log in or register to remove this ad

 

CMD too low?

Ymdar

Explorer
We are about to hit a level in our game when our monk will according to him "aggro enemies on him and then trip them all over".

This was the time I started to look up the CMD. And then I realized combat maneuvers are pretty powerful since only rings or protections or some specialized protection spells (mainly from the cleric list) increase the CMD. And even these increases are low compared to the vast magic items allowing the increase of AC.

Since you guys must have played the game longer than me, I think by now you surely have found some solutions, or experienced that the CMD is not so low.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

frankthedm

First Post
At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus.

Don't Add Both.

Maneuver feats only give +2 now, not +4.

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier + miscellaneous modifier


EDIT: Not many “Agro” mechanics in Pathfinder that I know of. If the monk makes it inconvenient for the foes to get him, someone else is attacked. And if it is a BIG monster...

You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you.

And plenty of monsters are immune to tripping. Pathfinder actually calls this out rather than leave it up to guesswork.

Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.
 
Last edited:

Mojo_Rat

First Post
the level of opponents cmd will vary ALOT depending on what you are fighting. large quadrupeds can have a high trip cmd. but really don't sweat it. if the monk is tripping a d grappling people he is doing his job. my lvl 9 monk has 24 to trip but 15 to grapple and 13 to do other stuff. a lvl 9 fightter might have 25 to 30 or more depending, but this is what monks don really well.
 

Tovec

Explorer
TO frankthedm: I think the original poster was saying that items, abilities, spells, etc. to increase CMD seem outpaced by items, abilities, spells, etc. that increase AC.

I agree to a point. Monks have a good ability to adapt and do certain actions. I'm hoping to change this issue in my next game by instituting point buy and making sure to check how long each action takes.

Overall I don't know how to fix the problem, beyond possibly taking monk's Wis to CMD away.
 

DumbPaladin

First Post
Are people really experiencing a problem with MONKS shutting down a game? It's easily one of the weaker classes in Pathfinder (as it was in 3.5). I call Shenanigans.
 

Borthos

First Post
I don't know about your games, but in all the games I've ran/played the monk has been a very big nuisance for the DM. One was because he got lucky with rolls (and the sheer number of attacks helped too) and critted so often it wasn't even funny. They were all legit, so the DM couldn't really say "No, it doesn't count."

The other was just because the player was being crazy, jumping around, and while he didn't do much damage, he could lock down two or three guys at once tripping and relying on AoOs.

The monk isn't the most optimum class, but it's just fun and annoying
 

Jeff Wilder

First Post
We haven't made a lot of use of CMB/CMD in our nascent PFRPG game yet. What we have seen -- Acrobatics rolls to avoid AoOs -- have been instances where CMD is too high.

Technically, I think the "10" part of "10+CMD" is too high, but still.

My max-ranks rogue fails these against level-appropriate enemies about 50 to 60 percent.
 

Ymdar

Explorer
Well, if you guys didn't experience a balance issue with the CMD being overall low compared to the AC while almost no magic item can increase it, then all is well.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
In my experience, pretty much everything that adds a bonus to AC - so long as it isn't an armor, shield, or natural armor bonus - is going to increase CMD as well (emphasis mine):

Combat Maneuver Defense: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers. A creature's CMD is determined using the following formula:

CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier

The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. 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.
Between that and the Defensive Combat Training feat, raising a character's CMD shouldn't be too hard.
 

Thazar

First Post
You also need to keep in mind that BAB plays into the CMD. So you have built in increases right there that is not present in AC. For most classes and in most cases hitting a CMD is pretty hard to do over all. Monks are very good at tripping, but they will still find many bad guys that they will either fail at even before the dice is rolled or have a small chance of success. Other times they will make the bad guy eat dirt.

As in all things sometimes the player character will shine... others he will have little to do if he puts all of his focus into one type of attack.

Also remember that things that are built to fight well will usually out fight the things that do not fight well. A wizard is EASY to trip at any level... a fighter is hard, and a giant is VERY hard.
 

