Ganbare Gincun wrote:TOZ wrote:I apologize for drawing the attention of the Paizo forums, but they did pose the question "Why all the hate for Pathfinder?"
Oh. And here I thought the Paizils followed Roy home after he assaulted PF on forum too many.
I haven't been on their forums in months. Someone else linked them here.
Zurai wrote:clikml wrote:Actually it appears a handwave dismissal is all he needs. He claims fighters are stronger yet admits their major damage engine has been nerfed... just not as badly as they originally screwed em over.
Power Attack hasn't been the primary Fighter damage engine since Dungeonscape was released.
Lol, no. Dungeoncrasher is 4d6 + double Str at level 2 and 8d6 + triple Str at level 6 if you find a wall to bounce them off of. Which means you need Knockback from Races of Stone, which requires Powerful Build, otherwise it's inferior to just auto attacking. Even then you need a wall, you need to PA to use it, and most importantly it's a maneuver, which is something that got heavily nerfed in PF because there Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things. Which means we're still right, and you're still wrong.
Yes, I did. We have no idea what the final feats will end up being. The reduction in feat power level was a major complaint ... during Beta. We already know that they've fixed MANY of the major feat complaints from Beta, among them the total uselessness of Power Attack and the swift action activation for combat feats (such as Dodge).
O rly? I've seen their 'fixes'.
Less substance than Frank's outright lies? At least I'm telling the truth or an opinion rather than trying to lie to people to further an agenda. You'll also note that Frank didn't even bother to deny that he was lying to you all -- probably because he knows it's pointless because half of you are currently sucking his dick. I'll also point out that I did provide actual data points (example: sorcerer bloodlines), while Frank provided literally zero data points.
You have been caught in at least one lie already. So any claim that you're telling the truth, and someone far more competent than yourself is lying is already dubious at best. Thing is, he got it all right. Is there anything you've gotten right thus far? No, not really.
If anyone is lying, it was you.
As for the fellatio bit, lol what? If he was wrong, I'd be the first to be attacking him about it and have in fact did so multiple times. However, he's right.
You've provided some babbling bullshit about... what exactly?
I'm skipping past all the bullshit where you honestly think that flailing for piddly shit is in any way comparable to doing damage that matters, keeping in mind that at the high levels you must do hundreds of damage a round every round or you will be annihilated before the enemy is. And at lower levels it might be a lower number of hundreds, or perhaps even just dozens if we're talking about level 5. And that's not hyperbole, average level 5 enemy HP is 56.24, core only. That's unbuffed as well, keeping in mind some enemies can use items and would in fact have them. And that's just a routine encounter, 40% of them are higher than that so you need to beat 1-2 hard mode encounters a day every day. It scales at a rate somewhere between linear and exponential from there.
Morzas wrote:How, exactly, have the rules for trip, sunder, grapple and their ilk been altered? I've heard people saying they've been weakened, but I'm not aware of the changes because the Druid I'm playing in my PF game hasn't had to do any of that stuff. If someone could give me a link to a mechanical overview or point out any little weird bits, I would be very happy.
Ok, in 3.5 the base success chance is 50% then it gets modified by stuff like a +20% for having the improved whatever feat (that due to the AoO, you need to have to even try) along with Str, size, BAB, etc.
In PF, the base success chance is 30%. The improved whatever feats got split into two, each only giving +10%. And the formula changed, so you're more likely to be several points behind.
Example: 3.5 Fire Giant is +14 to resist a trip due to 31 Str, and Large size (+4).
In PF it's DC 15 + 11 BAB + 10 Str + 1 Size = DC 37. And if it's level appropriate, then you have your 10 BAB and your +2 from an improved feat and you need another +5 from Str and the other half of the feat to have ANY CHANCE AT ALL of tripping the giant. And you need another +14 to have an even chance of doing so.
The 3.5 character has his Str + 4 to try, which at this level is probably around +10 total, or perhaps more. I forget the exact formula for the opposed roll math, but that's a better chance than the PF mook is getting.
Then there's Enlarge, the stereotypical thing to throw on a chain tripper. It gives +5 in 3.5 and +2 in PF, because size does less in the latter. So in the former, it's worthwhile as it boosts him from around 1 in 3, to a bit over half. In the latter, it's not worth the combat action and resources to do that instead of throwing a Win spell.
Oh and did I mention PF doesn't give you the free attack anymore if you succeed? Which was the only thing that got trip used with some regularity? It's also why Dungeoncrasher gets used with Knockback on a Goliath or something - doing it doesn't make you miss out on your auto attacks.
Zurai wrote:FatR wrote:Therefore combat maneuvers now are not worth taking - not only the chance of success is not great
That actually varies. They severely nerfed sized bonuses (and penalties), so for example where a level 3 fighter with 18 strength would have to roll d20+7 vs a standard ogre's d20+12 (average 22.5) in 3.5, the same matchup would be d20+7 vs 24 (15 base + 5 str + 3 BAB + 1 size) in Pathfinder. Still less of a chance for success, but not nearly as much as some would lead you to believe.
A level 12 fighter with 26 strength (magic items and levels) vs a stone giant, on the other hand, would be the fighter's d20+20 vs the giant's d20+32 (average 42.5) in 3.5 and vs the giant's 41 (15 base + 12 BAB + 12 str + 2 size) in Pathfinder. That's actually an
increased chance to success.
With 26 Str, +12 on the stuff that matters vs +20 from Str and size. Compare to +22 vs DC 41.
3.5: 16.5% chance to trip giant (3% chance to tie with giant so giant wins, 80.5% chance to not trip giant).
PF: 10% chance to trip giant, no free attack if they do.
Both Epic Fail pretty bad.
Throw Enlarge in and it becomes 34% vs 20% and no free attack. Note that Enlarge is required to even try, otherwise you're too small. This could be justified in 3.5, but in PF the buffed wizard will rightly tell him to go warm the bench, while he uses his actions and resources to win the fucking encounter.
Stop lying.
You can see some of the Paizil brand stealth nerfs in virg's post, where Rogues seem better until you realize that all the things that made them good (easy ability to catch enemies flat footed, easy ability to hit enemies) have been nerfed hard by the fucking over of Blink, Grease, and flasks among other things.
Prak = win by the way.
I'd like to close by asking 'Since when is turning people into dumbass mooks with bigger numbers, similar to what 4.Fail does an improvement?'