Are Pathfinder classes balanced? Close enough.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Major__Tom wrote:

Yes, it is certainly balanced enough. In fact, for Runelords, we did a specific experiment. Everyone played a base clase (5 - cleric, generalist wizard, rogue, barbarian, druid), with one person playing one of the most overpowered classes from 3.5 - the Duskblade. The Duskblade had his moments, but no more than anyone else. In fact, until they got high enough level where the duskblade was getting 10 first and 10 second level spells, the generalist wizard outdid him consistently - not just at spellcasting, but in melee, with his granted power - using his 20 int to get +5 to hit and damage with a dagger at 1st level. (this was beta rules, since changed to only int bonus to hit, str to damage, which I have to agree with).

And there is NO chance that someone can build a PC that dominates every encounter. I'm sorry, that's just too much of a challenge for the DM. Maybe he can dominate some or even a lot of the encounters - the party above - if it was pure hack and slash - did have a tendency to push the barbarian into the room and slam the door until the noise died down, but there's always something that can hit a PCs weak points, that other PCs can take up the slack for.

The duskblade class is in my experience rather not overpowered.


No, it's a great damage-dealer, it can 'stab you in the face magically' but otherwise isn't outstanding. In fact it adapts into Pathfinder quite well, all things considered.


Major__Tom wrote:
one of the most overpowered classes from 3.5 - the Duskblade

...Er, what?

I uh, think I found the issue with your test. Duskblades aren't overpowered.

Edit: Wizards are the overpowered ones and, funny enough, though you didn't mean to, you seemed to agree ;p

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Since people are talking about the "sweet spot" of mid-level, I thought I'd comment on higher levels.

A little over a year ago, I started a 3.5 game with a few Pathfinder Beta mix-ins. When Pathfinder final we came out, we switched fully to that.

The game started at 14th level. We had a Human Paladin, a Halfling Fighter-Rogue-Shadowdancer, a Human Cloistered Cleric/Contemplative (SRD Unearthed Arcana and Complete Divine) and an Elven Ranger/Wizard/Initiate of the Bow.

They hit 17th level for the Pathfinder Switch. The Paladin had to leave; his replacement is a Human Fighter-Sorcerer-Eldritch Knight (a different tack, but fills the role of "party face in heavy armor" we had going).

We converted the Cleric's alternate class and PrC pretty easily. Obviously neither are base classes from PF but fit pretty well.

The Halfling Shadowdancer changed little. The Elven Ranger transformed into a Ranger/Wizard/Arcane Archer.

What few performance problems we had in the 3.5 version of the game have been ironed out by Pathfinder, I can say that with confidence. The Elven Ranger/Wizard suffered under 3.5 for obvious reasons, and the PF tweaks to Arcane Archer has made his concept infinitely more playable.

This is not what the number-crunchers would call an "optimized" party. But we basically have the Warrior/Thief/Healer/Wizard roles filled, albeit the Wizard role is shared between the EK and the Arcane Archer, and the EK tanks very well while the Arcane Archer is unsurpassed in ranged support.

These characters are played by experienced players (some have played all editions of D&D since forever ago) and they build their characters <i>effectively</i>.

At 17th level, the full spellcaster (the cleric) definitely has been the defining factor in a lot of recent fights--those high level spells are tremendous. At the same time, the scenario they are in--an Underdark adventure--has demanded for some creative thinking, skill use that she can't provide. They've needed silent and effective scouts (the Ranger and the Shadowdancer), they needed to figure out a way to get across a huge chasm without using magic (oh, and of course there was a sea of undead at the bottom of the chasm). At that level there are a lot of monsters with high SR where the spellcasters struggle and then that's when the characters with weapon ability shine.

The only thing I can think is if we did have a full actual PFRPG Cleric, they might be slightly outshining the party, because of being both a full caster and a decent melee character. But even then--I can't imagine any cleric doing or coming up with some of the things the Shadowdancer, Ranger, and Eldritch Knight (and the Paladin before them) have done. Everyone has their role to play really.

Running PF at high levels, I have also of course made a buttload of NPCs using Pathfinder base classes and for the most part have found them to be effective and perform the role they are supposed to play without being ridiculous or broken. I am happy with the balance levels the core rules provide.

I should note I try to use a number of challenges in my game. There is certainly a good deal of combat, but also a lot of puzzles, roleplay opportunities, exploration, and challenges that require skills and knowledge (mine is a campaign where having ranks in Knowledges is extremely useful). A well-rounded party is essential, and one optimized solely for combat would probably well be screwed.

I can say the only challenge I have had running Pathfinder at high levels is that the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary have extremely few challenges or recommendations for high level games (and NO adventures or modules), so I've had to come up with a lot on my own. So obviously I can't comment on how such a party would work with a typical module, just an adventure of my own design, with all my flaws as a GM mixed into that bunch. But I don't feel stressed out by my party's make up nor feel like I'm not challenging them or challenging them too much, and most importantly, as far as I can tell and have been told, everyone is having fun.

Shadow Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
I think it's vaguely important to point out that most of the balancing done to clerics and wizards were done to their spells, not to the classes themselves. Cleric the class lost heavy armor proficiency. Divine Spells themselves lost a lot more.

This is more along the lines I am thinking. And also, I feel the Cleric just does not get the buff that every other class gets. They have no capstone, were even Sorcerers and Wizards, (said to have already been overpowered) do. Sorcerer got the treatment tat I think rightfully was deserved by the Cleric, fluff wise. Each Sorcerer is fundimentally different do to Bloodline and lightning up the Skills, but this doesn't really translate from Domains. T

hey are also practically the only class that does not get Bonus Feats (if not the only one) to help differintiate the base class from any other version of it. They sorely lack any PF material specifically for them, such as Prestige Classes, or feats that grant new options (excluding Channel related which tere is little point for having more than one of).

Domains themselves are a bit lackluster, (in my opinion) and do not help to solve the problem I mentioned about differintiating one Cleric from anoter, bcause the Domain Sells are 1/day rather than added to the spell list (in my opinion the simplest and a very worthwhile fix).

Lastly, as far as being overhaulled, the Cleric got left behind pretty far, in my opinion. Everyone else seems to have something new and cool, except the Cleric. Channel Energy doesn't count as it is a replacement of someting old, and was also something that you culd do way be back in 3E, (except it was metter than, more fun).


