| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Nerfbat. When the optimizers here find something is crazy powerful at high levels, let’s have a Nerfbat section. Like “Blood Money” which clearly wasn’t meant to allow casters to spend unlimited cash, even with unlimited wishes. The Dev’s forgot the brilliant/devious minds of some of the posters here, who found that with some serious maxing one can build up a caster “Strength” to something fantastic, then mine it for unlimited cash for material components. Even with JJ’s opinion that it only works on one round spells, we can still get unlimited Wishes.
We could Nerf this to add “can not be cast more than once a day, maximum amount is 1000gps” or something.
Simulacrum also needs the Nerfbat.
This was one of the great things about 4th Ed. The Devs there would watch the lists and boards and when they saw some Power that was out of hand, they’d just recon it on the spot.
What else is so broken that it needs to be fixed, now?
Now, I am not talking about things that are only broken by a strained reading of the rule.
wouldn't that be 51 points of strength damage? if you have that kind of strength, you don't have that big a need of wishes. How do you even get that kind of strength?
EDIT: answer to below: thanks, but when it's that extreme, I don't think there is cause for nerfing. By staff build rules you can make a staff of wishes... one feat. But like most other infinite power scheemes, they are more of a theoretical exercise. (I believe.)
Let's not get too heavily into Blood Money, but if you search you can find several threads making this possible, if you get crazy.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p7em?The-Blood-Money-Wishes#1
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The Pathfinder team already has a track record of fixing problems, such as the errata to Heirloom Weapon. So what is this thread's goal? To just request more of what they already do? To suggest that the bar of where something becomes "broken" needs to be lowered? Something else?
Well Jiggy, you ask a good question. Yes, the Rules team is very good at doing FAQ. But they seem reluctant to actually change a rule, even if it has been shown it can be broken. And, even if they can & do, how do we bring it to their attention? It's not a FAQ.
It’s true that unlimited Wish by means of Blood Money is theorycrafting. Still, since millions of electrons have died on these boards about it, recently, why not give it a fix? JJ has said that wasn’t the intent of the Feat anyway.
But does the Simulacrum spell work like they thought?
A lot of what needs to be nerfed will vary by table, and while they provide us with rules I don't think they want to tell us how to play the game. They expect for the GM to just step in and say "no" at times.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
how do we bring it to their attention? It's not a FAQ.
Oh!
So this thread is about getting a way to mark a post in a similar method to how posts are marked for FAQing, but with a message to Paizo of "This needs to be changed" instead of "How does this work"?
If so, then I'm not sure that's needed. Some folks will like what those "broken" things can do, and others will simply ban or houserule the thing in question. In the case of PFS, things within the primary level range of the campaign can be banned if they have a negative effect on the play experience.
So what's left that makes these "broken" things need to be changed? What problem gets solved by changing these things that isn't already solved in another way?
Wraithstrike, of course. But part of the problem lies on these boards. When arguing a general thread about spellcasters vs martials, and the Blood Money loophole is brung up, one can’t simply shut down the opposition by saying “well, my DM wouldn’t allow this.” And there’s the point that some newer DM’s might not know better.
What is the goal? having a game with 1000+ pages of rules and options, with near-endless possibilities and everything being well-balanced?
Pathfinder RPG is not that.
I liked that 3.5 simulacrum needed a piece of the original to make a copy. But I don't think it's a game breaker.
And newer GMs often have newer players not knowing about or wanting to "break the game". If not, they learn.
All GMs are periodically surprised by the overpowered enginuity coupled with the overwhelming stupidity of players.
What is the goal? having a game with 1000+ pages of rules and options, with near-endless possibilities and everything being well-balanced?
Exactly not that. It’s is when a spell or feat is discovered to be not as intended for the devs to be able to make a small quick fix.
What is the goal? having a game with 1000+ pages of rules and options, with near-endless possibilities and everything being well-balanced?
Pathfinder RPG is not that.
You are correct in that pathfinder rpg is not balanced.
You are incorrect in that the way to make it more balanced is to add more rules.
