Odds and ends

[Ebiris]

You can never have too many skill points.

edit: I've found the PF grapple rules relatively painless from a DM's point of view, the only trouble being when I instinctively rule based on 3.5 knowledge, so I have to refer to it quite often to make sure I'm definitely getting it right. If you do that, though, you might as well nick the whole CMB/CMD system for trips/disarms/bull rushes etc.

[Anastasia]

edit: I've found the PF grapple rules relatively painless from a DM's point of view, the only trouble being when I instinctively rule based on 3.5 knowledge, so I have to refer to it quite often to make sure I'm definitely getting it right. If you do that, though, you might as well nick the whole CMB/CMD system for trips/disarms/bull rushes etc.

I don't care much about the disarm/trips ect add on rules, I'd have to study those if we port the entire thing in. I don't think anyone here is seriously focused in any of them so it's minimally intrusive.

[Corwin]

Re: skills, if NPCs have more skill points than you need for them it can be handwaved or just sunk into some craft/profession/perform for flavorness.

Re: grapple, I think the Pathfinder system is elegant but moving to it would require me to rebuild in a limited fashion. In a nutshell, it shortchanges me quite a bit, and grapple has so far been my one cool thing.

-It's two feats instead of one to get the normal +4 bonus, and I don't have feats to spare.
-It has you grapple as a standard action and not as an attack action. Even the second feat only allows a maximum upper limit of two grapples per round, so even if I miraculously got the second feat for free I now have one less attack than before. And that would only grow worse.

[Anastasia]

Re: skills, if NPCs have more skill points than you need for them it can be handwaved or just sunk into some craft/profession/perform for flavorness.

That can work and was my plan, yeah.

Re: grapple, I think the Pathfinder system is elegant but moving to it would require me to rebuild in a limited fashion. In a nutshell, it shortchanges me quite a bit, and grapple has so far been my one cool thing.

-It's two feats instead of one to get the normal +4 bonus, and I don't have feats to spare.

I think it needs to be noted that the numbers have changed somewhat. A +2 bonus in Pathfinder's system may not be a straight downgrade from a +4 in 3.5. For example, I notice the size modifiers are much less severe in Pathfinder. This alone helps grapple a bunch. I can't really say how much this overall matters right now, as I haven't done any homework on it yet. No comment on the last part since it's predicated on more reading by my part. I'll address that a little later.

[Corwin]

Actually, from my experience (I'm using Trip in GF) a +4 in Pathfinder is worse than a +4 in 3.5 for the person who wants to grapple (as opposed to the unfortunate victim, say).

Grapple CMB: BAB+STR+(optional, Grapple feat bonuses)+(optional, size bonuses)

Grapple feats offer less on comparison (+4 from two pathfinder feats as opposed to one 3.5 feat). So does size (+1 from Large in Pathfinder as opposed to +4 in 3.5).

Grapple CMD: Grapple CMB+10+DEX+(optional, AC bonuses from circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane and sacred)

Basically, it means the weak but agile characters can more easily grapple someone specialized in grappling (me!) since they are allowed to use their DEX instead of STR in the CMB. It also means they can resist the grappling attacks launched against them easier. It also means a great deal of generic bonuses aid their defense from me (since everyone has deflection, dodge or one of the others, often from more than one source).

Aaeru's CMB: +10/+11 Large (+2 STR, +6 BAB, +2 improved grapple, +1 Large)
Aaeru's CMD: +23/+24 Large (+2 DEX, +1 Deflection)

Say I'm grappling my evil twin. In 3.5, we roll opposite grapple checks (+12 vs +12, or +17/+17 Large) and we have equal chances to succeed (50%). In Pathfinder, I need to roll 13 or higher to succeed, making it more like 35%. Incidentally, if I managed to use Enlarge Person and my evil twin hasn't, my chances are pretty damn good in 3.5, while in Pathfinder the change is minimal.

Add the lesser number of attacks and it's pretty clear there's nerfing.

My example is slightly skewed since grappling feat bonuses add to the CMD. But it should probably hold, since I also don't have much in the way of AC bonuses which any normal character should and would.

[Anastasia]

I'm going to run some of my own numbers in a second to see how it looks. Hold on, I wanna do more things than just one PC.

[Anastasia]

Sylvie: CMB/CMD 5/22 (Monk AC bonus is added to CMD according to Pathfinder's monk section, running with that for the moment. It's 17 otherwise.) She sucks at any of this but is good at resisting it.
Josa: CMB/CMD 6/16  Resoundingly average-ish at it.
SRD wolf  (CR 1) CMB/CMD 2/13 -Terrible at it, though I'd have to check it's rules if it's trip ability gives it a bonus on those checks.
SRD Dire wolf (CR 3) CMB/CMD 12/24 - Pretty competent at this stuff. As it's main ability revolves around tripping this makes sense.
SRD Belker (CR 6) CMB 7/13 - Pretty shitty at it, though I freely admit it's not a remotely grapple-esque monster.
SRD Kyton (CR 6)  CMB/CMD 10/22 - Pretty average for it's level.

These are for my own reference, more posting to come.

