|
I've seen it. Though more in 3.5 then in pathfinder. It however usually wasnt about the classes but the players. Some players in my group make really effective characters, some in my group make over the top silly characters that end up flopping hard. For instance one of my players once made a rogue with like 50 skill tricks who could run around the room, crawl under the table, scale a wall, brace himself in a corner on the ceiling and then attacked with a crossbow for 1d6 damage. Then the wizard cast glitterdust and ended the encounter after 3 failed monster saves. Now the rogue could have moved into flanking with the paladin, and two weapon fighting sneak attacked the crap out of the enemy, but the player instead chose a different route.I think that is one of the biggest problems with balance when accounting for a large variety of player choices. Even if individual choices are not blatently better then eachother, combinations of choices are always likely to be. And i think your group and how they play greatly influences conceptions of class balance in terms of overall experience.
Mhmm I see what you mean.
I have had tensions in groups between what people chose to do and what they "could" have done but they haven't often seemed about actual mechanics more so about "role" disputes. (You are a cleric you are -supposed to heal me, etc.)
I guess this is why I always find these conversations so interesting, I have had a set of experiences as a player that doesn't always match what other people describe as their common experience in gaming and I always get thrown by that, even thought I have played in "blind" groups and store groups and friend groups. There is such a huge variability in "play" that some of these discussions get really complex.
a good start might be some kind of poll
In your group:
Your wizard is 5th level is he most likely to cast:
1. Haste
2. Slow
3. Fireball
4. Hold Person
Your cleric is 5th level is he most likely to:
1. Cast a buff on the party fighter
2. Cast a buff on himself and wade into combat
3. Hang back and heal
4. Cast save or lose/debuff spells
stuff like that might help us put eachothers groups and experiences into perspective.
Each versions of D&D has its pitfalls, so choose your preferences, and be happy you made the right decision.
As to balance, there is no easy solution. In a class based system, I believe you have to start mapping out strengths and weaknesses of each class, in regards to melee versus ranged attacks, magic versus brute effort, etc. and at least make an attempt for each class to have a strength (niche), but also have another class being able to counter it.
My classic example is that of a wizard (pure magic user) versus a fighter (melee focused). While a wizard will win most the time if they keep the fighter at arms length, the opposite should be true should the fighter engage a wizard in melee or close combat.
However, with most magic systems, the spells start offering solutions to any potential situation, so you have a magic user that can buff up, or otherwise use movement spells or similiar efforts, so the fighter never has a chance to engage.
You start to loose the "rock, paper, scissors" effect, and usually the culprit is magic.
Another approach is to let every class use magic or powers equally, but then there are complaints that this is too bland, especially if you are used to the former.
And finally, my preference is to remove classes altogether. But even in those systems people will gravitate to certain builds.
|
a good start might be some kind of poll
In your group:
Your wizard is 5th level is he most likely to cast:
1. Haste
2. Slow
3. Fireball
4. Hold PersonYour cleric is 5th level is he most likely to:
1. Cast a buff on the party fighter
2. Cast a buff on himself and wade into combat
3. Hang back and heal
4. Cast save or lose/debuff spellsstuff like that might help us put eachothers groups and experiences into perspective.
I don't think that wold work, because (at least for me) it would depend completely on what he circumstances are, but even more so, what the rest of he party is. Having an Arcane and Divine debuffer would be overkill, while having two party-buffers is overkill sometimes utleaves the party hurting others.
The Bard in my group is huge. If you count attacks that wouldn't have hit without the Bard as part of its damage contribution, it outshines the fighter every combat. On top of that, ours is using dazzling display and fear spells to great effect.I like most of them for balance against each other. The bard still feels a little weak, though. As one WotC podcast put it "The bard feels like it wandered in from another game." In the hands of a good DM and a good player, the bard can shine out of combat. In combat... meh. Not so much. Anyone else seeing this play out this way?I'm in the camp that the classes are balanced enough.
