Re: 3.x: rebalancing fighters vs spellcasters vs monsters

Taking your first example:
1. To be taken serious you have to prove or show that PF has the design
goal to "fix" Whirlwind Attack, show their goal for the feat and then
show how they fail at it. I suggest you find cites from Jason or other
members of the paizo stuff or copy a game design explanation from the
beta rules to do so.
2. Don't stack the deck in your favor without giving good reasons.
Asserting that past level 2 large numbers of weak(er) enemies don't
exist in the game must be explained very good, because there are
millions of DM's with millions of campaigns with millions of different
play- and campaign-styles.
3. Don't claim victory with an insulting fallacy.


Why would I bother, when you're just trolling me at this point?

Sore loser?

Or better open new threads for the Brb, direct damage spells etc.
Start with the problems of each, state your design goal, reveal
your solution. Backed up by facts, crunchy numbers, and logic.


Again, see above. Also, all the failings of Pathfinder are old news.
Perhaps not to you, but in general. To those who actually understand
design, it is little more than a joke. I might not mind rehashing the
pages of old news if you were actually 1: Not just trolling me with
some side track about Paizo crap, which only addresses one of the
three points presented. 2: Actually reading and comprehending what I
write. 3: Actually learning from your mistakes. As you are failing
hard on all three points, you are doing nothing but demonstrating
yourself to be a typical Paizo fan - that is to say, blind, deaf, and
stupid, as the ones with normal sensory capabilities see right through
the dogma and delusion.

You can't produce valid and complete examples? Okay.

" Their grasp on what the issues are,
and game design in general is at best laughable,
and at worst quite a few things that are likely
against the rules of these forums."

Nothing about your speech in there.
It's not my fault if you type faster than you think.


And at worst quite a few things that are likely against the rules of
the forums = descriptive terms I cannot go into detail on this Usenet
forum about, due to the rules of said forum.

It's not my fault if you don't read and understand properly.

Usenet is not a forum, retard. There are no rules here.

So far you did not present a single little game-design-thingy.
You rant and rant about their failings without constructive output...
Post your version of Whirlwind Attack for a start.

Impossible. The concept of 'spread attacks' is automatically invalid
in any, and every system that uses Critical Existence Failure based
HP. This includes D&D (every edition). Therefore, Whirlwind is an
invalid concept regardless of execution, and the correct response is
to 1: Recognize this. 2: Remove your useless content from the game. 3:
Not obsess over said useless content, as if it were exactly the
opposite of what it is.

WA makes sense in certain situations.
It allows more attacks at higher attack bonus than normal attacks.
If I can kill all enemies around me in a 2-3 rounds of WAing,
I'm faster than using 8 rounds on killing them one by one.

Why? Again no reasons, no arguments, you're just telling me
how you feel...

Mostly because you skipped the reasons and arguments, jumped straight
to 'what are your issues with the 3.5 races' and my response, and then
tried to act as if I were supposed to be presenting facts to some
tacked on little opinion question. I give your trolling a 3/10.

Dodge noted.

Read again, you aren't. The Clr gains nothing, he loses
granted powers.

10 bucks says it's your failure to read again.

No argument? Not surprising.

So flying should be a class ability for Ftr?

It might as well be, seeing as they can't function without it. And
even if they get it, flight items use the same slot as haste items and
teleport items, which are also requirements. That would be the boot
slot of course.

....and don't forget the head-mounted laser.

Why is Imp. Crit. useless?

1: Math. 2: More and more creatures become immune to critical hits. 3:
It's random, you need consistent, reliable results because if you
cannot consistently and reliably 1-2 round enemies, they 1-2 round
you. And unlike monsters, there's one of you and not hundreds.

There are cases where monsters of a "suitable" CR can kill a PC
in 1-2 rounds, but not in every encounter (if you play a standard game).

