Combat Maneuvers and critical hits

[jedorian]

The title sums it up, but here's the skinny:

Let's say for example we have monk who luuuuuves to grapple. He's put all the focus into this and is quite impressive at it. The feats, the monk-y class build choices, all the kudos (yay...). And now, when the grapples come, he nails the natural 20.

I am under the impression that this character gains no special benefit of any kind for having made that 20 on his CMB to grapple. All he manages to gain is success.

Am I wrong in this? Does this character gain a critical hit and all the fun things that apply?

[cmdisc]

The Paizo board discussion goes both ways on this, but here's my take:

For Combat Maneuvers in general, a Critical Hit is meaningless. The target is no more Disarmed or Prone or Overrun or whatever just because you scored a Critical Hit and inanimate objects are immune to Crits from any Sunder attempts. The only place where Crit-able damage is possible is with Grapple. You can take Weapon Focus (Grapple) and Weapon Specialization (Grapple). Improved Critical doesn't specifically spell it out but I believe you can take IC (Unarmed Strike) or (Ray), so maybe the assumption is that you can take it with Grapple too.

So a monk outfitted with all that would be +1 on Grapple checks, score +2 on damage rolls when maintaining the Grapple, and threaten a Critical on a Natural 19+.

My thoughts anyway. Maybe someone can point to a FAQ or Dev comment that supports or refutes this.

[Trenloe]

As far as I'm concerned a natural 20 on a CMB check is an auto success no matter what the target CMD - within any specific rules of size limitations, etc.. It doesn't allow you to suddenly do something that you couldn't do on a normal success nor does it do extra damage or some such.

Combat Maneuver monkeys can be very powerful as it is...

[Nickademus]

A combat maneuver is made by making an attack roll. The CRB specifically defines it as an attack roll and it benefits from anything that would benefit a normal attack roll.

Any time you roll a d20 to attack you can score a critical threat on a natural roll of a 20 unless the attack states a larger threat range. For an attack made to deal damage (hit points damage or ability score damage) , you can roll a confirmation roll to deal additional damage as specified in the weapon's statistics. An attack that does not deal damage does not gain a benefit from a critical threat. Any weapon or ability that does not state a critical threat range or multiplier is assumed to be a 20/x2.

So you can critically hit on a grapple check to deal damage, but not to pin or move someone. Likewise, you can crit when using the Sunder maneuver (as cmdisc said most objects are immune to crits but they would still take extra damage from crit effects such as a burst weapon), but not when performing a bull rush or overrun.

[jedorian]

Thanks for the feedback, folks.

Valid points on all counts. Now, perhaps we can get Moon to adjust FG so that a CMB will actually critically hit in the program.

[Nickademus]

You can always hold Shift to deal critical damage.

[Trenloe]

Or click the "Critical" button in the modifier window before rolling damage.

[cmdisc]

A combat maneuver is made by making an attack roll. The CRB specifically defines it as an attack roll and it benefits from anything that would benefit a normal attack roll.

Any time you roll a d20 to attack you can score a critical threat on a natural roll of a 20 unless the attack states a larger threat range. For an attack made to deal damage (hit points damage or ability score damage) , you can roll a confirmation roll to deal additional damage as specified in the weapon's statistics. An attack that does not deal damage does not gain a benefit from a critical threat. Any weapon or ability that does not state a critical threat range or multiplier is assumed to be a 20/x2.

So you can critically hit on a grapple check to deal damage, but not to pin or move someone. Likewise, you can crit when using the Sunder maneuver (as cmdisc said most objects are immune to crits but they would still take extra damage from crit effects such as a burst weapon), but not when performing a bull rush or overrun.

Very well put!

[Trenloe]

Under "Determine Success" for combat manuevers in the combat chapter:

If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.
This says it is only "always a success", nowhere does it say that it is a possible critical.

Further, the wording of critical hits:

Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a “threat,” meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit.
It specifically says AC, not CMD.

[Nickademus]

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. ... Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Combat Maneuvers are attack rolls.


A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action on page 182).
A natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical threat. Some of this is repeated in the Determining Success section of Combat Maneuvers, but even there is states that they are attack rolls. They are not stripped of all the rules that apply to attack rolls just because they weren't mentioned in that section.


Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue’s sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.
Combat Maneuvers are not listed as exceptions for the critical damage. Grapple and Sunder can crit.

In the end it just depends on which omission you are looking at.

[Trenloe]

Ultimately, there is one specific passage relating to a combat maneuver check and rolling a natural 20. I quoted it above, and I'll quote it again now:

If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.

If this had the exact same wording as rolling a natural 20 on an attack roll vs AC it would also say that the CMB check is also a critical threat, but it doesn't. This is a very specific reference to rolling a natural 20 being "always a success", it does not go on to say that it "is also a threat—a possible critical hit" like it does for an attack roll vs AC.

Do what you want in your games, but this seems pretty clear to me. The passage for an attack roll vs AC includes details of an a natural 20 also being a critical threat. The exact same passage for a CMB check vs CMD does not say that a natural 20 is a critical threat. Quote many other vaguely related passages you want, this very specific passage does not indicate a critical threat for a CMB check vs CMD.

[Trenloe]

To compare the two passages I refer to side by side.

For attack rolls vs AC:

Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).

For CMB checks vs CMD:

Determine Success: ... Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.