Ours just starts singing and then starts attacking, either with longsword or longbow, depending on what's the most convenient at the time. Sometimes he'll throw a sleep spell out there (and now that I think of it, I'm not even sure what other spells he has), but more often he just sings and weapon-fights til the end of the encounter, then passes around cure lights. The group is level 8.
Bard is a strange class. Most of the abilities it has are focused around making the team better rather than making oneself better. I like the Pathfinder Bard quite a bit. Sure he's a mediocre attacker and his DPR is crap but in a group of 4-6 PCs with 2-3 melee types those bonuses he gives out can really end encounters way faster.
Combined with the Bard's natural aptitude for leadership/face duties and I think the Bard can definitely be a star of a group. In the hands of a more passive player the Bard can fade into the scenery though as his combat abilities aren't mega flashy.
|
|
Bard is a strange class. Most of the abilities it has are focused around making the team better rather than making oneself better. I like the Pathfinder Bard quite a bit. Sure he's a mediocre attacker and his DPR is crap but in a group of 4-6 PCs with 2-3 melee types those bonuses he gives out can really end encounters way faster.
Combined with the Bard's natural aptitude for leadership/face duties and I think the Bard can definitely be a star of a group. In the hands of a more passive player the Bard can fade into the scenery though as his combat abilities aren't mega flashy.
I try not to be an "antagonisitc" DM but my Bard is a pain for all of those reasons. 6 person group, they mill out the damage from the bonuses and he has good skill checks and a high charisma...its hard sometimes to balance encounters because his ability to skew the average is much more explosive over a party that size.
This may seem a silly question but have many of you physically experienced a dramatically disjointed experience between classes?
I ask because I am running a group that has a bard, a monk, a cleric, a wizard, a druid, and a fighter and they seem on par in contribution and the play styles and system knowledge are varied between players.
Sure, some conversation are had about maybe why on guy shouldn't pick feat X when he want character concept Y but some people comment like they have players or friends who make characters and then just are worthless to the game. I am honestly asking, has this been observed "on the street"?
Arrrgh, PirateDevon! :)
Actually, I think it's a good question. Reading some posters on this board (and certain other forums are far worse) you get the impression that play balance is a horrific trainwreck and it is a wonder we as DM's aren't bleeding from the eye sockets on a daily basis.In my experience, only once has the play balance been off so much that I, as DM, had to step in (outside of the game) and tweak the mechanics. I wouldn't characterize the experience as 'dramatically disjointed' but it was irritating and noticeable. Just to give you a feel for it... we were playing 3.5 and we had a single class Druid and 2 multi-classers. The multi's were a Swashbuckler/Sorcerer and a Scout/Wizard. If you've followed the debates on various forums, this (to some people) is considered nearly a 'perfect storm' of imbalance in that Druids are seen as way over-powered and multi-classers are believed to be inherently weaker than single-classers. That's not my opinion FWIW, I'm saying that trolling various boards you will see these arguments ad nauseam.
It could be that I don't see balance issues often because of my group's dynamic. We discuss the campaign and build our characters together with an eye to giving everyone areas where they can singularly shine and compensate for deficiencies in the team as a whole. All of us optimize our characters a bit but there is no munchkinism. Also, we all watchdog each others builds. So if 'Bob' builds a L1 thief who can pick a DC:40 lock naked, using only a shovel and a smile... we point out what the thief is losing by focusing himself so totally - "Hey Bob, you realise that while your lockpicking is fantastic that your To Hit is 1/4 what everyone else's is, right? Are you going to feel bad if you rarely get a hit in combat even if you are flanking?" Bob is still free to take that build as long as he is aware and OK with the trade-offs. After we've done our preliminary builds, I put together a quick spreadsheet that compares the characters' 'basics': HP, ATT (melee & ranged), DAM, AC, CMB/CMD, Init, Saves, and Skill mods. Everyone checks it over and then we do a final tweak if necessary. If a player doesn't like that their AC is 3 points less than the average, we figure out how to improve it - whether by shuffling ability points, improving armor, picking different feats, or whatever.
