CMD too low?

[Tovec]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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]

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.

 

[DanMcS]

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]

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.