Clerics (with Druids) were the most powerful class in 3.5. Did they need buffing up? No. They are still a good class, and well on par with other classes. In fact they are still arguably very strong, they only look weak because they cannot beat every other class hands down any more. The only downside to the cleric was the expectation that they should blow all their spells on healing, which has been dealt with in Pathfinder. Do they need a capstone ability? I don't think so.

Shadow Lodge

That is your opinion, and your welcome to it.

However, Clerics were really not overpowered in that many games. That was usually a cituation where a lot of people saw a potentual problem with these min/maxed build, but few those really didn't get played much.

Even before that, though, was the fact that they tried to build the Cleric up to incourage Cleric to ge played, but that really didn' help, in my opinion. Anf now PF has besically gone backwards in that regard.
As far as needing a capstone, who does? I do think that tematically, if any class does, it would be Cleric.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Major__Tom wrote:
one of the most overpowered classes from 3.5 - the Duskblade

...Er, what?

I uh, think I found the issue with your test. Duskblades aren't overpowered.

Edit: Wizards are the overpowered ones and, funny enough, though you didn't mean to, you seemed to agree ;p

People commonly construed the Duskblade as overpowered mostly due to the poorly written arcane strike feat.


Beckett wrote:
However, Clerics were really not overpowered in that many games.

Jesus.

Between this and the duskblade being overpowered comment, this thread is reaching critical anti-logic mass.

Clerics were hilariously overpowered. They had full spell casting capabilities (IE, wizard), full armor proficiency with a single spell that granted them full BAB (IE, fighter), domain access opened up more skills (IE, rogue), and they were the only class that could spontaniously cast Cure spells (Oh hey, finally the spot clerics sit in). I want to stress - this isn't minmaxing. This is right out of Core, clerics have the armor, the spells, the potential skills, the cure spells, and the buffs. I want to stress, this isn't cheese. This is how the class was designed.

There was no "maybe" about clerics being brutally powerful. CoDzilla was named such for a reason. And the D doesn't stand for duskblade.

Druid got it's cheapest bits hacked off. No more using wild shape to become anything in the world without ever worrying about physical stats. And here's the thing - it's a better class for it. I'm much, much happier with the druid as it is now then I was in it's 3.5 iteration. Stronger != better.

Oh man, cleric is no longer the stupidly powerful class it used to be. Now clerics are just moderately really awesome. However will they survive?


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
People commonly construed the Duskblade as overpowered mostly due to the poorly written arcane strike feat.

I don't really see how the arcane strike feat changes things.

Shadow Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Beckett wrote:
However, Clerics were really not overpowered in that many games.

Jesus.

Between this and the duskblade being overpowered comment, this thread is reaching critical anti-logic mass.

Clerics were hilariously overpowered. They had full spell casting capabilities (IE, wizard), full armor proficiency with a single spell that granted them full BAB (IE, fighter), domain access opened up more skills (IE, rogue), and they were the only class that could spontaniously cast Cure spells (Oh hey, finally the spot clerics sit in). I want to stress - this isn't minmaxing. This is right out of Core, clerics have the armor, the spells, the potential skills, the cure spells, and the buffs. I want to stress, this isn't cheese. This is how the class was designed.

There was no "maybe" about clerics being brutally powerful. CoDzilla was named such for a reason. And the D doesn't stand for duskblade.

Druid got it's cheapest bits hacked off. No more using wild shape to become anything in the world without ever worrying about physical stats. And here's the thing - it's a better class for it. I'm much, much happier with the druid as it is now then I was in it's 3.5 iteration. Stronger != better.

Oh man, cleric is no longer the stupidly powerful class it used to be. Now clerics are just moderately really awesome. However will they survive?

The only thing I'd agree with here is the Druid. It is better for it, though even the Druid got a remake other than canging Wild Shape.

But let me get this straight. It is not ok to have full casting and armor, but it is ok to have full attack and armor and almost full casting, not to mention a lot of abilities that actually combine the two, with a debatibly better spell list? Right.

What about all the other things I mentioned that you ignored?


Beckett wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Beckett wrote:
However, Clerics were really not overpowered in that many games.

Jesus.

Between this and the duskblade being overpowered comment, this thread is reaching critical anti-logic mass.

Clerics were hilariously overpowered. They had full spell casting capabilities (IE, wizard), full armor proficiency with a single spell that granted them full BAB (IE, fighter), domain access opened up more skills (IE, rogue), and they were the only class that could spontaniously cast Cure spells (Oh hey, finally the spot clerics sit in). I want to stress - this isn't minmaxing. This is right out of Core, clerics have the armor, the spells, the potential skills, the cure spells, and the buffs. I want to stress, this isn't cheese. This is how the class was designed.

There was no "maybe" about clerics being brutally powerful. CoDzilla was named such for a reason. And the D doesn't stand for duskblade.

Druid got it's cheapest bits hacked off. No more using wild shape to become anything in the world without ever worrying about physical stats. And here's the thing - it's a better class for it. I'm much, much happier with the druid as it is now then I was in it's 3.5 iteration. Stronger != better.

Oh man, cleric is no longer the stupidly powerful class it used to be. Now clerics are just moderately really awesome. However will they survive?

The only thing I'd agree with here is the Druid. It is better for it, though even the Druid got a remake other than canging Wild Shape.

But let me get this straight. It is not ok to have full casting and armor, but it is ok to have full attack and armor and almost full casting, not to mention a lot of abilities that actually combine the two, with a debatibly better spell list? Right.

What about all the other things I mentioned that you ignored?

What.

It's not ok to have full casting and armor and full attack and skills. That's the cleric.

The Duskblade has full attacking and alright casting. He makes for a good fighter/mage type - he's not as good at smashing as a full power attacking charger could potentially be, but he has some magical tricks to back him up. He's pretty nicely balanced.

I adamantly refuse to believe that you think the Duskblade has full casting or a better spell list. That's not debatable. It's inconcievable.

As for Clerics, they already get the best bonus in the game - full casting in divine spells. They also have the most powerful capstone in the game - more level 9 spells. And for that matter, wizards don't have any capstone either. Oh sure, some of their specializations have a level 20 ability - just like some cleric domains do. In fact, at least four cleric domains have something special at 20 - only Divination has for wizards.

Here's what you're missing - cool abilities aren't better then higher level spells. Ever. Unless your cool ability is to cast higher level spells, guess what? The cleric, druid, and wizard are better. Nothing beats level 9 spells. At all. Nothing does. They are "No, I'm a caster, you see, so that means I win."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

ProfCrino, let it go. You're kinda new here, so you haven't seen all the Cleric flamewars during PF development. We have several people here who think that 3.5 Cleric was OK (if not underpowered) and that PF changes (chiefly, of all things, removal of heavy armor proficiency) nerfed the class into nothingness.