Things I would nerf: Grease, Prismatic wall, maze, wish, wall of force forcecage, all divination spells, teleport, detect magic, and all the tier 1/2 classes
Emph. mine.
I am not incorrect because I never claimed that.
I didn't mean "add more rules to fix"... I mean that PF already has more than 1000 pages of rules and options. And my point was: balance for this type of system is a pipe dream.
And it's not what I wish. I like it the way it is. Too much balance was my biggest problem when I tried 4e.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are correct in that pathfinder rpg is not balanced.
It's impossible to perfectly "balance" a roleplaying game and still have any sort of recognizable individuality in the classes.
Is a
healing-focused cleric
balanced against a
sneak-attacking rogue
or against a
rapier-using fighter
or against a
bard whose focus is buffing his party
or against a
paladin with smiting greatsword
or against a
enchanter wizard
or against a
blaster sorcerer
or against a
combat maneuver monk?
How can you measure if something is "balanced" if its focus is something other than dealing damage per round?
You can't.
Is a baseball pitcher "balanced" against a catcher, first baseman, or outfielder? They all have very different roles to play in the game, and have strong or weak skills and abilities to reflect those roles.
You just have to create a system where every character class has things it is good and bad at, so everyone gets a chance to shine in their chosen role in the party. The point of the game is to have fun, not to compete against your fellow players. If all the PCs feel like they're contributing adequately to the adventure (like all the baseball players feeling like they're contributing adequately to the game), then that's a success.
You are correct in that pathfinder rpg is not balanced.It's impossible to perfectly "balance" a roleplaying game and still have any sort of recognizable individuality in the classes.
--snip--
That!
Right, all good points. Thanks, Sean, very well put.
But this thread is not about balance. It is about a very few feats, spells, etc, that seem to be far more powerful than was actually intended. JJ was clear about the general intent of Blood Money for example.
Things that would have to be fixed by a rule change, not a FAQ.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Defeatist? Hardly. Practical? Certainly.
And you can't compare balancing an RPG to balancing a card game or fighting game. Card games and fighting games are closed environments, RPGs are open environments. Players in a card game or fighting game are limited by the hard mechanics of the cards/moves and the game rules; players in an RPG can think outside the box and take the story or an encounter in a very different direction than the GM expect (that word, "GM," also isn't present in a card game or fighting game).
They are compared to different classes in the same role, and then they are compared to their overall effect on the game.
Actually, what I said was:
How can you measure if something is "balanced" if its focus is something other than dealing damage per round?
If a fighter is dealing 15 points of damage per round, and a bard's performance is increasing PC weapon damage by 2 points per attack, does that mean they are "balanced"? The answer really depends on how many attacks per round the party is making—a caster-heavy party gets less benefit from the bard's performance, a TWF melee character gets more out of it than a TH melee character, and so on. You can't measure the bard's contribution in a typical party compared to the fighter's, you can only make estimates using assumptions and models with specific parties.
If a cleric has a +4 bonus on all healing effects and can cast cure spells at 30 feet instead of by touch, how do you measure the cleric's effectiveness as a healer? Is it maximum hit points healed per round? Average points healed in a 4-round battle? Total hit points healable per day? Average hp healable per day? And once you've derived that number, by what basis are you comparing it to a fighter or barbarian's DPR and deciding, "yes, these two classes are balanced against each other" or "clearly the cleric is more powerful than the fighter" or "clearly the cleric is weaker than the fighter"?
How do you do a similar measurement between the enchant-focused wizard and the effectiveness of the fighter or barbarian?
And all of the above makes some baseless assumptions about the type of people who play each of the above characters: that the players even care about that sort of thing.
Players of healing-focused characters don't do it to be badasses, they do it because they like to take care of people. A player of a sword-and-board fighter might deal less damage than a TH or TW fighter, but plays that character because he wants to be a protector and interceptor. A player of an enchanter wizard might not care about how much damage she's dealing, she just likes to turn enemies against each other. The bard's player might not care that she never makes attack rolls, she just likes to write IRL songs about the adventures and give a constant casual buff to the rest of the party so she doesn't have to roll any dice. You can't measure that. You can't balance that. All you can do is make sure people can have fun playing the characters they want to play, and don't dominate the play experience at the expense of the other players' fun.
