Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[Username17]

The DC is not the problem with Pathfinder's grapple;

Yes it is. The Pathfinder DC does not scale to high levels. The defender adds more scaling numbers to the DC than the attacker does to their combat bonus. It starts vaguely reasonable at level 2, but 14 levels later you're completely off the Random Number Generator. That's a huge fucking problem. That meas that even if the effects of Grapple were "You win the battle" - our 17th level character could not use it.

That makes it bad on the face of it. Numerically nonfunctional no matter what conditions one plugs into it. And obviously so. I have no idea why they thought this was a good idea.

-Username17

[hogarth]

The DC is not the problem with Pathfinder's grapple;

Yes it is. The Pathfinder DC does not scale to high levels. The defender adds more scaling numbers to the DC than the attacker does to their combat bonus.

Frank, if you read the rules you'd realise that any attack bonuses (e.g. from bless, haste, flanking, etc.) also add to Combat Maneuver checks. But why would you ruin your brilliant analysis of the rules by actually reading them?

[Username17]

The DC is not the problem with Pathfinder's grapple;

Yes it is. The Pathfinder DC does not scale to high levels. The defender adds more scaling numbers to the DC than the attacker does to their combat bonus.

Frank, if you read the rules you'd realise that any attack bonuses (e.g. from bless, haste, flanking, etc.) also add to Combat Maneuver checks. But why would you ruin your brilliant analysis of the rules by actually reading them?

So what?

The Defender adds all of the attack bonuses and all of their defense bonuses. The attacker adds all of their attack bonuses. At the end of some number of levels, the Defender has pushed the attacker all the way off the RNG.

Depending upon levels of min/maxing, this will happen at different levels, but it will happen. Eventually. It's a roll vs. DC where the DC grows faster than the bonus to the roll. And I can't understand why anyone thought that was a good idea.

-Username17

[virgil]

Uhmm...where does it say that? Because out of the Beta document...

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

While the changes to CMD were inferred from the previews of the final product, they don't make mention of morale bonuses adding to the CMB.

[violence in the media]

Not to mention that the notion of having to be under several magical effects, or conditional bonuses, in order to put a level-appropriate opponent into a headlock is ridiculous.

[virgil]

Ah, there it is, on the last paragraph of the "Performing a Combat Maneuver" section.

When you perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB to the result plus any bonuses you might have due to specific feats or abilities.

Well then, it looks like Strength gets to count for double to a large extent, which now makes my earlier opinion of the non-grapple focused strength monsters not as good completely wrong.

EDIT: Wait, no. That's stupid. Clones auto-succeed against each other. Look at the Stone Giant; if you take that interpretation, they make their maneuver checks using a total +36 bonus, and their CMDs are 31. Defenders automatically break out when it's their turn.

[hogarth]

Uhmm...where does it say that? Because out of the Beta document...

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

While the changes to CMD were inferred from the previews of the final product, they don't make mention of morale bonuses adding to the CMB.

In the Bonus Bestiary that they previewed (which uses the final rules), they changed the wording:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/Home/bestiary
"Combat Maneuver Bonus
This is the bonus used by a creature when it attempts to make a combat maneuver against another creature. Combat maneuvers include bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. While disarm, sunder, and trip can be used as part of an attack action (replacing an attack), bull rush, grapple, and overrun are made as part of a move action or, in the case of grapple, as a separate standard action. This check is made against a DC equal to the target’s combat maneuver defense. A creature’s CMB is equal to its base attack bonus + its Strength modifier + a special size modifier. Creatures with the Agile Maneuvers feat and creatures of size Tiny and smaller use their Dexterity bonus instead of their Strength bonus. A combat maneuver is an attack and gains all of the benefits (and penalties) a creature might gain on attack rolls from spells, feats, magic items, and conditional modifiers."

Not to mention that the notion of having to be under several magical effects, or conditional bonuses, in order to put a level-appropriate opponent into a headlock is ridiculous.

It depends on your definition of ridiculous. Should a level 8 rogue be able to put a frost giant in a headlock? Is it ridiculous if he can, or ridiculous if he can't?

At any rate, in Pathfinder grappling is so weak that you generally wouldn't want to do it anyways. The DC is a moot point.

[virgil]

Barring delving deep into a fanboy's wiki, the source of that info is from a handout given during a limited time (Free RPG day). Why would you expect anyone to know it and deride them for not?

[violence in the media]

I thought we were talking about a Barbarian here....

At any rate, level-appropriate depends on your schtick. If a level 8 rogue is supposed to be grapple-riffic, then he should absolutely have very reasonable chances to put anything of that level range into a headlock.