You can't fight it, no amount of anecdotal and analytic data will help. Paizo forums is the place where all the "Help, Fighters are too strong and my full caster is weak" folks went.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Captain Marsh wrote:

I've DM'ed a Pathfinder game for the better part of a year now, with characters rising from 8th to 11th level, and here's my assessment:

Good enough.

And since you haven't noticed any problems, then it's impossible for any to exist.


Moro wrote:

Just because a game or system is good, does not mean that it can't be better. In almost every one of those threads discussing game balance I see certain people come in and post some version or another of "It's close enough so just shut up, ok?" or "If you houserule it this way, it works in my game" or the ever popular "Game balance doesn't matter, all that matters is the RP".

Yes, Pathfinder is a step up from 3.5 in terms of balance, but it could be better, and the discussions of the issues are good. The best part about these forums and Paizo in general is that quite often in these discussions a Paizo staff member will pop up, so you know that the conversations are being heard.

So by all means, if you see a thread on a balance issue, poke your head in and voice your opinion on the matter. Replies like the examples I gave above serve no purpose however, and I have been seeing a disturbing trend of people trying to actively discourage discussion of balance issues, or even just shout down those with opinions who differ from their own.

I agree with you that discussions are good, but isn't "leave the game the way it is/if you don't like something change it in YOUR game" a point of view as well? I hope so, because that's how I feel. I personally view it as potentially harmful to the game that "balance" is often just a synonym for "math".

It also seems to me--unfortunately--that the 'crunchers often disregard Rule 0 as a viable means of changing the game to their liking. The problem is, if RAW were changed to suit them, *I* wouldn't like the game as much. I feel it would squish the vibrancy and life out of the game. I don't want a combat sim.

The game is certainly not balanced to the degree that a simpler game such as stud poker or rock-paper-scissors is. That's what I like about it: the complexity. Complex systems tend to be difficult to keep in equilibrium. Add opinions (and American ones at that :)) to the equation...forget about it.

In fact, one of the reasons I speak out against what I see as balance-at-all-costs in threads devoted to that topic is so the Paizo staff you refer to remain aware that there's more than one side to the argument. "Serving a purpose" in the eyes of people who espouse views contrary to mine is not a priority. All that said, I certainly don't want to stifle someone else's point of view.

Zo

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

DigMarx wrote:

I agree with you that discussions are good, but isn't "leave the game the way it is/if you don't like something change it in YOUR game" a point of view as well? I hope so, because that's how I feel. I personally view it as potentially harmful to the game that "balance" is often just a synonym for "math".

It also seems to me--unfortunately--that the 'crunchers often disregard Rule 0 as a viable means of changing the game to their liking. The problem is, if RAW were changed to suit them, *I* wouldn't like the game as much. I feel it would squish the vibrancy and life out of the game. I don't want a combat sim.

I'm curious. What proposed fixes would crush the vibrancy and life out of the game? I hear this argument fairly often, then nobody actually says, "Well, doing such-and-such would make the game less interesting."

There are lots of reasons not to change the game. What you described is not a reason to leave the game the same; instead, it's a reason to not make changes which are themselves bad ideas. Personally, I want to change the game to add life and vibrancy to, say, characters who hit people with swords or multiclassed characters, and since the game promises to make these characters good and fails to do so, these changes should be universal.


A Man In Black wrote:

I'm curious. What proposed fixes would crush the vibrancy and life out of the game?

I hear this argument fairly often, then nobody actually says, "Well, doing such-and-such would make the game less interesting."

The kind of changes I'm referring to are things such as balancing so-called "DPR" just to do so, giving every class equal slopes to their "power curves", changing the archetypal classes' flavor from their Tolkien/Gygax roots to some amalgamation of anime & MMORPGs. Things like that.

Well, giving fighters magical/spiritual/supernatural/Hong Kong wire-fighting superpowers in order to keep up with the wizard would make the game less interesting.*

Creating a fighter/caster that wasn't worse at fighting and worse at casting than single-classes would make the game less interesting.*

In fact, restructuring the entire multi-class system to satisfy a group of people, when another group of people are happy with it the way it is would make the game less interesting.*

Zo

*To me.

EDIT:

A Man In Black wrote:
There are lots of reasons not to change the game. What you described is not a reason to leave the game the same; instead, it's a reason to not make changes which are themselves bad ideas.

That is a tautology, my friend. Any proposed change which is a good idea would eo ipso give cause to change the game. I'm not against changes per se. I'm just a bit more orthodox (with all that entails) than some, I guess. Problem is, who decides what's "good" and what's "bad"? You do. In your own game.

A Man In Black wrote:


Personally, I want to change the game to add life and vibrancy to, say, characters who hit people with swords or multiclassed characters, and since the game promises to make these characters good and fails to do so, these changes should be universal.

And I have said many times that I think you should do just that. Make those changes universal. You have your own...strike that, you have an infinite multitude of universes in which to implement your own creative (and from what I've read, cogent) ideas. There's only one which I'd prefer you not change: mine.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

DigMarx wrote:

The kind of changes I'm referring to are things such as balancing so-called "DPR" just to do so, giving every class equal slopes to their "power curves", changing the archetypal classes' flavor from their Tolkien/Gygax roots to some amalgamation of anime & MMORPGs. Things like that.

Well, giving fighters magical/spiritual/supernatural/Hong Kong wire-fighting superpowers in order to keep up with the wizard would make the game less interesting.*

Creating a fighter/caster that wasn't worse at fighting and worse at casting than single-classes would make the game less interesting.*

In fact, restructuring the entire multi-class system to satisfy a group of people, when another group of people are happy with it the way it is would make the game less interesting.*

You don't need to qualify your evaluative statements. Obviously, if you're making an evaluative statement, it's your opinion unless stated otherwise, sheesh.

Basically, you're emotionally attached to parts of the game which suck, such as classes being objectively stronger or weaker than each other. (You're also under the impression that someone is arguing that classes should be balanced based on damage-per-round, which I don't recall anyone actually making.) The idea that it's a good thing that spellcasters are better than non-spellcasters or the idea that multiclassed characters should be worse at everything than single-classed characters are THE HOLY EDITION HANDED DOWN BY GOD arguments: things people only like because they're included in a package they like. There's little argument for them other than the emotional attachment, similar to the argument for THAC0.