Wow, Sean, this is some of your best posting. You're on a roll here.
I don't even want balance, even if we could get it. I don't mind that a fighter can kick a wizard around at level one, while that same wizard can return the favor at 20 th.
In one game I had a bard who never did any damage herself, but the irl accountant once figured that with her buffs, both to hit and to damage, she was doing more damage than the tank. And we were both having a blast.
Heck, in the Age of Worms I played the 3.5 Healer class- and everyone loved it.
That's why I scoff when the Optimizers here say how puny and useless the rogue, fighter and monk are- since many folks play them and have fun and contribute.
( not that I would say No to the fighter having 4 skill points or the rogue more cool talents that they can use more often..... )
I played a little 4th edition and the fact that all characters were "too well balanced" was a big drawback for me. Classes and abilities felt just like fluff because mechanically everyone was virtually the same. I don't think perfect balance is something an RPG should strive to attain.
@SKR. This is not meant to be snarky or offensive.
I usually agree with you, but if people want to play a character “because he wants to be a protector and interceptor” or a bard or a rogue because they want to play a skill monkey and both concept doesn’t really work, isn’t that a problem?
Sword-and-board fighter isn’t really a valid concept at higher levels if protector and interceptor is want you want since, among other things, and I quote you: An offensive bonus is more valuable than a defensive bonus of the same number.
And skill monkey? The concept is problematic since skills usually aren't very good (at higher levels). They certainly aren't good enough to explain why a class combat schtick is weaker at stabbing than pretty much everyone else. “Skills are not only often nonfunctional (Diplomacy, ... Stealth), they're also almost always hardcapped at what's "realistic" or "humanly possible" (Stealth again, all of the movement skills)”, as AMIB put it.
I think this is a one of the two main problems with the rogue.
If balance isn’t an issue why even bother with play tests? If balance isn’t an issue why not just give the rogue the ability to feint as a swift action or let her be able to sneak attack in dim light? And why not let her do cool things with her skills even though it normally isn’t realistic" or "humanly possible.
As for the bard I have no problem with the bard being a weaker at combat than some of the other classes. (Along with the Paladin the Bard is of actually my favorite class). Although I do have a problem with the core bard being all about 6/9 casting, Inspire Courage and skills. What makes the core bard even more annoying is versatile performance. A badly written ability that causes confusion again and again and the fact that the Arcane duelist get to trade that ability for four feats is amazing. Especially considering that the core bard can’t cash out and reallocate skills they already invested in, that are now covered by a Perform skill.
I think most people don’t expect perfect balance, but when some classes or archetypes are so obviously better/ more powerful than others some people are upset. The Ninja can do pretty much everything a rogue can to but they are obviously better at combat.
The new 6/9 spellcasting classes are just as versatile as the bard and they are better at combat and they continue to get better as they level up. Then we have bard archetypes that are just as versatile as the core bard but better at fighting.
I’m not saying the bard is a big problem, but the rogue and skills is indeed a problem. At least that is what I think.
I usually agree with you, but if people want to play a character “because he wants to be a protector and interceptor” or a bard or a rogue because they want to play a skill monkey and both concept doesn’t really work, isn’t that a problem?
Sword-and-board fighter isn’t really a valid concept at higher levels if protector and interceptor is want you want since, among other things, and I quote you: An offensive bonus is more valuable than a defensive bonus of the same number.
What makes the core bard even more annoying is versatile performance. A badly written ability that causes confusion again and again and the fact that the Arcane duelist get to trade that ability for four feats is amazing. Especially considering that the core bard can’t cash out and reallocate skills they already invested in, that are now covered by a Perform skill.
But they DO work. Yes, S&B is perhaps a little less optimized that THW, but so?