Sorry for the excessively long answer to your question. I guess I find the 'balance' brouhaha puzzling because, to me, if a DM is doing his/her job, it shouldn't be a big issue. When I hear people frantically demanding systemic solutions to their seemingly out-of-control campaigns, my first reaction is to think "Were you asleep at the DM wheel?"
I agree about the bard. Something our group (6-7 players) has always done is kind of keep track of how much something succeeds by. If the bard is giving you plus 2 because of his singing, and you hit with one to spare, who gets credit for the hit? The bard, of course. Ditto, if the monster has 20 hp left, and the fighter does 19, only to have someone say 'Don't forget the +2 from the bard", who gets the kill? The same, of course for clerics and their prayer spells, mages and hastes, and now, rangers who share their favored enemy bonuses. It's all about being part of a team, all contributing to the success of a team. Rating one class as more powerful because of X hits, or Y spells, is really useless. It's what they contribute, and does the group succeed.
A bard is actually, or can be, kind of a luxury, but if the party can work it in, it ALWAYS comes in handy. Not to mention the boatload of non-combat skills it brings to the table.
This is all very true, but then again I'm not seeing "Why does the Bard suck?" threads popping up here very often; are you?
about the niche protecting - am I the only one who thinks that rogues shouldn't have a monopoly on trapfinding?
Dungeonscape had a bunch of alternate class features to allow other classes to fill this role.
I actually enjoy rogues a lot, it is just that getting by with less than 4 players can be a bear. it should help the generalists like the bard shine, but no trapfinding really gimps skill monkeys.
This may seem a silly question but have many of you physically experienced a dramatically disjointed experience between classes?
I ask because I am running a group that has a bard, a monk, a cleric, a wizard, a druid, and a fighter and they seem on par in contribution and the play styles and system knowledge are varied between players.
No, and I have been in some pretty mis-matched parties. The most mis-matched one recently (and this was a 3.5 game) consisted of:
A Cleric/Radient Servant - something that is supposed to be broken, but has somehow not upset the party balance one bit. He's great at blasting undead but generally his performance is solid but not outstanding. In fact his solid performance has often made him a 'kill-stealer' from the Wilder.
A Rogue/Master Inquisitive - our party skills-monkey isn't outstanding in combat but outside of it he carries the rest of the party, so he still gets good spotlight time. In combat, it's missiles and sneak-attacks all the way.
A Wilder - our primary damage dealer, she tends to be the heavy-hitter in combat situations but has very few utility powers (the cleric has to cover that), she teleports and blasts, by and large. Even though in most combats she does the lion's share of the damage, she couldn't pull it off without the rest of the party covering her.
A Soulknife - yes, there really is a class in 3.5 that makes the fighter look tough. This is it, and we are worrying about how we will deal with encounters since this player left. Despite all the problems with the class, this character was solidly able to block foes, keep others safe, and dish out some surprisingly effective damage to the for.
The party is without doubt mis-matched, with a CoDzilla and a 'weaker -than-fighter' class in the same party, but everyone had a role to complete in combat and out of it. No-one ever felt left out, everyone has spotlight time, and no-one actually sat and designed their character around the rest of the party, it just kind of worked.
I agree about the bard. Something our group (6-7 players) has always done is kind of keep track of how much something succeeds by. If the bard is giving you plus 2 because of his singing, and you hit with one to spare, who gets credit for the hit? The bard, of course. Ditto, if the monster has 20 hp left, and the fighter does 19, only to have someone say 'Don't forget the +2 from the bard", who gets the kill? The same, of course for clerics and their prayer spells, mages and hastes, and now, rangers who share their favored enemy bonuses. It's all about being part of a team, all contributing to the success of a team. Rating one class as more powerful because of X hits, or Y spells, is really useless. It's what they contribute, and does the group succeed.