To elaborate on the math part, the absolute base case scenario is a
Falchion, because it is 2 handed and crits on 3 numbers. The absolute
base case scenario assuming you hit on a 2 is that this will add
14.25% to your critical hit probability chance, as you threaten 15% of
the time and confirm 95% of that time. As it is a * 2 crit, this means
your damage is only improving by 14.25%, at best overall. Or about
1/7th. More realistically you're looking at about half that because
some of those threats are going to come on the later attacks or
something. But even the best case scenario, against the shrinking pool
of enemies that are not flat out immune means only +1/7th damage. And
you can do better than that, at lower levels even and do it
consistently and reliably. Note that this is anti synergistic to PA,
as it will either mean one works more at the expense of the other if
you do not have Shock Trooper, or you don't give a damn if you do have
Shock Trooper. Either way, Improved Critical is pointless. About the
only use it does have is on Warblades, because they get an ability
that gives them a stacking +1 attack and damage every time they crit,
with no upper limit as long as you crit once a minute or more.

I see your point. But you ignored Imp Crit in your analysis.
18-20 becomes 15-20, i.e. 28.5% instead of 14.25%.
Thats almost 30% more damage, or more than 1 crit per round.
Nice to have, isn't it?

And did you see the PF feats proposed by Jason that give
penalties to enemies (Stun, fatigue, etc.) on a crit?
They weren't in beta, he posted them to the boards...
....because he ignored the feedback I guess :^)

So all that really does is turn you into a gimped Rogue... and if you
wanted to be a Rogue, you'd actually be one and get real skills and
such with your precision damage. Also, there are plenty of ways to SA
through immunes. Those ways do not work for critical hits. Which means
as a real Rogue, you'd ignore that immunity, in addition to being able
to do something besides fight, ever.

I'm not convinced the Rog is the better Ftr, flanking or surprise
are the exception not the rule in my experience.

Funny how you snipped the part with the important question...
...and instead produce more unfounded assertions.

Mirror says hi. What are you talking about?

<yawn>

What do you mean by straw manning and butchering, pray tell?
Cite an example and explain why, otherwise it remains just a
baseless insult, which I can't be bothered to take serious.

Butchering them = exactly as I said, hitting enter randomly every two
lines to chop up and twist my points. Straw manning = countering my
point with something similar, but easier to counter and then
attempting to counter it. Neither are insults of any sort. They just
are.

I don't see a cite where I do what you're accusing me of.
So, I call bull***.

The example apperently remained in your mind. You still didn't back
up your % rates with numbers. One Fire Giant CR 10 (?) is appropriate
for a *group* of 4 adventures. The Ftr should better get help from his
comrades (buff spells, flanking Rog, etc.) before trying to trip.
Post the numbers, don't hover around in a vacuum.

Except ya know, all the relevant buffs (Enlarge) got nerfed to the
point where they are complete wastes of actions. Which means the
Fighter is spamming auto attack, the Rogue is spamming auto attack,
and the casters are either going for the instant kill, or the
effective kill so that the Camp Followers don't get slaughtered by
real soldiers.

What's wrong with enlarge? Gives reach and +2 Str, balanced by
some penalties. Again, post your fix. What alternate version of the
spell would be okay in your humble opinion?

In any case, I have provided you all the information you need to run
your own test and see for yourself. Nothing is stopping you except
your own laziness and refusal to read.

Sure.

Again an insulting assertion without supporting evidence and arguments.
That's not a good style of discussion, you know. Maybe it's your fault,
what you experienced over at paizo's...

More taking things personal that aren't. More responsibility shunting
without addressing the actual points made. Classic Paizo behavior. So
which one are you? Josh J Douchebag?

I'm me. I don't hide behind a nickname.

You expect me to search? The burden of proof is yours.
If you don't manage to back up your claims I won't believe you,
because my personal experience is to the contrary.

You're right, it would be too much effort for you to devote a little
time to bettering yourself by learning from your own errors. Maintain
your willful self delusions then.

Keep your head up your ass then.

At least you could reveal your nick on paizo's boards,
I'd like to read your posts there to complete the picture.


Crusader of Logic. Your turn.

See above. Lang Lorenz.

Every class is defined by HD, BAB, saves, class abilities...
...which means I disagree. The Ftr is not entirely defined by his feats.

Now you're just being dense.

Every beatstick gets a D10 (or D12) HD.

Every beatstick gets full BAB.

Every beatstick gets good Fort saves (and sometimes others).