Quote:
That is a tautology, my friend. Any proposed change which is a good idea would eo ipso give cause to change the game. I'm not against changes per se. I'm just a bit more orthodox (with all that entails) than some, I guess. Problem is, who decides what's "good" and what's "bad"? You do. In your own game.

Man, there are lots of good reasons not to change the rules even if the changes are themselves good ideas. You risk splintering the gamebase. Developing changes takes away resources from other projects. There's a certain percentage of THAC0-loving/HOLY EDITION conservatives who will pan anything new you try to do, and likewise a certain percentage of armchair critics who give the old stuff a free pass but pan anything even remotely new. Even if new material is 99% old material, the typesetting/publishing costs are essentially the same.

There are lots of good reasons not to do v1.1 releases of RPG material, even if the changes in 1.1 are the Second Coming of RPG Genius on Flaming Rocketskates.

Quote:
And I have said many times that I think you should do just that. Make those changes universal. You have your own...strike that, you have an infinite multitude of universes in which to implement your own creative (and from what I've read, cogent) ideas. There's only one which I'd prefer you not change: mine.

That's cool. But I'm also going to call out your hoary reactionary conservative BS arguments to leave things the way they've always been, if that's cool with you. In fact, we could probably even take the hoary reactionary conservative BS as read, you really don't need to post it.


A Man In Black wrote:


You don't need to qualify your evaluative statements. Obviously, if you're making an evaluative statement, it's your opinion unless stated otherwise, sheesh.

That's funny, because I believe some of the statements you've made are phrased as fact when they're actually your opinion. Such as...

A Man In Black wrote:
since the game promises to make these characters good and fails to do so, these changes should be universal.
A Man In Black wrote:


Basically, you're emotionally attached to parts of the game which suck, such as classes being objectively stronger or weaker than each other.

Yes, yes I am. Just because you use words with negative connotations like "emotional" and "suck" doesn't mean my views are invalid. How are you "attached" to the game, by the way? What adjective would you use? Also, I don't believe that classes are objectively stronger or weaker than each other. There aren't enough data nor are there objective observers, nor has there been established a scientific framework with which to analyze it. Thank God. Your mathematical observations aren't enough to convince me.

A Man In Black wrote:
(You're also under the impression that someone is arguing that classes should be balanced based on damage-per-round, which I don't recall anyone actually making.)

Actually, DPR is frequently used here to show classes' relative balance. Please don't misconstrue my point.

A Man In Black wrote:
The idea that it's a good thing that spellcasters are better than non-spellcasters or the idea that multiclassed characters should be worse at everything than single-classed characters are THE HOLY EDITION HANDED DOWN BY GOD arguments: things people only like because they're included in a package they like. There's little argument for them other than the emotional attachment, similar to the argument for THAC0.

Wow, that's some purple prose. Argumentative phrasing aside, how do you arrive at the notion that "there's little argument for them?" Again, you phrase as fact that which is simply your opinion. Granted, it's not "emotional" like mine is. I guess that makes it worth more...

A Man In Black wrote:
Man, there are lots of good reasons not to change the rules even if the changes are themselves good ideas. You risk splintering the gamebase.

You argue my position as well or better than I do. However, marketing concerns and other practicalia do not speak to whether an acknowledged *good* idea for a rules change should be adopted. It SHOULD. Whether or not it WILL is up to those responsible for the game's upkeep. Part of whom are the users of the game. Hence, house rules.

To close, I'd like to ask you to address me with politeness. You may not respect my position and dismiss it outright, and you may consider my views reactionary and conservative, that's fine. I readily admit to having a nostalgia for the campaigns I played as a kid (though I honestly have none for THAC0). However as a paying participant in this hobby I have just as much right to express my opinion as you do (which, I might add, I encourage you to do). Please do not presume to speak for others on the board as though you represent them. I will continue to voice my opinions in any thread I so choose, feel free to disregard. Alternatively, we could continue to argue, debate, and reason with each other as adults, with civility.

Cordially,
Zo

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

DigMarx wrote:
Yes, yes I am. Just because you use words with negative connotations like "emotional" and "suck" doesn't mean my views are invalid.

No, the fact that they're caused by your emotional attachment to the status quo makes them irrelevant to most conversations. The affection of random strangers is not a merit of most proposals or plans.

Quote:
Argumentative phrasing aside, how do you arrive at the notion that "there's little argument for them?" Again, you phrase as fact that which is simply your opinion. Granted, it's not "emotional" like mine is. I guess that makes it worth more...

Because you made no argument other than "I like it."

Quote:
However, marketing concerns and other practicalia do not speak to whether an acknowledged *good* idea for a rules change should be adopted.

Perhaps the arguments aren't being made to you. You've determinedly closed your ears. Your only conversation to this conversation is that you don't care about how objectively good or bad a change is, you don't want to make it because it's not the status quo. That may be your opinion, and feel free to hold it, but you stating that opinion is completely useless noise. You cannot be satisfied except by a game you already own.


WWWW wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
People commonly construed the Duskblade as overpowered mostly due to the poorly written arcane strike feat.
I don't really see how the arcane strike feat changes things.

RAW, not RAI, it was made before swift actions. They forgot to note somewhere or in an errata or even FAQ that it was supposed to be a swift action. Due to it being a free action, and the damage dice being untyped they stacked. So you had duskblades getting magic items, or even feats, where they could turn into things like 12 headed where this extra damage dice applied to every attack of every head.


A Man In Black wrote:
You cannot be satisfied except by a game you already own.

No, it's just that when I see something I don't like, I don't ask everyone else to change for me. For example, as a DM I will never throw a 3rd level evil cleric at a 1st level party, because at that stage I feel the cleric can't help but K the TP if played intelligently. Yet I don't complain about it.

How is your argument of "I don't like it" any different? You're the devil's advocate in this thread, by the way. Your first post was exactly the same thing you seem to think I'm doing.

I have a sincere question for you. Stipulating that your point of view and any pet rules ideas/concerns you've come up with are good, valid, warranted ideas, what do you see as the most apt expression of said ideas. Would you like to see them worked into the next version of the PFRPG? Would you like to see them errata-ed in? Alternate rules? What is the best way to get MiBPFRPG to the game table?