A bard is actually, or can be, kind of a luxury, but if the party can work it in, it ALWAYS comes in handy. Not to mention the boatload of non-combat skills it brings to the table.
This is all very true, but then again I'm not seeing "Why does the Bard suck?" threads popping up here very often; are you?
No, but I have seen why do Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians, Monks, Rogues, Gish... None of which I think are so underpowered that they suck. Monks are the only one I have seen underpowered, and that is because they were in a group with other optimized pcs. I think you don't see bard sucks threads because the people who complain about classes under performing wouldn't take the class that likes to perform.
How do they have a monopoly? The trapfinding ability gives them a bonus to perception and the ability to disarm magical traps. Magic can be handled by casters, and mundane traps by anyone else.about the niche protecting - am I the only one who thinks that rogues shouldn't have a monopoly on trapfinding?
right you are, still stuck in 3.5 land. they are the best, but not only possible trap dealer withers.
No, but I have seen why do Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians, Monks, Rogues, Gish... None of which I think are so underpowered that they suck. Monks are the only one I have seen underpowered, and that is because they were in a group with other optimized pcs. I think you don't see bard sucks threads because the people who complain about classes under performing wouldn't take the class that likes to perform.I agree about the bard. Something our group (6-7 players) has always done is kind of keep track of how much something succeeds by. If the bard is giving you plus 2 because of his singing, and you hit with one to spare, who gets credit for the hit? The bard, of course. Ditto, if the monster has 20 hp left, and the fighter does 19, only to have someone say 'Don't forget the +2 from the bard", who gets the kill? The same, of course for clerics and their prayer spells, mages and hastes, and now, rangers who share their favored enemy bonuses. It's all about being part of a team, all contributing to the success of a team. Rating one class as more powerful because of X hits, or Y spells, is really useless. It's what they contribute, and does the group succeed.
A bard is actually, or can be, kind of a luxury, but if the party can work it in, it ALWAYS comes in handy. Not to mention the boatload of non-combat skills it brings to the table.
This is all very true, but then again I'm not seeing "Why does the Bard suck?" threads popping up here very often; are you?
I qualified with "very often" for a reason. I don't see threads about Fighters or Rangers suck very often at all. Monks, "Gishes", Barbarian, and less often the Rogue seem to be the classes people have issues with.
You will see the occasional complaint thread about Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerors, and Druids every now and then too, but as with the rare Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin thread, those are usually a result of an uninformed poster, or a player/GM who has witnessed a player not utilizing all of the aspects of the class in question.
It happened all the time on the WotC boards. And the arguments used against them there get recycled here against multiclass characters. It's like a Circle of Strife...
The 3.5 Bard is not the Pathfinder Bard at all. On the WotC boards, back in the 3.5 days, it happened all the time because the class had issues, and you see a corollary between 3.5 Bard complaints and PF Multiclass complaints perhaps because...there are issues?
|
This is all very true, but then again I'm not seeing "Why does the Bard suck?" threads popping up here very often; are you?
I'm creating a 4th level bard to join a group doing the council of thieves AP. The character is pretty beefy with a 25 point buy and the beta racial hit dice rule. I'll have to see how long 14 rounds of bardic music lasts, that's my biggest concern with the PF changes.
I'm going the archer route to contribute in combat beyond bardic music, but Fiendish Heritage is my level 1 feat, so I'm not going to have precise shot until 5th level. That pushes arcane strike back to 7th level. I had a human bard in a 3.0/3.5 game and it looks like a struggle to match the combat contribution of the old character (bardic music limitations and no greater magic weapon spell).
One other thing I noticed was that I ended up with two dozen skills, almost all with a single rank. That may just be my reaction to the PF rules. In 3.5, I never would have spent 4 ranks on escape artist. In PF, spending 1 point is the equivalent of the old 4 ranks. I may still change the skills some before I start.