[hogarth]

Barring delving deep into a fanboy's wiki, the source of that info is from a handout given during a limited time (Free RPG day). Why would you expect anyone to know it and deride them for not?

I wouldn't expect anyone to know it, but I'd expect people to keep their mouth shut about the final version of the rules if they haven't seen them.

[Username17]

Barring delving deep into a fanboy's wiki, the source of that info is from a handout given during a limited time (Free RPG day). Why would you expect anyone to know it and deride them for not?

I wouldn't expect anyone to know it, but I'd expect people to keep their mouth shut about the final version of the rules if they haven't seen them.

The only thing we've seen from the final version is that the sample Barbarian is expected to get by with a +24 and a CMD of 40.

So they think that requiring a 16+ for a character to disarm a mirror match is a good idea. That's fucking insane.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Barring delving deep into a fanboy's wiki, the source of that info is from a handout given during a limited time (Free RPG day). Why would you expect anyone to know it and deride them for not?

I wouldn't expect anyone to know it, but I'd expect people to keep their mouth shut about the final version of the rules if they haven't seen them.

Well then you are a fucking idiot.

We didn't have the final rules a year ago, should he just never have ever mentioned the rules we did have?

There are rules, there are rules posted on the website. Why is it badwrong of people to think that the rules on the website are in any way a reflection of the rules?

What the fuck, can I just make a nebulous statement that all rules are not final and thus absolve all rules from criticism of any kind?

[MGuy]

I have to agree with Kaelik. Speculation should be expected from a product that's so heavily advertised.

[hogarth]

We didn't have the final rules a year ago, should he just never have ever mentioned the rules we did have?

There are rules, there are rules posted on the website. Why is it badwrong of people to think that the rules on the website are in any way a reflection of the rules?

What rules? The BETA rules that are for the BETA version of the game and not the FINAL version of the game?

If you want to post a thread called "Complaints about the Pathfinder Beta", go nuts. But in this thread we have a mishmash of complaints about a) the final version of the rules from what has been revealed in the previews or the bonus bestiary or in the developers' comments, b) the Beta version of the rules, and c) some shit that retards just made up out of whole cloth or that they misheard in a big game of "Chinese Whispers".

[hogarth]

So they think that requiring a 16+ for a character to disarm a mirror match is a good idea. That's fucking insane.

I agree; that's pretty lame.

[Kaelik]

We didn't have the final rules a year ago, should he just never have ever mentioned the rules we did have?

There are rules, there are rules posted on the website. Why is it badwrong of people to think that the rules on the website are in any way a reflection of the rules?

What rules? The BETA rules that are for the BETA version of the game and not the FINAL version of the game?

If you want to post a thread called "Complaints about the Pathfinder Beta", go nuts. But in this thread we have a mishmash of complaints about a) the final version of the rules from what has been revealed in the previews or the bonus bestiary or in the developers' comments, b) the Beta version of the rules, and c) some shit that retards just made up out of whole cloth or that they misheard in a big game of "Chinese Whispers".

Yes! We get to talk about whatever rules we fucking have. If there are BETABETABETABETANOTFINALLEAVEMEALONEDON'TCRITICIZEMEBETAONLY rules, and that's what we have, then we get to make fun of that shit. And you don't get to say that because they are fucking beta rules and the final rules are hidden we don't get to make fun of the beta rules.

When we have previews, we talk about shit in the previews, when we don't have previews, we talk about the beta rules. You know, those rules that are supposed to be fucking similar to the final release. You, know like in real Betas where at the end of the beta the rules are nearly identical to the final release?

You don't get to tell people not to criticize Pathfinder rules we do have just because they might have super rules that unlike all their shitty ones are awesome, but hidden from us.

[hogarth]

You don't get to tell people not to criticize Pathfinder rules we do have just because they might have super rules that unlike all their shitty ones are awesome, but hidden from us.

I completely agree that it's your god-given right to discuss rules without knowing what they are, just like it's my god-given right to call you a moron when your wild-ass guesses turn out to be incorrect.

Now, do you have anything intelligent to actually contribute about the Pathfinder rules (either Beta, final, or otherwise)?