Zo

Grand Lodge

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
People commonly construed the Duskblade as overpowered mostly due to the poorly written arcane strike feat.
I don't really see how the arcane strike feat changes things.
RAW, not RAI, it was made before swift actions. They forgot to note somewhere or in an errata or even FAQ that it was supposed to be a swift action. Due to it being a free action, and the damage dice being untyped they stacked. So you had duskblades getting magic items, or even feats, where they could turn into things like 12 headed where this extra damage dice applied to every attack of every head.

You know, burning through that much spell levels to do that much damage in one encounter is hardly what I consider overpowered since if your playing at that level, then a well made fighter can do just as well in damage without blowing through all his resources for the day and he can do it in the next 3 encounters of the day as well. On a side note, the original arcane strike from the magazine DID have it´s use limited to once per round...but each spell level added +2 to hit and +2d6 damage per hit. I do like that version best personally.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

DigMarx wrote:
How is your argument of "I don't like it" any different?

Because I can back my conclusions with premises. Supported conclusions are useful. Unsupported conclusions are not, unless you're conducting a poll.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
People commonly construed the Duskblade as overpowered mostly due to the poorly written arcane strike feat.
I don't really see how the arcane strike feat changes things.
RAW, not RAI, it was made before swift actions. They forgot to note somewhere or in an errata or even FAQ that it was supposed to be a swift action. Due to it being a free action, and the damage dice being untyped they stacked. So you had duskblades getting magic items, or even feats, where they could turn into things like 12 headed where this extra damage dice applied to every attack of every head.

Well I had already considered such a thing but I mean even that is really not so bad considering what other way to get massive damage exist and quite often without expending all ones limited by day resources.

Hypothetically at level 10 it is only say 35 ish d4 at best which is only an additional 90 ish average damage per attack for one round. And you would have blown all your spell slots for the day.


Beckett wrote:
However, Clerics were really not overpowered in that many games. That was usually a cituation where a lot of people saw a potentual problem with these min/maxed build, but few those really didn't get played much.

I understand what you are saying here - that the cleric was often treated as a walking band-aid dispenser, and that they were seen as the 'boring' option for a character. Often the question asked at tables was "who's going to play the cleric this time?" because it didn't matter what spells they took, they were going to be pressured into blowing them on healing anyway, and spells were their 'cool stuff'.

Beckett wrote:
Even before that, though, was the fact that they tried to build the Cleric up to incourage Cleric to ge played, but that really didn' help, in my opinion. Anf now PF has besically gone backwards in that regard.

To make them more attractive they were made more powerful ... and all of a sudden a monster was created. Fact is, 3.5 clerics can outshine just about any other class in it's field if they choose to try. I know that didn't happen in every game, because the cleric often had to blow his spells on healing and had little else to do that was interesting. Decent saves, good armour and reasonable weaponry was a consolation to this.

But if you wanted, you could make a cleric a killing machine. They had decent weapons, great armour, decent saves, average BAB and hit dice, full casting and a great spell selection.

So what have Paizo done? They have downgraded the power of the cleric again - a bit. They have freed them of their biggest 'restriction' (which was a social restriction rather than a mechanical one) by allowing their channelling to act as healing so they don't have to convert all their spells. They can now do cool stuff and still be the healer. Yay!


A Man In Black wrote:
Because I can back my conclusions with premises. Supported conclusions are useful. Unsupported conclusions are not, unless you're conducting a poll.

Actually, you can't. What you can do is postulate a hypothetical game situation and extrapolate what will occur as a result. There is no unbiased analysis, there is no contemplation of complexities, and you pretty much just pick through the books to find things to complain about.

Which makes your position just as relevant as his. You have a way you would like to see the game run, and he has a different way. And PF can support both. Isn't it great that Paizo took up this project?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Actually, you can't. What you can do is postulate a hypothetical game situation and extrapolate what will occur as a result. There is no unbiased analysis, there is no contemplation of complexities, and you pretty much just pick through the books to find things to complain about.

You disagree with an argument. That's fine, we have something to discuss. (You're off in left field about how I come across problems, but whatever, D&D is about living in fantasy worlds.) DigMarx's argument is that he has an emotional attachment to doing things a certain way. There's nothing to discuss there. There is a difference between an argument which is wrong and a non-argument.


A Man In Black wrote:
You disagree with an argument. That's fine, we have something to discuss. (You're off in left field about how I come across problems, but whatever, D&D is about living in fantasy worlds.) DigMarx's argument is that he has an emotional attachment to doing things a certain way. There's nothing to discuss there. There is a difference between an argument which is wrong and a non-argument.

Wow. Now we're just off into rhodomontade.

Sadly, Narcissism (in the sense that one must avoid ever having the appearance of error, because one's self esteem is too low to cope with the knowledge of fault) and a Subjective rules set (the one in use by every DM who has ever forgotten about difficult terrain, or done anything to speed up the end of a battle) combine poorly, AEB MIB.

Your opinion that there is nothing to discuss in his post is an argument that I disagree with.

Your original snide overly sensitive argument:

A Man In Black wrote:
And since you haven't noticed any problems, then it's impossible for any to exist.

Implies a statement that does not exist in the post you are replying to. Just because a person has pointed out that a system seems to be in their experience 'good enough' at no point states in any way that he hasn't noticed problems.

I think that the real issue with 'balance' is, does the game system support everyone feeling like they are effective in a roughly equal proportion during a game. Excepting certain situational outliers, the answer, as I've discovered is yes.

The issues in question come into play with A)certain builds (a weakness in design, the more control a player has over a characters design, the more likely they may build it into something unplayable, e.g. by poor multiclassing) like ranged fighters always having an advantage over melee due to the preponderance of them getting their full attacks more frequently. B) High-level play changes the game in several ways. The 'goodness' or 'badness' or 'intent' of these changes is irrelevant to the fact that they must be identified and addressed or play can break down. (In short, issues such as 'which spell do we use' becomes the solution, combat is more violent, and players 'dying' frequently changes the nature of play, and the d20 mechanic for skills breaks down at certain Difficulties.) Certain classes (i.e. full spell casters) have the advantage in this situation. And finally C) in which the style of play (such as the current PF campaign I'm in where there's 1 city of a few thousand, and the poor wizard is both spell and casting slot poor, basically being dominated by the full sorc and summoner in the party) affects this 'balance' to such a degree that it's unmeasurable, because *humans* run the game, not computers and no game takes place in a vacuum.

The fact is, if everyone picks a class from the PH, and sits down with a Random DM at a Random table using RAW, they are designed in such a way that everyone will at some point during play feel useful. And they do it without the 4e problem of making everyone the same. It's a win for me.