And I have read TreantMonk's guide to Bards and given careful consideration to his suggestions.
|
|
Sorry for the excessively long answer to your question. I guess I find the 'balance' brouhaha puzzling because, to me, if a DM is doing his/her job, it shouldn't be a big issue. When I hear people frantically demanding systemic solutions to their seemingly out-of-control campaigns, my first reaction is to think "Were you asleep at the DM wheel?"
As to your comments I think we are of the same ilk. Given that the first and foremost idea behind RPGing (in my mind anyway) is about the construction of narrative (simple or complex) and the idea of people interacting to accomplish that goal, there has to be some element of human management.
I'm not sure its always about the DM but I do agree about checking the steering wheel out with the rest of the car. Ultimately I understand the desire for clarity on the mechanical side of things (it assures a common language if anything) I just am not sure I understand the desire for its absolute perfection in a game that is intentionally designed to have an imperfect component: people.
Comments about mis-matched parties
I have had a lot of similar experiences. It seems to me to illustrate the complex relationship we players have with any game like this. Makes the talking harder I guess but like you it just hasn't ever seemed so "bad".
|
|
A Cleric/Radient Servant - something that is supposed to be broken, but has somehow not upset the party balance one bit.
There are generally two reasons for this, and both have merit, depending on your groups playstyle.
1.) Is that the abilities are not clear, specifically the ability the EMpowers and Maximizes Healing Domain spells. Technically, Domain Spells are the spells that appear on a Domain List, not the Spells that a Cleric memorizes in the 0ne per spell level Domain Spell Slots. Which means all the Cure spells one the Spell List, (Cure Light Wounds, etc. . .) should be Maximized, even the ones not prepaired as Domain Spell slots. Most rule it to be the later though, because "Domain Spell" is not defined, but mostly hinted at to be the former.
2.) Is more common, in that for a Healing/Undead Slaying Cleric, the Cleric gives up little to nothing to go into this Class, and gets huge boosts. Again, really not all that broken, (though it can be), it is just almost no trade off for large payoff at almost every level.
As to your comments I think we are of the same ilk. Given that the first and foremost idea behind RPGing (in my mind anyway) is about the construction of narrative (simple or complex) and the idea of people interacting to accomplish that goal, there has to be some element of human management.
What?! You DM in the real world - not a theoretical construct of perfectly balanced classes/abilities devoid of pesky human interaction? That is madness, my good man! :)
I'm not sure its always about the DM but I do agree about checking the steering wheel out with the rest of the car.
It definitely isn't always a DM issue or even solely a DM or player issue. I hope I didn't give that impression. When multiple people are involved, I find that fault (in terms of determining the root cause) is generally shared.
Ultimately I understand the desire for clarity on the mechanical side of things (it assures a common language if anything) I just am not sure I understand the desire for its absolute perfection in a game that is intentionally designed to have an imperfect component: people.
Agreed. I'm in favor of mechanical clarity. I just don't see it as a realistic panacea... particularly when one of the big issues that can't be addressed (if we value creative freedom) is context. That might be too abstract. What I'm saying is that character viability (balance) often hinges on the campaign environment (context). In a 'thief campaign' world that emphasizes stealth and B&E over brawn - a fighter is less effective and less useful in general than a Rogue. Doesn't mean Rogues > Fighters all the time, just that Rogues > Fighters in THIS campaign. I can't think of a systemic solution that can address that issue unless we come up with a list "Thou Shalt"s which limit the campaign world - which is a sacrifice I wouldn't be willing to make. So I'll stick with the DMs working with their players to hammer out the right balance based on their individual campaign worlds.
Warm regards and thanks for the chat!
A Cleric/Radient Servant - something that is supposed to be broken, but has somehow not upset the party balance one bit.There are generally two reasons for this, and both have merit, depending on your groups playstyle.