Tovec

Explorer
We haven't made a lot of use of CMB/CMD in our nascent PFRPG game yet. What we have seen -- Acrobatics rolls to avoid AoOs -- have been instances where CMD is too high.

Technically, I think the "10" part of "10+CMD" is too high, but still.

My max-ranks rogue fails these against level-appropriate enemies about 50 to 60 percent.
I haven't found this to be true at all in my games with both a monk and a rogue having acrobatics. Both seem quite capable of getting through enemy squares or out of AoOs with the check quite simply. If they failed about half the time I'd be quite happy actually. It means with hard work and dedication you have a decent chance of avoiding something that would ALWAYS hit everyone else. It doesn't mean you have a PERFECT chance of avoiding the thing that ALWAYS hits EVERYONE else.

I will have to playtest further but I found the tumble (acrobatics) check in 3.5 was far too easy, any tumbling character I had could almost always get away. Now its a little harder so I'm happy.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
re

Are people really experiencing a problem with MONKS shutting down a game? It's easily one of the weaker classes in Pathfinder (as it was in 3.5). I call Shenanigans.
Is the monk weak in campaigns that use point buy? Is that it? Because it requires more high ability scores to be effective.

We roll stats in our campaigns. And if someone is lucky enough to get four good stats, the monk is a pretty nasty class. I can see the monk being weak using the recommended 15 point buy system. But if you get three or four decent stats rolling a character, the monk is a dangerous class.

Though the monk is sort of like wizard. Starts off slow, starts to really shine as you get to higher level. I'd say past ten the monk starts coming into their own.
 

Jeff Wilder

First Post
I haven't found this to be true at all in my games with both a monk and a rogue having acrobatics. Both seem quite capable of getting through enemy squares or out of AoOs with the check quite simply. If they failed about half the time I'd be quite happy actually.
In my case, my Dex is 17. At 2nd level, I have +8 to Acrobatics.

The bad guy was Fighter 3, Str 16, Dex 14 for a CMD of 18. Moving at half-speed, I need to roll a 10 (55%). Moving at full speed, I must roll a natural 20 (5%). (Both numbers assume no difficult terrain or other bad guys pushing the DCs higher, of course.)

You're right, that 55% isn't too bad, and I agree that Tumble was too easy in 3.5. But that +10 for moving at full speed effectively means it's all but impossible to do against level-appropriate bad guys.

But that's not a problem with CMD, but rather with the full-speed modifier.
 

DanMcS

Explorer
You're right, that 55% isn't too bad, and I agree that Tumble was too easy in 3.5. But that +10 for moving at full speed effectively means it's all but impossible to do against level-appropriate bad guys.

But that's not a problem with CMD, but rather with the full-speed modifier.
That's totally intentional; you tumble at half speed by default. Allowing you to do it at full speed with a hefty DC increase is intended to let you show off against mooks, not against equivalent opponents.
 

Jeff Wilder

First Post
That's totally intentional; you tumble at half speed by default. Allowing you to do it at full speed with a hefty DC increase is intended to let you show off against mooks, not against equivalent opponents.
If that's the intention, it fails. (Again, because of the +10.) 60% to succeed against mooks isn't "showing off," it's "a serious risk of being clobbered by a mook."

And 30% against level-appropriate bad guys (which is what it would be at +5 instead of the 5% it is at +10) isn't showing off, either. It's "an actual chance."

+10 for tumbling at full speed is too high. (It's only +5 to tumble through an enemy!) Like I said, it effectively means "this is almost impossible" (5%) whereas it would be better if it meant "this is difficult, but possible" (30%).
 

Tovec

Explorer
Firstly I love how off topic we got.