I'd love to discuss some of the points above, assuming someone has something interesting to add, instead of, say, just calling people emotional and denigrating their viewpoints without actually adding anything to the conversation.

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:

ProfCrino, let it go. You're kinda new here, so you haven't seen all the Cleric flamewars during PF development. We have several people here who think that 3.5 Cleric was OK (if not underpowered) and that PF changes (chiefly, of all things, removal of heavy armor proficiency) nerfed the class into nothingness.

You can't fight it, no amount of anecdotal and analytic data will help. Paizo forums is the place where all the "Help, Fighters are too strong and my full caster is weak" folks went.

Ok, so no one is suppossed to have an opinion unless you ok it, is that it?

Do you even understand how rude and arrogant that is? Obviously you did not take to read anything beyond Cleric, or you would have noticed that he was the one that braught up armor and started "flaming" others.

I gave my opinion, (even clarifying that it was not a popular one here), with a multitude of reason, none of which covered how weak poor Fighters and Rogue were, according to some.

It is, however, as you said, there are several people that think 3.5 Clerics were ok, and PF has made them worse and much less desirable. And yet, somehow, you think that they are automatically wrong, and they should just not be allowed to have an opinion, because yours is obviously so universal and must be correct, right?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

nexusphere wrote:
Sadly, Narcissism (in the sense that one must avoid ever having the appearance of error, because one's self esteem is too low to cope with the knowledge of fault) and a Subjective rules set (the one in use by every DM who has ever forgotten about difficult terrain, or done anything to speed up the end of a battle) combine poorly, AEB MIB.

I am wrong all the time. Everyone is. Nobody should be so attached to an opinion as to elevate it over the reasons for that opinion, nor should anyone offer an unreasoned opinion and expect it to be treated as anything of value. DigMarx's argument is worthless for anything but a poll. Feel free to bust out your thesaurus again to describe that statement if you want.

Quote:
I think that the real issue with 'balance' is, does the game system support everyone feeling like they are effective in a roughly equal proportion during a game. Excepting certain situational outliers, the answer, as I've discovered is yes.

This is a headscratcher. You're arguing that the classes are balanced... except for the times they aren't balanced (and here are some examples). Weird.


As far as the value of DigMarx's argument, I find his statements about his feelings and thoughts much more clear then your response containing sweeping poorly defined statements such as "Basically, you're emotionally attached to parts of the game which suck, such as classes being objectively stronger or weaker than each other." (Stronger or Weaker *how* -> which leads to my point about each game being different, or, shall we say, subjective. Do you have a formula that can weigh the importance of disable device in relation base attack bonus and third level spells? Does the fact that one campaign takes place in the arctic and never has any traps, and other has beholders as a common enemy, leaving mages often without the ability to cast spells factor into your math?)

It's either stupidity or arrogance that causes the claim that one class is objectively better or worse than other (especially when you make the claim and fail to define the term), which, you know, is part of DigiMarx's original point of "Don't change my game because of your math."

A Man In Black wrote:
nexusphere wrote:
I think that the real issue with 'balance' is, does the game system support everyone feeling like they are effective in a roughly equal proportion during a game. Excepting certain situational outliers, the answer, as I've discovered is yes.
This is a headscratcher. You're arguing that the classes are balanced... except for the times they aren't balanced (and here are some examples). Weird.

I define balance as "The game system support everyone feeling like they are effective in a roughly equal proportion during the game."

I then state that for the broad spectrum of play, this is true. In the cases of the examples I've stated (and more) these break down and are not true. These 'not true' cases are what this thread should be about.

It is possible for a thing to be true most of the time, and have occasions where it is not.

Is that concept really something that causes you to scratch your head?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

nexusphere wrote:
It's either stupidity or arrogance that causes the claim that one class is objectively better or worse than other (especially when you make the claim and fail to define the term), which, you know, is part of DigiMarx's original point of "Don't change my game because of your math."

He's very angry about changes he can't even name, but apparently AOK with Paizo changing his game because of their math when they gave fighters a scaling bonus to hit and damage. I'm fairly sure his argument is incoherent and ignorable until proven otherwise.

Quote:

I define balance as "The game system support everyone feeling like they are effective in a roughly equal proportion during the game."

I then state that for the broad spectrum of play, this is true.

Mmkay. Then we don't disagree on this point; few people who actually post here would disagree on this point, for different values of "broad spectrum of play." I also agree that you shouldn't set kittens on fire and that the sky is blue.

Generally, nobody thinks that 3e or Pathfinder is imbalanced to the degree that you can't make it work, and if they do, their time posting here will likely be short just due to a lack of things to discuss. Instead, most people get worked up about games they mostly like, or at least like well enough to bother forming an emotional attachment. Instead, they're bothered by niggling issues which caused or aggravated unfun sessions of play. For example, the list of niggling issues which bothered you on occasion.

It's frustrating to me that the stealth and perception rules are a trainwreck and that fighters have too narrow a niche and that illusions are still 2e-style "make up some rules lol" because the game works so well the bulk of the time. While I certainly could write my own rules that work, I'd really rather pay someone to do that, and here we have some feedback forums for someone who is in the business of selling them. Even when the feedback can't be translated directly into fixing the problem, it can be turned into preventing similar problems from appearing in the future.

The Exchange

disapointing to see this turning into a nasty personal flamewar.

In all the threads about balance, there's usually two sides.

The guys who play with maths - They try and be scientific about their analysis. Remove many variables and look at crunch factors to support their arguments. This type of argument has opened my eyes to a number of possible problems I wasn't aware of before, which is good. However those things still aren't cropping up in games I play. It's good to know they're potentially there however. The problem with this approach is it often comes with the caveat that a "perfect world" is assumed (like most physics or mathematical models). They can't apply their models to every situation or campaign and so people devalue it.

The guys who reference gaming experience - These folk play the game and either find errors pop up in corner cases, or find relatively no error at all. They use data collected from sampling to support their cases and can find a myriad of supporters with similar experiences. The problem here is mostly these are biased samples. I've learnt stuff from these folks as well, particularly in some of the corner cases they provide.

The thing you have to ask yourself is how far to push the "balancing" factor. MiB mentions polls earlier, they have their place. If a poll were run about how happy people were with a game system and the vast majority felt it was great, then further tinkering may not be worth the financial expense, no matter how frustrated that makes the "balance proponents". I dobt Paizo will biother thogh, I'm sure they hae other means of determing how well their products are being recieved.

