuver] feat?

[Morphic tide]

Doesn't an AoO spoil the ability to Grapple/Trip/other maneuver?
And don't they provoke without the Improved [Maneuver] feat?
Provided it deals damage, Grapple and Disarm fail. Trip, Overrun, Sunder, and Bull Rush don't care about the outcome, and Feint doesn't provoke.

[Kurald Galain]

Doesn't an AoO spoil the ability to Grapple/Trip/other maneuver?
And don't they provoke without the Improved [Maneuver] feat?
Not if the fighter has a reach weapon, or good enough AC that the AoO misses, or attacks an enemy that's either debuffed or already made his AoO. With decent tactics, this ain't hard.

If you don't want tactics and instead want to spam a single maneuver over and over against literally every enemy, well then you have to invest; but that's only fair.


To clarify, I don't really know if 3.5 or PF warrior characters actually have a baseline good chance of succeeding at the basic combat maneuvers.
Yes, they do. For instance,


If you actually do the math on that (and don't restrict yourself to only level 20 or to only huge-sized monsters) then most melee characters have a solid chance to succeed at most maneuvers.

Like, level 10 average CMD is 31. A 10th-level fighter has stats around +10 BAB, +2 weapon training, +7 strength, +3 magic weapon; for +22 total. He hits the average maneuver on a 9+ on the die, before considering feats, CMB-specific items, buffs, flanking and so forth. So yes, martials HAVE a decent chance to succeed on their own.

[glass]

And why do you think so? Please read the pages on the barbarian, slayer, swashbuckler, and brawler and what bonuses they get.With the possible exception of swashbucklers, all of those have conditional or otherwise limited damage bonuses - ie, not as "consistent" as the Fighter's always-on bonuses. I included that word for a reason.


Which is connecting on a 9+ before considering buffs, flanking, feats, and CMB-specific items, yes. I'd call that prett strong :smallbiggrin:I am not sure I would, but as already demonstrated your 9+ is rather optimistic (to put it mildly), so it's moot.


Nowhere in my posts have I mentioned grappling, so this argument strikes me as a simple strawman.You didn't use the word yourself, but your post that I responded to quoted and responded to Luccan talking about grappling. No straw here, just goalpost moving by you.

(Apologies for not linking the posts directly, but I've got a broken wrist so I'm operating on very little sleep and doing everything one-handed.)

[Kurald Galain]

I am not sure I would, but as already demonstrated your 9+ is rather optimistic (to put it mildly), so it's moot.

You're right of course, the 9+ is unrealistic. A normally built fighter with very little investment would hit the average maneuver on a 4 or more (baseline 9, +2 heroism, +2 flank, +1 weapon focus). That's still without items, so add in Gauntlets of Skilled Maneuvers for another +2 and you'll hit on a 2 or more. Fighters (and most other martials) are good at this kind of stuff, even when barely trying.

[glass]

You're right of course, the 9+ is unrealistic. A normally built fighter with very little investment would hit the average maneuver on a 4 or more (baseline 9, +2 heroism, +2 flank, +1 weapon focus). That's still without items, so add in Gauntlets of Skilled Maneuvers for another +2 and you'll hit on a 2 or more. Fighters (and most other martials) are good at this kind of stuff, even when barely trying.Your hitting on 9+ included five points of bonuses inapplicable to most combat maneuvres (including Luccan's specified grappling, which you were responding to); calling it "baseline" does not make it so. And adding a sixth inapplicable point does nor help your cause.

And how is the fighter getting heroism without outside assistance?

And a very specific manouvre-related magic item on top of all that is not "barely trying".