[MGuy]

Actually in a mirror match against people not made to be good at disarming I can actually see this making sense. If two brutes of equal size and build who aren't especially good at backyard wrestling step into the ring I would think that the match would be long and slow. Gaining an advantage in such a wrestling match against a double would depend largely on luck. If I were to wrestle myself I'd expect my double to make roughly the same moves as me and know about as much about grappling as I do so we'd be on pretty even terms and we'd just be waiting for one of us to get the advantage over another. Now this could be very different if the mentioned barbarian actually was a pro wrestler who had long since graduated from backyard wrestling antics and knew what he was doing. IE having things like improved grapple (+4 on the attempt instead of a crappy +2) so that on a 12+ we'd get to see some action a bit faster though it might still take some time (Ever watched UFC's hugging matches?). I'd still prefer it to be a bit easier but at least its reasonable like this. I think the REAL problem with the DCs is when it comes to actually taking down monsters who have DCs that are just too high. DCs that can't be reached with some leisure. However. If Hogarth is correct and they did something thing to help mitigate insanely high DCs vs low bonuses then it might not be so much of a problem. If the DCs and bonuses are made more reasonable then simply staying true to the bonuses and penalties for the maneuvers as 3.5 has them should make for a usable mechanic.

[ubernoob]

Actually in a mirror match against people not made to be good at disarming I can actually see this making sense. If two brutes of equal size and build who aren't especially good at backyard wrestling step into the ring I would think that the match would be long and slow. Gaining an advantage in such a wrestling match against a double would depend largely on luck. If I were to wrestle myself I'd expect my double to make roughly the same moves as me and know about as much about grappling as I do so we'd be on pretty even terms and we'd just be waiting for one of us to get the advantage over another. Now this could be very different if the mentioned barbarian actually was a pro wrestler who had long since graduated from backyard wrestling antics and knew what he was doing. IE having things like improved grapple (+4 on the attempt instead of a crappy +2) so that on a 12+ we'd get to see some action a bit faster though it might still take some time (Ever watched UFC's hugging matches?). I'd still prefer it to be a bit easier but at least its reasonable like this. I think the REAL problem with the DCs is when it comes to actually taking down monsters who have DCs that are just too high. DCs that can't be reached with some leisure. However. If Hogarth is correct and they did something thing to help mitigate insanely high DCs vs low bonuses then it might not be so much of a problem. If the DCs and bonuses are made more reasonable then simply staying true to the bonuses and penalties for the maneuvers as 3.5 has them should make for a usable mechanic.

Grappling only works 25% of the time. If you can't fucking grapple someone exactly as good at grappling as you half the time, there's a problem.

[Username17]

The rules that they announce are the rules they announce. To the extent that they are in flux and it is unfair to give criticism they are equally in flux and it is unfair to give praise. To the extent that anyone can announce anything positive about anything they have "done" people are on definitionally equal footing making fun of what has been "done."

Yes, they can change it in the future, but they already sold the damn book and asked people to pay money for it and run campaigns with it. And yes, they will issue a new book that will doubtless change a bunch of crap and they have announced that they want people to pay money for that one too and throw out the thing they already bought for real money. But riddle me this: 4e presents a new skill challenges rule every 3 months, in what way is it unfair to lambaste any of the skill challenge setups so far released?

-Username17

[MGuy]

Well then that depends on what you mean by "out grapple" If you're doing nothing but wrestling yourself it would be very hard to get a quick advantage on yourself unless you knew what you were doing. Otherwise having a 25% chance to succeed (and that's for both parties) at any given time IS even. It may not be as quick as having a 50% chance at any given time, but it is STILL even. I'm not much of a wrestler (I'm more of a boxer). But I had a friend who wrestled professionally (not on WWE or anything) And I've seen him go to work on a friend of his. And I've had him wrestle me. With his friend the match was longer than the match with me. I was down and tapping 20 seconds in. Between the two who knew what they were doing and had similar builds it would be harder for them to take each other down, thus would take longer most of the time, but they'd be able to exploit weaknesses that they find much faster than a novice.

[Roy]

A 25% chance each side wins means 50% chance of Giant Frog. At which point Triple H and the Undertaker pull out swords and stab each other in the face. Full Fucking Stop.

[MGuy]

True. Instead of grappling any reasonable character would instead pull out a sword and cut people up. But that's kind of the point. At high levels, and to a lesser extent even at lower levels, you really shouldn't be wasting your time doing something your character isn't built for anyway. But referencing pro-wrestlers kind of goes against the backyard wrestler idea. Most likely triple H and the undertaker have bigger bonuses to their CMB for grappling and have better than a 25% chance per round to pedigree/choke slam each other.

[hogarth]

Actually in a mirror match against people not made to be good at disarming I can actually see this making sense.

To be clear: I think it's lame to have a maneuver with a high DC and a weak result (like making your opponent drop his weapon). Maneuvers with a high DC and a powerful result are O.K. (like disarming your opponent by cutting off his arm), as are (to a lesser extent) maneuvers with a reasonable DC and a weak result.

[MGuy]

I understand what you mean. I don't like the changes to the conditions bull rushing/grappling/tripping now give you. So i'd just keep the 3.5 way. Even then I'd add in the ability to throw around a guy if you're strong enough to lift him off the ground.