My personal take at the moment - I'm happy with the game. It provides a number of challenges for every class. Every class has weaknesses, and players get to work out ways to crcumvent these as they go (either gear, tactics or spell selection). Every character has situations they excel at, and good scenarios provide varied situations to allow this to happen. This kind of thing encourages creative play from both plasyers and DM's alike. Keep tinkering too much and suddenly the balnace may tip.

I remember during the beta test for the rules, people were pushing hard for fighters to get better will saves etc. The warning I gave then still applies now. The more you push a balance factor at a class, the greater the chance it makes other classes less useful and less fun for the people who enjoy them now. It's a fine line to tread.

Discussion around these topics is great, but try to keep the snide remarks and personal attacks out of it.

Cheers


A Man In Black wrote:
DigMarx's argument is worthless for anything but a poll.

I'm not sure what "anything" entails. Do you mean to say that "other than polls, opinions derived from arguments not based on strict logic are worthless"? That's a lot of ground to cover. Listen to the news, political commentary, or just about any form of mass communication we have and you'll observe fallacious reasoning FAR more often than formal logic. And, as a matter of fact, I do have a logical basis for my opinion. It's not simply an emotional attachment as you seem to believe (though I feel bad for people without one; why play if that's the case?). Here goes:

Premise 1: The point of the game is to have fun.
Premise 2: [Deleted, unnecessary]
Premise 3: As a DM, a person can change the rules to suit their game, and a player can lobby the DM to do the same.
Premise 4: Whenever I encounter a rule that impedes my fun, I exercise my abilities as per premise 3, and I assume others do as well.
Premise 5: Others' experiences with the game are different from my own, therefore...
Premise 6: Others are liable to change rules in a manner different from my own, and vice versa (premises 3, 4 & 5).
Premise 7: One may not necessarily agree with rules changes made in a manner different from their own.
Premise 8: Changes to rules which one doesn't necessarily agree with may impede their ability to have fun with the game.
Premise 9: I personally don't want to impinge upon others' right to have fun playing the game, therefore...
Conclusion 1: I should oppose others' ability to change the rules, insofar as the rules apply to my games, so that I can continue to have fun (premises 1, 6, 7 & 8).
Conclusion 2: I should refrain from imposing my ability to change the rules on others (premises 1, 6, 7, 8, & 9).

There is NO reason something like this is needed to make a case for not allowing the opinions of a vocal minority to change the face of the game as it is, regardless of how self-important they feel.

Zo

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

DigMarx wrote:
There is NO reason something like this is needed to make a case for not allowing the opinions of a vocal minority to change the face of the game as it is, regardless of how self-important they feel.

Your game doesn't go away regardless of what any publisher does. If you like it better the way you're playing it, keep on keepin' on. That you want to play the game you have in your hands and not a game that is designed with the errors of the past in mind makes you a non-customer for the next game, that's all. Just because you're more or less happy with the game you have doesn't mean it couldn't be improved.


I never said that I personally thought the Duskblade was an overpowered class, but it was widely considered one of the two uberclasses on any WOTC 3.5 board I ever saw. Personally, I always thought that an illusion specialist was the most powerful, because they had by far the most options - but that's based on the fact that I could always come up with lots of things to do with an illusionist.

However, we had played in straight 3.5 (the Ravenloft reprint), and the duskblade was considerably more powerful than either the cleric or the straight 3.5 mage. What I'm saying is that the Pathfinder move to finally beef up clerics really helped. As someone said before, too often they were turned into walking band-aids, with all of their spells going for healing. Now, they have some options.

And I think I agree with the general feeling of this thread. There is no one class that rules, nor is their one that totally blows. They all have strengths and weaknesses, they can all fit in somewhere and contribute.


A Man In Black wrote:
DigMarx wrote:
There is NO reason something like this is needed to make a case for not allowing the opinions of a vocal minority to change the face of the game as it is, regardless of how self-important they feel.
You'll like it better when it's included in the next version of THE HOLY EDITION HANDED DOWN BY GOD.

Can I get the special edition in Aramaic with the leather cover and gilt edges? And as a matter of fact, you're right in your own way. I do trust (I know, another one of those meaningless words) the sacred keepers of the scrolls to make decisions on orthodoxy with far greater wisdom, skill, and aplomb than an (metaphorically, of course, no insult intended) evangelist haranguing passers-by from his soapbox in Speaker's Corner.

Zo


DigMarx wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
DigMarx's argument is worthless for anything but a poll.

I'm not sure what "anything" entails. Do you mean to say that "other than polls, opinions derived from arguments not based on strict logic are worthless"? That's a lot of ground to cover. Listen to the news, political commentary, or just about any form of mass communication we have and you'll observe fallacious reasoning FAR more often than formal logic. And, as a matter of fact, I do have a logical basis for my opinion. It's not simply an emotional attachment as you seem to believe (though I feel bad for people without one; why play if that's the case?). Here goes:

Premise 1: The point of the game is to have fun.
Premise 2: [Deleted, unnecessary]
Premise 3: As a DM, a person can change the rules to suit their game, and a player can lobby the DM to do the same.
Premise 4: Whenever I encounter a rule that impedes my fun, I exercise my abilities as per premise 3, and I assume others do as well.
Premise 5: Others' experiences with the game are different from my own, therefore...
Premise 6: Others are liable to change rules in a manner different from my own, and vice versa (premises 3, 4 & 5).
Premise 7: One may not necessarily agree with rules changes made in a manner different from their own.
Premise 8: Changes to rules which one doesn't necessarily agree with may impede their ability to have fun with the game.
Premise 9: I personally don't want to impinge upon others' right to have fun playing the game, therefore...
Conclusion 1: I should oppose others' ability to change the rules, insofar as the rules apply to my games, so that I can continue to have fun (premises 1, 6, 7 & 8).
Conclusion 2: I should refrain from imposing my ability to change the rules on others (premises 1, 6, 7, 8, & 9).

There is NO reason something like this is needed to make a case for not allowing the opinions of a vocal minority to change the face of the game as it is, regardless of how self-important they feel.

Zo

And I counter with: if I feel I need to change the rules to make the game work, why pay for the ruleset at all. Why not just semi-plagiarize the SRD and make up most of the game as I go along?


Moro wrote:
And I counter with: if I feel I need to change the rules to make the game work, why pay for the ruleset at all. Why not just semi-plagiarize the SRD and make up most of the game as I go along?

Isn't that how Pathfinder came about?