[Anastasia]

-It's two feats instead of one to get the normal +4 bonus, and I don't have feats to spare.
-It has you grapple as a standard action and not as an attack action. Even the second feat only allows a maximum upper limit of two grapples per round, so even if I miraculously got the second feat for free I now have one less attack than before. And that would only grow worse.

I can remerge the feats, since we aren't using the higher feat gain rate of Pathfinder, or work something else out there.

To be honest with the second part, I'm okay with that. I'm not entirely looking forward to resolving 3-5 opposed checks per attack routine for you later on, and then all the stuff grappling entails. This has an appeal to me, though I know you're hung up on your 'one cool thing' and are going to be resistant to anything that undermines it.  Question - does this proposed change have any knock on effects - say making you more versatile since you might be better at disarming or tripping now?

[Corwin]

It doesn't really make me that since the largest barrier to using any of those combat maneuvers is the AoOs Grapple/Disarm/Trip/etc incur unless you have a specialized feat for each.

You're saying that you're not looking for 3 opposed checks per attack, but it's not like the number of attacks would go down for me if I just punch people, and I'm not the only one with multiple attacks on a full attack. If you want to have less rolling I don't really mind switching to having a fixed grapple 'combat maneuver defense' like Pathfinder's. I just don't want to have my attack routine messed up in the process. Again, if the problem is opposed checks, then I don't see why people who don't specialize need a high CMD vs grapple or why the amount of attacks should be lesser for me.

[Anastasia]

You're saying that you're not looking for 3 opposed checks per attack, but it's not like the number of attacks would go down for me if I just punch people, and I'm not the only one with multiple attacks on a full attack. If you want to have less rolling I don't really mind switching to having a fixed grapple 'combat maneuver defense' like Pathfinder's.

Multiple attacks isn't the entire rub here. Most everyone has two attacks now or even three on a flurry. That many grapples slows things down more - you need a touch attack to hit, then an opposed grapple check for each one that gets through.  This slows things down versus a simple binary of attack roll, hit or miss.

I just don't want to have my attack routine messed up in the process. Again, if the problem is opposed checks, then I don't see why people who don't specialize need a high CMD vs grapple or why the amount of attacks should be lesser for me.

I don't entirely follow where you're going with the CMD comment or why offhand. Why don't you elaborate on why you said that?

[Corwin]

Let me see if I understand your intentions and try to meet you halfway.

I'll assume that what bothers you the most is the amount of rolling. 3.5 grapple with X attacks requires 3X rolls to determine pre-damage.

In that case, we can go:

CMB: BAB+STR+SIZE+Specialized Feats
CMD: CMB+DEX+10

Size modifiers remain as they are in 3.5. The feats give the same advantages as in 3.5. What changes is that the process is streamlined, and grappling with X attacks requires X rolls. The touch attack is eliminated, and rather than have the opposite grapple rolls, now there is a single grapple roll against a DC.

Everyone could have a Grapple CMB and Grapple CMD listed on their sheets instead of the Grapple mod currently there.

Edit: To preserve the failure chance (nat 1) on the touch attack, rolling a Grapple check of natural 1 now fails it.

[Ebiris]

Changing the fuckhuge size modifiers from 3.5 into the more modest ones from Pathfinder seems really awesome on the surface to me, because fuck that shit with not even being able to compete on the same plane of existence with monsters. Being able to cast spells and such in grapple as Pathfinder allows also seems nice.

As for the overall aim of nerfing grapple, I can see it as desirable because as it stands it isn't a tactical choice for Aaeru, it's her default go-to solution for everything. If she had to think 'Do I grab this guy and limit his actions for a round, or do I try and knock him out quickly?' as opposed to her current 'Do I grappleflurry this guy and own him or do I regular flurry him and possibly miss and even if I hit he might not die so he can still run around doing stuff which he can't if I grapple him' dilemma, it becomes more of a meaningful choice between two viable options instead of one rendering the other completely redundant.

[Corwin]

Eh. Isn't it the same as saying Eldritch Blast is your default go-to solution for everything?  :/

I'd prefer to develop other viable options on my own (such as Arcane Strike, which boosts normal attacks but not grapple) for tactical decisions in combat rather than get nerfed. And since Dune makes and runs the monsters, they'll still have impossible grapple mods when he wants them, just like enemies have high saves when he wants them.

[Ebiris]

Ragging on me for using eldritch blast is like ragging on Andrea for stabbing dudes. It's a basic attack. Grapple is a special attack which in your case is almost always a guaranteed, but very slow, win.

That's really my issue with it. It's boring inevitable victory. Aaeru grapples a dude? Okay, I guess that means we'll have won in three rounds after twenty or so minutes real time of dice rolling. From my point of view, streamlining and nerfing it would make for greatly more interesting battles.

[Corwin]

This is semantics. It's no more a guaranteed win than ranged touch attacks. It is more cumbersome, but that part can be handled by streamlining without actually making it suck.

To compare, CMB and CMD would be an attack routine against a separate AC from the normal one. That would bring it in line with a ranged touch attack against a separate AC (touch AC, in that case) from the normal one.

You could say being grappled makes the enemy easier to hit in melee, while harder with ranged weapons. The same can be said for even joining melee, where flanking gives other meleers bonuses but gives a to hit penalty to ranged attackers.