Ruminations on Size and Combat Maneouvers [PF1/3.5]

[Aotrs Commander]

Something of a stream of consciousness, here, so forgive the semi-rambling.

I have been ruminating over Combat Manouvers, specifically the problems that lie with size thereof.

I shamelessly cribbed Pathfinder 1's combat manouvers oer to my 3.5/PF1 houseules (3.Aotrs). However, after a lot of debate, I decided that one major problem with it was that larger creatures got a double-dip on resisting them and smaller creatures got double screwed. Large creatures got the buff from having higher strength AND a size bonus AND in some cases a flat cap to whether or not they could be affected, period. Small creatures got a debuff from having low strength AND a size penalty. I also felt it not great that a human or an ogre could steal from a pixie more easily than a pixie could steal from an ogre.

So, at no more great effort than the conversion of all existing 3.5 monster stats to pathfinder standards-except-skill-and-some feats, when I did it, I implmented them into CMD being Touch AC + BAB + Str bonus.

This has the result of bringing CMDs into the realms of sanity for PCs against larger creatures (that were not flat immune) and making it slightly less trivial for smaller ones. for the zero-value of medium PCs this has worked *great*.

I have now played about 18 months post lockdown in the back half of Rise of the Runelords with those rules.

They are better, in my opinon, BUT there is still a problem. The system in PF zero out the size modifier for creatures of other than medium, which mine don't, so against EACH OTHER it's a bit of an issue.

The major problem too, is that, functionally, the PCs have a trip specialist in the party's animal companion the wolf Sungmanitu (Large now). She's rather trivially tripping things, and more so when they cast *animal growth* on her.

Now, while part of this is self-inflicted (I rolled all the "greater" combat manouvers into one feat that scaled and deleted the in my opinion 100% superflous Combat Expertise feat tax, so she has the equivalent of Improved Trip and Greater Improved Trip.

Btu what is means is that at the moment, (they literally just hit 17th level) she's at a CMB of

10 (BAB) + 9 (Str) +1 (size) +4 (Improved Trip) = +24 (same as in regular Pathfinder) wouldn't be terribly different for a human character where the bonus would be higher (extra BAB and weapon outweighing the size and (potentially) slightly lower Str).

Her CMD (verses trip) in default would be:

10+ 10 (BAB) + 9 (Str) +4 (Dex) +1 Size +2 (Improved Trip) +4 (four legs) = 40 (needs a 16 on herself)

Whereas in 3.A it's

Touch AC (10+ +4 (Dex) -1 Size)+ 10 (BAB) + 9 (Str) +2 (Improved Trip) +4 (four legs) = 38 (needs a 14 on herself)

*Animal growth* brings that up to

CMB +29 (extra +4 Str, size bonus to Huge is +1 to +2)

CMD (PF1) 45 (ditto) - requires 16

CMD (3.Aotrs) 41 (+4 Str, size goes from -1 to -2) - requires 12

​

But they've been fighting giants, which don't have that nice +4 CMD bonus from being quadrupeds. Specifically, take the Rune Giants they've just been fighting. (Rune Giant (based on 3.5 RotRL stats) Fighter 2.) BAB +16, Str 44, Dex 9.

So their CMB is +37

and CMD is

CMD (PF1) 46 (10+16+17-1+4) (requires 17 for Sungmanitu)

CMD (3.Aotrs) (10+16+17-1-4) (38) requires 11 for Sungmanitu)

Okay, well, that's not TOO terrible, because it's not outside the realm of insanity for a trip specialist to be have a sensible chance of tripping something they can actually affect with trip. 17 feels way too high, 11 might be a bit low.

On the other hand, this particular party runs around with a stupid amount of buffs from the bard.

(Elation (from 3.5 +2 Str/Dex), +4 Inspire courage, +2 Good Hope, +1 Haste) so +8 (!) to attack rolls and attack checks.

Which makes those numbers 9 for default PF1 or 3 for 3.Aotrs. Well, I mean, what can you do, compared to the barbarian/fighter with 3.5's Brilliant Blades cast on everyone PA at -17/+17 (because 3.Aotrs lets you do PF PA or max PA 3.5) or the wizards using that one spell I left in from Relics and Rituals that gives him 17 dagger attacks (at D4+Int - so D4+11) damage per round, it's kind of small potatoes that the Trip Specialist is Tripping Things, so I haen't lost that much sleep about it. (*You may have noticed it's a high power game...!*)

So, on the one hand, one can say "yeah, but... Does that actually really MATTER all that much, then?" And, whe I wrote the rules and largely now, I feel... Maybe not?

​

But as we're coming to the end of this AP and starting on the next one, the 18 months of fixing stuff I missed (typos, corrections) has meant that I'm having to re-print some of the stuff, so this is the point I'm going over my rules and giving them a hard look at, especially on the bits that have have enough bits that will need physically re-printing. (Which includes the Summon Bestiary, a document that has all the stats for any creature that can be summoned by a spell or power.)