These have exactly the same wording (except success replaces hit, and failure replaces miss - which also suggests that there are subtle differences between CMB checks and "normal" attacks). But there is no mention in the CMB check of a natural 20 being anything more than an automatic success. If we were to assume that CMB checks are *exactly* the same as attacks then there would be no need to even have this "Determine Success" section for CMB checks, it would just inherit the attack rules. But the text doesn't rely on inheriting the attack misses/hits section, the rules specifically call out what is an automatic success and an automatic failure for CMB checks, without any reference to a natural 20 being a critical hit.

This isn't a case of an omission, it's a case of this being the specific rules for CMB checks vs. CMD.

[Nickademus]

Just because two sentence aren't worded exactly the same doesn't mean they aren't saying the same thing, especially in a resource where different parts can be written by different authors. I think you are getting a bit too technical with CMD versus AC. It says very plainly that it is an attack roll and has all the bonuses and penalties of one. I don't consider that vague at all.

What I do find interesting is what happens if you choose to follow the rules for maneuvers as only what is written in the Combat Maneuver section and ignore the things that are not:

A character is fighting a monster that is standing behind cover. He attacks with his longsword and the monster gets +4 to its AC. Seeing the difficulty of the situation, he then tries to trip the monster. The character doesn't have the maneuver feat so he provokes an attack of opportunity, but the cover prevents the monster from taking it. He then attacks with his longsword again using a combat maneuver. The creature is also denied the AC bonus from cover since the CRB doesn't state that CMB is increased due to cover like AC is.


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.
Cover provides a +4 untyped bonus to AC. Untyped bonuses are not listed as one of the types that are applied to CMD. Thus cover doesn't apply to combat maneuvers.

In fact, I don't think the CM section actually states you need line of sight or line of effect to perform a combat maneuver. So a character could disarm an opponent through a door by RAW the way you are presenting it. I just see this as getting silly. I don't think they need to list out every aspect of an attack roll in the combat maneuver section for it to apply.

[Trenloe]

Just because two sentence aren't worded exactly the same doesn't mean they aren't saying the same thing
You're joking, right? You're refusing to see the fact that information about a critical hit was deliberately *not included* in the success/fail criteria for a CMB check. If every line in Pathfinder had to include statements that list the negative by omission rules then the rulebook would be thousands of pages long.

You're not reading the very plain differences between the two clear sentences I listed in post #12 above. Do whatever you want in your own game. I'm pretty fed up with arguing with people who think CMB checks are *exactly* the same as attacks - they are not. There are subtle differences - for example, a grapple check is a standard action. If you have a BAB of 6 or more you can't do 2 grapples as part of a full attack action, unless you have a specific ability (e.g. flurry of maneuvers) because CMB checks *are not 100% the same as pure attack rolls*. The subtle differences continue when it come to critical hits (or not, in this case).

[Nickademus]

If you are getting fed up arguing with people about this then I think you are taking PF too seriously. It's just a game. I know PFS requires people to use the Rules As Written, but you shouldn't be letting the holes in RAW get to you.

Since you are taking this so seriously I went ahead and looked it up on the FAQ. Well, it isn't there, but the link to the blog post about all this is. Here is the official ruling, so that you have some actual substance to argue with:
https://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom&page=3?Combat-Maneuvers-and-Weapon-Special-Features#

Combat maneuvers don't have threat ranges and can't critically hit. A definite negative. There you go. Enjoy.

[cmdisc]

Interesting that you can take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization for Grapple just as if it were a weapon (hence the first word in the name of those feats), yet you can't take Improved Critical for it. I've agreed with Nickademus that the language appeared to point to "critable" grapples, and yet there's SKR's response to Jiggy's question about half way down the page. So I guess that is that. Not an official FAQ. But good enough of a ruling in the absence of one. It's unfortunate that as much as Pathfinder has tried to simplify many of the Grapple/Trip/Disarm rules that 3.X made complicated, there is still much ambiguity. <shrug>

Oh well. I never really had any interest in building a grappler anyway. :)

[jedorian]

More often than a grappling character, I see a maneuver master created in my games. Someone that prefers to trip or reposition others over simply grabbing hold and attempting to inflict damage.

Still, while I do agree with Trenloe's view on the manner in which the RAW are concerning CMB, I do concede that a grapple seems to be very much an attack roll. I'll be treating it as such in my games from henceforth.

And while I know that I can simply have my players hold down shift for damage rolls and so on, its still nice to have the program roll out that confirmation so that those with CC bonuses can have them applied quickly and effortlessly. Speedy battles are a lovely thing.

[jedorian]

This is a direct quote from Sean K. Reynolds concerning this topic:

"Using just the rules in the Core Rulebook, what is the effect if you "crit" a combat maneuver roll? There's no discussion of it at all. It mentions 20 autosucceeding and 1 autofailing, but never says that it has a threat range, whether or not you need to confirm a critical threat with a combat maneuver, or what happens if you do manage to crit with one. There's nothing in the Core Rulebook, other than it's called an attack roll (which lets you know that bonuses from spells that affect attack rolls apply to combat maneuver rolls), that indicates you can crit with a combat maneuver, or that rolling a critical threat (which is 20 for all attacks unless otherwise specified) has any sort of followup action (such as confirming the crit or applying a crit effect)."

Taken from the above link that Nickademus shared.

Thanks for the link, Nick. Makes the argument into one of preference rather than one of "how do the rules work." Much obliged.