MIB and DigiMarx, really, your back and forth has become incredibly tedious. You don't like each other and neither of you is in danger of convincing the other of whatever it is you spend pages trying to convince them of. Lets move on.

The PF classes are not balanced IN MY OPINION, even to a nominal degree. To achieve what I'd call balance, a player with full understanding of the capabilities of each class should be able to give serious consideration to each based on how they will perform at each level from 1 to 20. Each class should have a firm and distinct concept that is key to a party - not MANDATORY but still fully unique.

I agree that the cleric class is not well crafted. The paladin's lay on hands pool outshines the cleric's channeling over time, as it can be used to channel and the uses per day increase... with the capstone ability maximizing the results.

Barbarians have no unique role. There's little, if anything, that a barbarian can do that a fighter can't do better. At 19th level, the fighter has DR 5/- too, in heavy armor.

Rangers are still a class only played by people who are in love with a concept character (again, in my experience). They're easily outshined by fighters, again, and are too heavily wedded to their early choices.

Bards are still not bringing anything special to the table. The rounds-per-day alteration has, it seems to me, weakened the utility of their bardic performance.

Paladins are insane boss-killers now. I do think they needed a boost in power, but compared to other classes they seem a bit over-the-top now.

Obviously I can only speak about my own experiences and views, and those of my gaming groups, but there seem to be a lot of ways that the various classes could be improved to make them "on par" with one another, while still retaining a unique role, or at least unique but equal contribution to the party.


A Man In Black wrote:
DigMarx wrote:
There is NO reason something like this is needed to make a case for not allowing the opinions of a vocal minority to change the face of the game as it is, regardless of how self-important they feel.
You'll like it better when it's included in the next version of THE HOLY EDITION HANDED DOWN BY GOD.

Can I get the special edition in Aramaic with the leather cover and gilt edges? And as a matter of fact, you're right in your own way. I do trust (I know, another one of those meaningless words) the sacred keepers of the scrolls to make decisions on orthodoxy with far greater wisdom, skill, and aplomb than an (metaphorically, of course, no insult intended) evangelist haranguing passers-by from his soapbox in Speaker's Corner.

Zo

EDIT: You changed your post, so I retract the above. I like the imagery, so I didn't delete it.

A Man In Black wrote:
Your game doesn't go away regardless of what any publisher does. If you like it better the way you're playing it, keep on keepin' on. That you want to play the game you have in your hands and not a game that is designed with the errors of the past in mind makes you a non-customer for the next game, that's all. Just because you're more or less happy with the game you have doesn't mean it couldn't be improved.

I fully agree with everything you just said, particularly the last sentence. This is perhaps the first time we've been on the same page. Correction of errors of quality rather than quantity should largely be reserved for new editions and/or official revisions.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

DigMarx wrote:
I fully agree with everything you just said, particularly the last sentence. This is perhaps the first time we've been on the same page. Correction of errors of quality rather than quantity should largely be reserved for new editions and/or official revisions.

Which is also not in dispute. Not every analysis of why a game fails to accomplish stated or implied goals is necessarily a petition for errata to fix it.


Major__Tom wrote:
I never said that I personally thought the Duskblade was an overpowered class, but it was widely considered one of the two uberclasses on any WOTC 3.5 board I ever saw.

This section of you post makes me doubt that you ever saw any of the WotC 3.5 boards at all.

Also, Pathfinder didn't beef up Clerics at all, they were toned down just a bit. They had plenty of options before that made them very, very powerful, and I'm sorry that if the only Clerics you saw played were walking band-aids, because if that is the case, the persons playing the Clerics in your games were not using the Cleric to it's full potential. They have fewer options now than they had in 3.5, though not by much.


Moro wrote:
And I counter with: if I feel I need to change the rules to make the game work, why pay for the ruleset at all. Why not just semi-plagiarize the SRD and make up most of the game as I go along?

Why not, indeed? I'm no apologist for Paizo. Nor am I a supporter of the concept of intellectual property as such. I personally bought the book to support a company I feel is taking the right path in regard to a hobby I enjoy.

There's room for all different opinions here in the forum. If you feel there're changes that need to be made, it's your right and perhaps your duty to say so. Just because my opinion opposes yours doesn't mean I'm right, or that you shouldn't be able to agitate for change.

Zo

EDIT

A Man In Black wrote:
Which is also not in dispute. Not every analysis of why a game fails to accomplish stated or implied goals is necessarily a petition for errata to fix it.

Accepted. Actually, in an edit to a previous post (probably got overlooked)...

Stipulating that your point of view and any pet rules ideas/concerns you've come up with are good, valid, warranted ideas, what do you see as the most apt expression of said ideas. What is the best way to get MiBPFRPG to the game table?

Zo


Overall, I think Pathfinder is nicely balanced. While monks and barbarians still need to get a step up, and I'd like fighters to get something to do other then mash faces, I'm overall really happy with the changes. The three top classes - druid, wizard, cleric - have seen various reductions to bring them out of "I am god and can do everything" levels. Paladins, rangers, and bards (Though I'm unhappy with the per-round mechanic) are all much better, and even fighters are proper powerhouses now.


Wrath wrote:

The guys who play with maths - They try and be scientific about their analysis. Remove many variables and look at crunch factors to support their arguments. This type of argument has opened my eyes to a number of possible problems I wasn't aware of before, which is good. However those things still aren't cropping up in games I play. It's good to know they're potentially there however. The problem with this approach is it often comes with the caveat that a "perfect world" is assumed (like most physics or mathematical models). They can't apply their models to every situation or campaign and so people devalue it.

The guys who reference gaming experience - These folk play the game and either find errors pop up in corner cases, or find relatively no error at all. They use data collected from sampling to support their cases and can find a myriad of supporters with similar experiences. The problem here is mostly these are biased samples. I've learnt stuff from these folks as well, particularly in some of the corner cases they provide.

You have summed it up pretty well, Wrath. The mathematical analysis is good, but the issues don't always come up. 4e was designed using mathematics, with balance being the holy grail. Pathfinder was worked from the other end of the spectrum, based on anecdotal evidence ("is it fun" being the premise).

As a result Pathfinder, for those that play it, is not brilliantly balanced, but is a lot of fun. Perfect balance isn't necessary to have fun.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Actually, I would argue that perfect balance would actually DIMINISH fun. Because with perfect balance, there's essentially only one choice for character to play. You can have different flavor for that single class, but if all choices are perfectly balanced then there's no element of choice at all.

51 to 100 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Are Pathfinder classes balanced? Close enough. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.