Combat Maneuvers and critical hits

[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/v5748dy...cial-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.