1.) Is that the abilities are not clear, specifically the ability the EMpowers and Maximizes Healing Domain spells. Technically, Domain Spells are the spells that appear on a Domain List, not the Spells that a Cleric memorizes in the 0ne per spell level Domain Spell Slots. Which means all the Cure spells one the Spell List, (Cure Light Wounds, etc. . .) should be Maximized, even the ones not prepaired as Domain Spell slots. Most rule it to be the later though, because "Domain Spell" is not defined, but mostly hinted at to be the former.
2.) Is more common, in that for a Healing/Undead Slaying Cleric, the Cleric gives up little to nothing to go into this Class, and gets huge boosts. Again, really not all that broken, (though it can be), it is just almost no trade off for large payoff at almost every level.
I think I would add a reason why the over-powered Radiant Servant isn't disruptive:
3.) The power boosts the cleric gets are in areas in which the cleric was already undisputed master. No thunder is stolen from members of other classes, no other niche is out-competed. The cleric just got better at what he already does better than anyone else.
I think I would add a reason why the over-powered Radiant Servant isn't disruptive:
3.) The power boosts the cleric gets are in areas in which the cleric was already undisputed master. No thunder is stolen from members of other classes, no other niche is out-competed. The cleric just got better at what he already does better than anyone else.
This is true, and he is an awesome cleric. What was a surprise was how well the soulknife stood up to things and had some excelent spotlight time in combat and out of it. The 3.5 SK was without doubt underpowered and yet they really made it work.
|
|
What?! You DM in the real world - not a theoretical construct of perfectly balanced classes/abilities devoid of pesky human interaction? That is madness, my good man! :)
Crazy I know.
It definitely isn't always a DM issue or even solely a DM or player issue. I hope I didn't give that impression. When multiple people are involved, I find that fault (in terms of determining the root cause) is generally shared.
Mhmm no I wasn't meaning to imply that I thought you only meant that. I was more expanding on the idea in my own mind as I was writing.
Agreed. I'm in favor of mechanical clarity. I just don't see it as a realistic panacea... particularly when one of the big issues that can't be addressed (if we value creative freedom) is context. That might be too abstract. What I'm saying is that character viability (balance) often hinges on the campaign environment (context). In a 'thief campaign' world that emphasizes stealth and B&E over brawn - a fighter is less effective and less useful in general than a Rogue. Doesn't mean Rogues > Fighters all the time, just that Rogues > Fighters in THIS campaign. I can't think of a systemic solution that can address that issue unless we come up with a list "Thou Shalt"s which limit the campaign world - which is a sacrifice I wouldn't be willing to make. So I'll stick with the DMs working with their players to hammer out the right balance based on their individual campaign worlds.
Yes I agree that context plays such a big role. Someone said to me recently in another thread...(A Man in Black maybe?) that absent the obvious, context, which there is no way we can share that experience all the time, the mechanical clarity issues are the first and foremost thing to discuss here...it creates a hard tension to some of the conversations sometimes.
More than anything, it just meant "player X does magic effect A, player Y does magic effect B, etc." The extraordinary warrior got replaced by a sword-mage. It felt like a bad fantasy book series I read in HS.The problem is that magic can do literally anything, so when you make a class who isn't magic, the list of things they can do is a null set. You can't not do something magic classes can do because they can do everything.
So maybe, what needs to be done is limit what magic can do. Or rather, limit how well it can do it. While magic may be able to do anything, it should do so far worse than someone actually skilled in the craft.
That's gonna take stripping out a lot of stuff, because invisibility is better than a shadowdancer's ability to hide, flight is better than everything acrobatics and climb can do, etc.
Or simply make it harder overall to cast spells. More costly components, harder to get access to spells, and so on.
The intended cap on skills is still "What can a real person do?"
Wait, whut? No real person could jump 40 feet, but that's quite easy for a high-level character. No real person could hear a whispered conversation at a 200 feet distance, but that's a piece of cake for a high-level character.
but invisibility is a second-level spell. Magic is allowed to be completely unrealistic and non-magical abilities aren't, which doesn't quite fly in a game where some classes are magic and some aren't.