​

So one obvious option I am toying with the idea of adding the special sze modifer to my current CMD calucation. That would, in my case, split the difference between PF1 and 3.Aotrs current, effectively neutralising the size bonus to AC. It would reduce the gap a little bit. Obviously, even doing that requires a fair bit of stat-block correction, though so I only want to do it once. (It would put Sungmanitu on a 14 to trip the Rune Giants, pre-buffs.) But the question is is it worth it?

I attempted to look to see how PF2 handled it, because I will shamelessly steal any game mechanic from any system if I think it works (and have, 3.Aotrs stole a couple of ideas from both 4E and 5E...) but... I couldn't even see a section that it HAD on Nethys, so if such things even exist in PF2 (and presumably 5E) I couldn't see them.

​

What prompted this thread was looking at mounted combat, the last bit I was copying over for completeness.

And this brought up a good question - what happens if you are riding am intelligent creature that isn't willing? (It's very easy to imagine it happening with the result of a simply dominate on an animal companion that has - like dear Sungmanitu - had a spare Headband of Intellect slapped on them, let along the tropical dragon rider.)

The rules don't say anything. (Actually, neither 3.5 nor PF1 are explcitly clear on intelligent mounts, but with some digging, the intention is discovered - you can't do it, full stop.)

This is, of course, not an acceptable solution in my opinion. So what action would it be? It can't be grapple, because of course you can't grab a creature much bigger than you,

And this brought me back to the size question.

Nevermind mounts, how do you resolve the old cinemaitic/prose-ial trope of the one hero leaping off something to grab at the head of the Big Monster to distract it for a second? How do you Shadow-of-the-Colossus something? By RAW, you simply can't. And I feel this is part of the same problem. Because I can and likely will trivially whip up a I dunno "Scale Big Thing" combat maneouve, but we're back again to the size issues: how should they interact in this situation?

You could argue that combat maneouvres should be split into Str and Dex, which might solve the ogre-pick pocket problem... But that likewise means you have ANOTHER defence to worry about (and we already have AC, flat-footed AC, touch AC, CMD and I have also have flat-footed CMD, which is Implied But Not Stated to exist in PF (whenever you are denied your Dex bonus to AC, since anything that affects AC affects CMD...)

I'm not really sure what the answer is here, so I figured for the sake of arguement, I'd post my ramblings up and see if anyone looking at it wa spurred to enlightenment (or even in just - as tends to be the case for me - assist in rigidly determining my areas of doubt and uncertainty.

[Kurald Galain]

CMD being Touch AC + BAB + Str bonus.

Pathfinder uses (10 + Dex mod - size) + BAB + Str bonus, and Touch AC equals (10 + Dex mod + size); and where larger critters have more Str, they also have less Dex. So the difference is that in PF, large monsters are harder to trip and bull rush, whereas in your system they're easier to trip and bull rush. I don't think that change makes a whole lot of sense.

The rest of your post I find rather hard to read. I'm unclear what issue or question you have, if any.

[False God]

And this brought up a good question - what happens if you are riding am intelligent creature that isn't willing? (It's very easy to imagine it happening with the result of a simply dominate on an animal companion that has - like dear Sungmanitu - had a spare Headband of Intellect slapped on them, let along the tropical dragon rider.)

The rules don't say anything. (Actually, neither 3.5 nor PF1 are explcitly clear on intelligent mounts, but with some digging, the intention is discovered - you can't do it, full stop.)

Intelligent creatures who are unwilling are not some strange distinct grouping. It's no different than if a gnome jumped on the head of a giant. The gnome is their own actor and the giant is their own actor. The giant does not become the gnome's mount by effect of the gnome making a ride check or something. They each get their own turns and their own actions.

The rules don't need to say anything.

This is, of course, not an acceptable solution in my opinion. So what action would it be? It can't be grapple, because of course you can't grab a creature much bigger than you,

You break it into parts. Using my example above, a gnome could grapple the hair on the giants head, or their beard, or hang off their ears for all it matters. The giant is not grappled, the gnome is simply holding on.

And this brought me back to the size question.

Nevermind mounts, how do you resolve the old cinemaitic/prose-ial trope of the one hero leaping off something to grab at the head of the Big Monster to distract it for a second? How do you Shadow-of-the-Colossus something? By RAW, you simply can't. And I feel this is part of the same problem. Because I can and likely will trivially whip up a I dunno "Scale Big Thing" combat maneouve, but we're back again to the size issues: how should they interact in this situation?

You could argue that combat maneouvres should be split into Str and Dex, which might solve the ogre-pick pocket problem... But that likewise means you have ANOTHER defence to worry about (and we already have AC, flat-footed AC, touch AC, CMD and I have also have flat-footed CMD, which is Implied But Not Stated to exist in PF (whenever you are denied your Dex bonus to AC, since anything that affects AC affects CMD...)

I'm not really sure what the answer is here, so I figured for the sake of arguement, I'd post my ramblings up and see if anyone looking at it wa spurred to enlightenment (or even in just - as tends to be the case for me - assist in rigidly determining my areas of doubt and uncertainty.

You break it into parts. The knight jumping off a cliff isn't attempting to grapple the dragon flying below. They're grabbing some scales, or a horn, or a spear he lodged in the dragon earlier. The smaller the part the closer it gets to being something a creature of the same size or larger can grab hold of.

