Quote from: Cranewings;336410As for my strength, I haven't seen the book for a long time, but I still think the table is fucked.

Which you're free to do, but the example you gave is invalid.

From the 2e PHB:

QuoteNo human or humanoid creature without exceptional Strength can lift more than twice his body weight over his head. In 1987, the world record for lifting a weight overhead in a single move was 465 pounds. A heroic fighter with Strength 18/00 (see Table 1) can lift up to 480 pounds the same way and he can hold it overhead for a longer time!

I don't know if the biometrics are out, but the rationale for the scale sounds pretty good.

Quote from: Cranewings;336410Most nerd fantasy is about being the jock, not beating the jock. Even Peter Parker got powers to beat the jock, he didn't do it with just his mind.

I own a lot of fantasy art. Most of the guys are ripped, and those that aren't are drawn with shocking regularity holding things like basket balls. Most of this kind of stuff comes from novel covers.

There's also Harry Potter, Dr Who, the wheelchair dude in X-Men, and many other non-ripped nerd heroes.  Peter Parker's powers don't make him a jock; they make him a super-nerd, which is a character archetype as popular as the various Conan and Grey Mouser clones.

How this relates to the ability scale isn't clear, but I'd rather face a fighter of 16 STR than a mage of 12 INT.

Regarding the OP, I imagine Pathfinder players get around dissociation the same way 4E players do: handwaving or inventing plausible explanations for actions.

As LeSquide pointed out, though, this particular example may not be as dissociated as you think.  If a fat 10-year-old charged into your legs at full pelt, don't you think you'd be likely to stumble back a few feet?

QuoteLuke Skywalker = Farmboy Jock
Capt. Kirk = College Jock

Laughed out loud.

Back to the OP, it's not a disassociative problem, it's a credibility problem...and even then, it's a matter of opinion.

It's unlikely the weaker person can bull rush. The game says 25% chance, and you want it to be more unlikely. But that's not disassociated, just not as realistic as you like. All you have to do is change the percentage to whatever you think is better, and everything still fits with the rest of the game the same way.

On the other hand, when the bard uses a power to shift a monster in DnD4.0, it's disassociated, since any explanation as to HOW the mechanic works is a house rule warping the rest of the game; the mechanic has no association with the game world, hence there's no way to explain it without changing everything else.

How the hell is this an issue of dissociative mechanics?

Quote from: Cranewings;336387Anyone notice that a small creature with a 10 strength and no BAB can bulrush a large creature with an 18 strength and a 10 dexterity on a 16? That's a 25% chance of success. I don't know how many of you picture that situation as a 7th grader shoving Brock Lesner back 5', but I do and its stupid.

The mechanics in question are:
   Combat Maneuver Defense: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers. A creature's CMD is determined using the following formula:
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
 
Determine Success: 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.
So for two evenly matched combatants a bull rush succeeds on a 10+ which seems fair.
 
In Cranewing's example Brock has a +5 advantage over a 7th grader:
+4 for an 18 to 10 STR advantage
+1 for a medium to small size advantage
-1 Small creatures get a +1 to hit
+1 Brock has a BAB of 1
+0 Brock has the DEX of a 7th grader.
+0 Brock's level 1 feat doesn't help.
+0 Brock's human bonus feat doesn't help.
+0 Brock's bonus fighter feat doesn't help.
+0 Brock's fancy backstory about winning the UFC Heavyweight Championship and a billion other fightin' awards have left Brock completely unprepared for dealing with a bull rushing 7th grader according to an example of which Cranewing is so certain he's dedicated an entire thread to it and set it as the unasailable foundation on which his arguement stands.
 

Is that correct?

Eh, change the flavor text.  Have the little guy running forward and putting his shoulder right on the big guy's knee.  The big guy howls and stumbles backward several steps.

Don't see a problem.

Quote from: samurai007;336407Actually, they can very easily budge most similar CR monsters.  They just have a bit harder time with size Huge giants with 39 Str...

Thanks for correcting me! I'd been seeing examples that made it sound like random similar sized, same CR'd demons and such were basically impossible to use maneuvers on. I haven't played or run any Pathfinder since the Beta, so I'm totally going on what other people have pointed out.

Quote from: B.T.;336444How the hell is this an issue of dissociative mechanics?

It's the wanker bullshit term du jour.

My problem with the use of "dissociated mechanics" in this context is that it's basically a synonym for "stuff I don't like the feel of" and that this topic could have been "Pathfinder and Stuff I Don't Like The Feel Of - Halflings Bullrushing Ogres".

EDIT: An argument using the term appropriately can be found HERE.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;336695My problem with the use of "dissociated mechanics" in this context is that it's basically a synonym for "stuff I don't like the feel of" and that this topic could have been "Pathfinder and Stuff I Don't Like The Feel Of - Halflings Bullrushing Ogres".

EDIT: An argument using the term appropriately can be found HERE.

Exactly.  "Dissociated" means something is happening that can't be explained in non-game terms (like the marking mechanics in the Alexandrian post).  The OPs complaint, while valid (maybe), is not an example of dissociated mechanics.  Shitty , ill-thought-out mechanics, possibly, but certainly explainable in both game-mechanics terms and purely descriptive terms.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;336695My problem with the use of "dissociated mechanics" in this context is that it's basically a synonym for "stuff I don't like the feel of" and that this topic could have been "Pathfinder and Stuff I Don't Like The Feel Of - Halflings Bullrushing Ogres".

EDIT: An argument using the term appropriately can be found HERE.

I agree.

A Small creature with 10 Strength put a 12 or 14 in their Strength score, so picture a 3' Aragorn doing the bull rush. Now all he has to do is get past the AoO, since he will take -1 to his maneuver attempt for each point of damage he sustains. An unarmed halfling does have an unusually good chance of bullrushing an ogre, but a) it's not the typical scenario, and b) if it occurs it's not likely to seem completely surreal. Smaller creatures can sometimes knock larger ones back through momentum, luck, and leverage.