Pros of stealth over invisibility:
- Not limited to times per day (at low levels, few wizards want to memorize it too many times)- Works several hours in a row.
- Works even if you lose your spellbook.
- Works at least somewhat even when taking ability damage.
- Doesn't require talking loudly to start doing it (no verbal component).
Changes that could be made to make invisibility less powerful compared to hide:
- Invisibility only gives a +10 bonus to stealth when moving due to sound and moving dust and the like.
- Full round casting.
- Requires dust from grinded opals, worth 5 gp.
- Duration 1 round per level.
I don't see invisibility as very overpowered in that sense, fly is far worse since no matter how much you invest in acrobatics, and no matter what level you are, that 5th level wizard is always going to be better at vertical movement.
The question is not what magic can and cannot do, it's what the smart magic user does do. Yes, you can have the wizard cast knock, or the cleric find traps but is this a waste of their resources when there is a rogue around, or should they be saving the spells in case the rogue is incapacitated?
Sure, at high level the spell casters can turn the other characters into spectators, but this makes the adventuring day much shorter. You achieve less in a given time period, and have to rest up sooner. The smart way to play a spell caster is to do only what you need to do and concerve resources, especially if you are on a mission with a goal and a time limit.
|
|
i can safely say that the Summoner is NOT balanced. The summoner himself needs to be 1d6 tertiary BAB. and Augment summons is too good for them, it might as well be a mandatory pick up. Since most of his spells are buffs he doesnt need a high casting attribute, and he doesnt need INT OR WIS so he can just max his physicals. a summoner with a good str, his eilodon, and a augment summoned CELESTIAL beast really seem to be a one man three person party in both games ive seen them played. (the celestial template is now sick with the smite! pouncing jaguars smiting with +4 to str and con, OH MY!
im already pretty sure going to house rule the change (the summoner may be a off limits classs like Warblade and Factotem) Just letting you all know how our playtests have gone.
(still hoping for a errata to make athletics a skill, rangers and fighters that suck jumping over pot holes.....suck)
i can safely say that the Summoner is NOT balanced. The summoner himself needs to be 1d6 tertiary BAB. and Augment summons is too good for them, it might as well be a mandatory pick up. Since most of his spells are buffs he doesnt need a high casting attribute, and he doesnt need INT OR WIS so he can just max his physicals. a summoner with a good str, his eilodon, and a augment summoned CELESTIAL beast really seem to be a one man three person party in both games ive seen them played. (the celestial template is now sick with the smite! pouncing jaguars smiting with +4 to str and con, OH MY!
im already pretty sure going to house rule the change (the summoner may be a off limits classs like Warblade and Factotem) Just letting you all know how our playtests have gone.
(still hoping for a errata to make athletics a skill, rangers and fighters that suck jumping over pot holes.....suck)
I thought summoned critters no longer had the fiendish or celestial templates?
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.I think this is more an argument of semantics than anything else. Balance in a PnP RPG doesn't mean everyone can do things comparably well, just that each class can bring a comparable amount to the table. Each class should be UNIQUE, but still contribue a comparable amount to the party.
4E tried to do this in a formulaic fashion during gameplay and that makes it (in my group's opinion, anyway) bland in the extreme. It feels like a card game or a cheap computer game rather than an RPG.
There should be a conceptual formula in the behind-the-scenes development aspect (and there usually is), but the numbers balancing shouldn't involve grinding all the abilities down to nothing so they're the same. I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of THAT.
What each character can do in a game is more based on the specific adventure than the character class.
Let's say, for a moment, that there's a reasonable tradeoff either way. Invisibility is one of a dozen, or dozens, or multiple dozens of different tricks that the spellcaster well get over the course of his lifetime. Stealth is one of 10 skills tops a non-spellcaster gets, and you'll also need Bluff to make it work.
