Pathfinder CMB/CMD, Yay or Nay?

[Ken Murikumo]

Just wondering what you folk's opinion is on how pathfinder handles this stuff. Is it better? Worse? Same?

My group switched to PF some time ago, but one of the DMs/players insisted on not using CMB/CMD because it was bad, and so we default to 3.5 for this stuff. I don't see how it's that bad, but we have never used it in game, so i don't know first hand.

What do you guys think?

[Florian]

Basically: Yay. Ok, you have to know the underlying math a bit more, but Maneuver-based builds work and do so reliable.

[Waker]

I'm mostly indifferent, but I'd say it's an improvement. In 3.5 basically every special attack had its own rules and were frequently opposed rolls. CMB/CMD functions more like AC where it's a mostly static number that you have to hit. The enemy might have a special bonus against be tripped or something else, but once you know where to hit, there isn't a lot of chance brought into it.

[Buufreak]

I think they tried to over simplify something, and as a result broke it. Not in an unusable way, but in a not quite the same way.

[Geddy2112]

I like it,

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

[Psyren]

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

[Dr_Dinosaur]

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

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

[Waker]

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

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

Grapple Checks
Colossal +16, Gargantuan +12, Huge +8, Large +4, Medium +0, Small -4, Tiny -8, Diminutive -12, Fine -16.

In PF, they scaled them down by half.

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

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

[GrayDeath]

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

So yayish, but with some nay ? ^^

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[CharonsHelper]

CMB/CMD > 3.5 version

No question

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

[Tuvarkz]

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

[Gildedragon]

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

This.
Feat chains are too long and CMD rises too fast.

It could also stand to be tied to skills.

[Crake]

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

[NomGarret]

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

[Zanos]

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

The Bad:
More Feat Taxes
Monster scaling is broken


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

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

[Elder_Basilisk]

There are plusses and minuses to the system.

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

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

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

Just wondering what you folk's opinion is on how pathfinder handles this stuff. Is it better? Worse? Same?

Much better, because it resolves faster and is more consistent between different maneuvers.

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

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

[Ken Murikumo]

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

Lets change the question a bit:

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

So NOW, how does it fair compare to 3.5?

[Waker]

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

So NOW, how does it fair compare to 3.5?

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

[Psyren]

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

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

[Waker]

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

[Dr_Dinosaur]

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

[BWR]

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

[CharonsHelper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[stack]

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

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

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

Here.

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

Lets say, i make it so they choose either strength OR dex, and fix the feat taxes

Bear in mind that feats like improved trip in 3E say "you get a free attack after a trip" whereas in PF they say "everyone gets a free attack after a trip". This is why they get prerequisites; whether the bonus is +2 or +4 is ultimately not a huge deal.

Getting rid of Agile Maneuvers is fine in my book. Like Psyren, I'm not much a fan of it or Weapon Finesse.

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

[Dr_Dinosaur]

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