I use a "body chart" system for all my large+ 3.5/PF creatures, because you certainly CAN grapple the leg of a dragon, but that doesn't make the dragon suffer the grappled condition for obvious reasons. But Lilliputian-style, enough little grapplers can restrict a larger creature enough for it to be fully grappled via restricting its individual parts.

[Aotrs Commander]

Intelligent creatures who are unwilling are not some strange distinct grouping. It's no different than if a gnome jumped on the head of a giant. The gnome is their own actor and the giant is their own actor. The giant does not become the gnome's mount by effect of the gnome making a ride check or something. They each get their own turns and their own actions.

The rules don't need to say anything.

I disagree, on the basis that a good set of rules should make sure all cases are laid out and there are no Implied, But Not Stateds. (My personal bane that sicne publishing my own rules, is something I strive to work against.) If the rules didn't need to have say that, I wouldn't have spent a couple of hours trying to look it up and only getting something like an answer from a now-deprecated 3.5 web article. But that is in a large part what I do; everytime I find something neither 3.5 or PF1 have been very clear on - especially if on looking for it, as in some cases, there are huge long debates threads on the subject. Then 3.Aotrs gets a ruling in black and white, so I don't have to shrug and go "I have no idea" as/when it comes up.

You break it into parts. Using my example above, a gnome could grapple the hair on the giants head, or their beard, or hang off their ears for all it matters. The giant is not grappled, the gnome is simply holding on.

You break it into parts. The knight jumping off a cliff isn't attempting to grapple the dragon flying below. They're grabbing some scales, or a horn, or a spear he lodged in the dragon earlier. The smaller the part the closer it gets to being something a creature of the same size or larger can grab hold of.

I use a "body chart" system for all my large+ 3.5/PF creatures, because you certainly CAN grapple the leg of a dragon, but that doesn't make the dragon suffer the grappled condition for obvious reasons. But Lilliputian-style, enough little grapplers can restrict a larger creature enough for it to be fully grappled via restricting its individual parts.

Right, so you have indeed done something about it yourself by the aforementioned "body chart;" which is the crux of the issue, because in neither 3.5 nor PF1 (and thus currently by extension, 3.Aotrs) can a gnome grapple a giant, or part of one (nor a human a dragon).

How then have you approached that?

[False God]

I disagree, on the basis that a good set of rules should make sure all cases are laid out and there are no Implied, But Not Stateds. (My personal bane that sicne publishing my own rules, is something I strive to work against.) If the rules didn't need to have say that, I wouldn't have spent a couple of hours trying to look it up and only getting something like an answer from a now-deprecated 3.5 web article. But that is in a large part what I do; everytime I find something neither 3.5 or PF1 have been very clear on - especially if on looking for it, as in some cases, there are huge long debates threads on the subject. Then 3.Aotrs gets a ruling in black and white, so I don't have to shrug and go "I have no idea" as/when it comes up.

It's absolutely absurd to expect a game to cover ever single possible corner case.

And it does cover this particular case. Even unintelligent creatures as companions may not follow your commands if you have mistreated them or otherwise gave them cause to disobey you. They are independent beings and should be properly played as such (there's advice in both systems on playing NPCs correctly). An NPC gets a full suite of actions on its turn. It doesn't matter if this state is temporary or not or if the creature started this round as a companion and then was mind-controlled into being a full NPC under enemy control.

Right, so you have indeed done something about it yourself by the aforementioned "body chart;" which is the crux of the issue, because in neither 3.5 nor PF1 (and thus currently by extension, 3.Aotrs) can a gnome grapple a giant, or part of one (nor a human a dragon).

How then have you approached that?

I haven't, because you can't, and because it's silly to even give it room in the brain. It's one of the numerous failures of the d20 system.

You either suspend your disbelief and let it work, or you create a solution. I created a solution, "smaller parts". I really don't care what the raw text says because the raw text is painfully insufficient.

[Aotrs Commander]

It's absolutely absurd to expect a game to cover ever single possible corner case.

And it does cover this particular case. Even unintelligent creatures as companions may not follow your commands if you have mistreated them or otherwise gave them cause to disobey you. They are independent beings and should be properly played as such (there's advice in both systems on playing NPCs correctly). An NPC gets a full suite of actions on its turn. It doesn't matter if this state is temporary or not or if the creature started this round as a companion and then was mind-controlled into being a full NPC under enemy control.


I haven't, because you can't, and because it's silly to even give it room in the brain. It's one of the numerous failures of the d20 system.

You either suspend your disbelief and let it work, or you create a solution. I created a solution, "smaller parts". I really don't care what the raw text says because the raw text is painfully insufficient.

You say it's absurb to cover every corner case and then say the rules are painfully insufficient in some areas. Can you at least accept that I agree with the latter and that I'm trying to cover as many of the former as I can find or concieve of and state things clearly so that, when I'm running a combat with six 17th level PCs and ten or twenty enemy combatants of four or five different types that I don't have to pause and try and make something up on the spot...?