Agreed, but as I said, you could make spells harder to cast making non-magical skills superior. Yes, it's house rules, but it might work for what you think.
Still, when we send someone in to scout out the evil lords castle, we send in the rogue. If we send the wizard, a simple see invisibility or trap can make short work of him. The rogue's hiding isn't only more reliable, he can also keep it up all night without spending all his slots.
Another way to limit the spellcasters are giving fewer spells per day, and not an exponential number. Removing bonus spells for high ability scores, as well as reducing the maximum number of spells of a given level to 3 would make spell slots much more of a limit, because right now at high levels you can cast low-level magic such as invisibility a lot of times per day.
|
I have not read the entire thread, But on thing i was that your run out of spells at early levels, With the Zot that every spellcaster gets. I have not see that to be the case. That is one of path finders fixes. I was the first to run out as a Barb. Even if you do not have rage left you still fight just fine. I think Healing is a limit. When you run out of healing spells you tend to stop. THat for are group is only happening at 9-11th. We run out of healing. But we always make healing potions when go to town. WE just can not bye a lot of major healing potions.
I have not plaid any at higher level so can not say anything about balance.
The skills vs magic still won't work.
the see invisibility trap might take out the wizard, sure. but that means the enemy specifically had to invest in anti-magic on the possibility an invisible someone might be coming along.
The rogue has his skills. The enemy gets OPPOSED CHECKS...costing nothing, and done at least once per foe, possibly every round...he is going to fail unless he can move in and out of sensory range VERY quickly.
Skills have the ability to be available all the time. But you don't NEED the skill all the time...you only need it in specific situations. And during those few minutes you need them, magic does the job just as well or better then any skill.
That's the rub. Also, skills have no intrinsic 'power', like spells do. All that is important for a skill is the modifier. If you give the level 1 commoner a +20 Stealth item, he can now sneak around better then a 10th level character with 10 ranks and a +5 ability modifier. Move it to trade skills, and he's now a better smith then someone who has spent a lifetime at the craft!
That's what magic does.
I find the Tome of 9 swords argument of 'magic' particularly empty. Magic can do anything fighting skills can do, but when fighting skills go the other way, woe is us! Banning the whole book because you don't like mystical swordsages walking on air and flitting from place to place, or making their swords burn with flame? Sorry, I have no sympathy for that point of view whatsoever. To9S allows a better chance to emulate truly heroic and powerful characters out of 'modern' fantasy, doing the unbelievable things that characters can do in a world where the impossible is possible. It sets the bar much higher.
It's a really good book, adn a lot more thought went into it then went into the original core classes, which were basically just ported over from 2E...and melee was nerfed HARD in the transition.
===Aelryinth
The thing is, magic can do anything skills can do, including melee combat ...
... once ...
... and probably not as well.
It's these last two that people keep missing.
Or simply make it harder overall to cast spells. More costly components, harder to get access to spells, and so on.
having almost all spells be a standard action has gone a long way towards the current power imbalance IMO. mages really used to need more martial support to get off their battle ending spells, and fights weren't over so quickly. so requiring more actions to cast is one effective nerf for in combat casting. still won't stop the fly vs climb or invisibility vs stealth, but it gives martial characters their due.
Problem is, once is usually enough.
That really depends on the situation. In a dungeon full of traps, getting just one doesn't help much. In a chain of locked doors, one knock spell won't get them all. On the whole, you want a good rogue for these. You might be able to buff your cleric to be a better fighter than the fighter, until the buffs run out, but how much better would he be if you buffed him?
The question is not to my mind one of balance but of contribution. You don't have to do equal damage to be contributing, you just have to be fulfilling a function that helps the party as a whole.
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.Any flavour you like - as long as it's vanilla.
Word.
That's what irritates the s*%+ out of me about WoW. You have one build per class per role and if you don't use those perscribed builds, you're not gonna see endgame content.
I'd hate like hell for Pathfinder to even remotely suffer from this.