The only thing that separates Fighters from the other guys is feats.
Thus it defines them. QED.

In PF Wepon Training, Armor Training, W. and A. Mastery, and Bravery
are Ftr class abilities.
I even agree that he's still weaker than some of the other classes.

The feat got slightly nerfed, not the Ftr.

Nerfing feats = nerfing characters entirely defined by feats. A 5 year
old could understand this. Why can't you? Also, way to completely
ignore the point.

Still whining instead of offering solutions.

No, *you* get back to me with real examples instead of % rates flying
around your head like ioun stones.
Post an example Ftr statted and equipped at 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th
level and some monsters he's fighting. Show that your argument
holds water.


I'm just going to start writing off typical Paizo behavior as Paizil
Fail, at this point because if you haven't gotten it the first few
dozen times, you never will. By the way, NOW I'm being insulting. This
should also reduce the massive wall of text down a bit.

This is usenet, Crufailer at Logic.
Feel free to try insults instead of arguments.

Translation: nobody?
Well, you could post some crunch instead of your ranting.
I'd rather evaluate your game design talent first hand.
Translation: Learn to read. Paizil Fail.

He, he. You rolled a critical fumble on your insult attempt.
Try again, boogerbrain.

Not enough information to evaluate the class.

Then either ask more questions, or get the damn book yourself. I'm not
going to write out the whole damn class for you. Not that you'd read
it if I did.

I read the article about WB on the WotC-site.
I don't like what I read about it.
If you'd post something substantial once i na while I would be
glad to read it. Really.

Ahem. Where did I say "these things are not immediately apparent"?
They are obvious. The PF feat PA is "weaker" than core, I could say
"more balanced" instead...

If by 'more balanced' you mean 'beatsticks suck forever' I suppose
you're right. But what kind of borked ass definition of balance
involves nerfing Fighters, and non casters in general?

PA is a start, i.e. "low-level" feat. It's not a bad thing if
such a feat somewhen falls behind other options or gets a kind
of cap. Just like low-level spells, for example Fireball, got
a cap (10d6 max instead of 1d6 per level ad infinitum)

I agree that Ftrs need their feats to be effective,
and there could be more feat chains and better feats avaiable at
higher levels.

Meanwhile in real life you were babbling about non-obvious stealth
nerfs. Funny that.
Paizil Fail.

You f'cked it up, dude.

In fact the PF Clr remains the most powerful class IMO.
But why would +13 be lower than a Cleric?

3.5 Cleric has 15 BAB, before Divine Power. Therefore a maxed out
Fighter in PF PAs for less than a Cleric in 3.5. As the worth of the
Fighter is directly proportional to his damage output and nothing
else, and his damage output has been lowered substantially... Also,
the Cleric has other means of boosting their damage. So all they've
done is further ensure CoDzilla supremacy.

So maybe Divine Power is unbalanced and too powerful?
PF did not kill CoDzilla, maybe because of backwards compatibility
(which /is/ a major design goal).
IMO they should have nerfed Clr and Drd some more...

> Hilarious. And from ENworld. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as that
entire board tends towards a low level of competence and sense on
average as well.

Poisoning the well fallacy.

I never used a Warblade and don't have the book it's from,
but I think a Warblade is not "the Ftr as it should be".
If you haven't read it, why are you judging it?

See above.

Crap like char name, age, and hair color?
Straw man.

Retard. A question can never be a strawman.
Plus, you didn't answer the question.

Lower AC and fewer hp matter (at lower levels).
Wizard doesn't have lower AC. Critical kills regardless. Non critical,
from a bow doesn't kill regardless. Still irrelevant.
Just one look - Ankheg CR 3: AC 18, attack +7

So PCs at level 3 have +16 to attack and an AC of 9 ?
You are hilarious.

Obvious Troll is Obvious. Try picking non low ball examples like Ogres
and Dire Wolves. While you're at it, try going beyond the first 5
levels, which I have already addressed. To make this nice and easy for
you...

You asserted that AC is meaningless above level 2.
You were wrong. Your concession is noted.

My time is up. Maybe I'll reply to the rest later.

LL
.

Loading