Secondly, a 30% chance of getting HIT by a mook. A 30% chance at 2nd level. I can't picture many 2nd level characters that are supposed to unilaterally get away from most everyone for a simple roll. It is a +10 because then it gives some difficulty (not much IMHO) for higher level characters to fail trying to show off.
It's doing something that untrained people Can't do, it shouldn't be overly easy just because you happen to have some skill points in it.
Why should avoiding someone's swing and tumbling away from them be any easier than forging a sword or finding out a moderately difficult whatsit. Jeff, you are giving a response for what a 2nd level character can do with a 17 Dex. Picture a 5th with an 18, what's the chance to fail then?
 

You realize, also, that this isn't a change from 3.5 at all, right?

3.5's Tumble rules also had you moving at half speed while tumbling, with a +10 to the DC if you wanted to go at full speed.

And you misread DanMcS's point, Jeff. At the level you are currently at, you aren't able to show off vs. mooks, so you can't reasonably expect to hit the mook+10 DC. You, in the grand scheme of things, are pretty mooky yourself at this point.

Rather, once you hit a slightly higher level, you'll be able to routinely hit the mook+10 DC, at which point you can show off. Against level-appropriate opponents, however, there'll always be a chance for failure - unlike 3.5, wherein Tumbling pretty quickly became an auto-success against anything.
 

Jeff Wilder

First Post
Jeff, you are giving a response for what a 2nd level character can do with a 17 Dex. Picture a 5th with an 18, what's the chance to fail then?
Are you missing where I keep saying "level appropriate"?

At 5th level, my chances against level-appropriate enemies -- mooks and "real" bad guys -- will be approximately the same. Too low, because of the +10.

And of course it's a change from 3.5, because 3.5 used static DCs. Pathfinder uses a scaling DC. With a static DC, +10 was too high at low levels (assuming any reasonable chance at success is desired), appropriate for a while, and then too low. With a scaling DC, +10 is too high (assuming any reasonable chance at success is desired). Always. Because it scales.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm in favor of the scaling DC. It's just that the DC was made to scale without the modifiers to the DC being taken into account, which, as a result, means that tumbling at full speed is all but impossible against level-appropriate bad guys, and has a low chance of success against level-appropriate mooks.

Maybe that was intentional; I dunno. If so, I think it was a poor design decision. I think it's more likely that it just didn't get careful consideration. But, then again, maybe it was considered; they did, after all change the +10 for tumbling through an enemy to only +5, and I assume they did so because it was all but impossible to perform the action otherwise ... you know, against level-appropriate enemies.
 
Last edited:

DanMcS

Explorer
Are you missing where I keep saying "level appropriate"?

At 5th level, my chances against level-appropriate enemies -- mooks and "real" bad guys -- will be approximately the same. Too low, because of the +10.
We hear "level appropriate", but you're missing what we mean by "mooks". You're not supposed to be able to tumble at full speed past level-appropriate enemies. By mooks, we mean, "not level-appropriate". If you're 10th level, and you're going past a CR 6 opponent, your odds will be pretty good.
 

Mojo_Rat

First Post
Celtavian said:
Is the monk weak in campaigns that use point buy? Is that it? Because it requires more high ability scores to be effective.

We roll stats in our campaigns. And if someone is lucky enough to get four good stats, the monk is a pretty nasty class. I can see the monk being weak using the recommended 15 point buy system. But if you get three or four decent stats rolling a character, the monk is a dangerous class.

Though the monk is sort of like wizard. Starts off slow, starts to really shine as you get to higher level. I'd say past ten the monk starts coming into their own.
we just finished a game at lvl 10 my monk had 84 hps 27 base ac (28 with Mage armor ki dodge to 32) normally 4 attacks 16 16 11 11 1d8 + 7 PA for -3 +4 cmb 14 grapple 16 trip with temple sword of 25. short of a giant 4 legged dwarf I could trip it.

or second to last battle after our witch dispelled anti life shield I grappled and choked out a lvl 11 or 12cleric I don't know why he didn't have freedom of movement but I gues felt anti life shield was enough.

really while there were some issues with the character big main end bad guys like dragons would shred me but minions or secondary melee bad guys or casters were easily handleable.
 

Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top