Just because of two valid, working choices, one is a little worse than the other, doesn't mean that they don't both work. Choices. The idea is that rather than having only oNE choice (all fighters must be THW) they give you choices, some of which aren't quite as good as others. Some folks enjoy the challenge. Being 5% off in DPR isn't that much of a handicap.
I can drive to work in a Chevy or a Mercedes. They both get me there in about the same amount of time.
I love Versatile performance, it's one of the best class abilities there is. It's not confusing at all. Yes, I agree, one should be able to retrain each time you get it. Sean?
Arcane Duelist also loses "well-versed" to gain those feats. Since Versatile Performance is usable FOUR times, it's a decent trade.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Just pointing out that there are now rules for retraining your skill points in Ultimate Campaign, so your bard can (with a small investment of time and money) move redundant skill ranks from their early levels.
Wow this thread moved far fast.
The OP's idea of a post flag to indicate "broken" instead of "confusing/unclear" is interesting. I'm not sure we need that level of detail on a flag though. Would be an interesting way to get hard numbers on the opinion of posters.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I usually agree with you, but if people want to play a character “because he wants to be a protector and interceptor” or a bard or a rogue because they want to play a skill monkey and both concept doesn’t really work, isn’t that a problem?
I disagree with your assertion that those concepts "don't really work." They may not be as clearly effective as "character who maximizes DPR," but they still work.
Also, I'll point out that both of your examples say "at higher levels." Which is where a lot of things with the game start to break down. Yeah, we'd like to fix that, but we can't do that by applying a patch to the game (and we didn't have the opportunity to fix it in the narrow window between 3.5 and PF).
If balance isn’t an issue why even bother with play tests?
I didn't say "balance isn't an issue." I said "It's impossible to perfectly 'balance' a roleplaying game and still have any sort of recognizable individuality in the classes." If the playtests determined that the magus class out-damaged the fighter and out-spelled the wizard, that would be a problem and the class would have to be adjusted to fix that. If the magus skewed too much toward fighter or wizard, that would also be something playtesting would help determine. If balance "isn't an issue," we could just say, "magus has full BAB three good saves and full wizard spellcasting LOL!"
If balance isn’t an issue why not just give the rogue the ability to feint as a swift action
Because the rogue is designed with the assumption that she's only getting sneak attack some of the time vs. the fighter dealing consistent damage every round. If the rogue could feint as a swift action, the rogue would always be getting sneak attack damage, and she'd rapidly outpace the fighter's damage output. (Damage output is something we can measure, and therefore we can make comparisons of apples to apples—in this case, expected rogue DPR vs. expected fighter DPR.)
or let her be able to sneak attack in dim light?
The concealment miss chance in dim light was an oversight, which is why Jason added a rogue talent for it (sniper's eye) in the APG.
And why not let her do cool things with her skills even though it normally isn’t realistic" or "humanly possible.
I hear where you're coming from, but skills aren't magical, and allowing nonmagical skills to suddenly achieve supernatural results with high skill bonuses starts breaking expectations of what a real person could do. I'm all in favor of analyzing the game, drawing a line at level X, and saying, "real Earth humans don't get past level X, and therefore beyond level X (and skill rank X) you can start to do things that Earth people would consider superhuman, impossible, or even magical," even with a nonmagical class like fighter or rogue.
What makes the core bard even more annoying is versatile performance. A badly written ability that causes confusion again and again
I get your frustration with that, too. Note that VP was added very late in the process (it's not in the Beta and wasn't part of the playtest IIRC) because bards were still lacking compared to the other classes, so I'm not surprised the ability is a little rough. And it could totally benefit from an ability like the fighter's bonus feat training, in that once you pick VP for a skill, you could swap out those skill ranks into other skills. (Jacobs is a big fan of the bard and that's one of his house rules.)
The Ninja can do pretty much everything a rogue can to but they are obviously better at combat.
I've heard that complaint before, and I tend to agree.
But to repeat: I didn't say "balance isn't an issue." It is an issue—when we can accurately measure and compare apple-X to apple-Y (like fighter DPR vs. barbarian DPR). But when trying to compare apple-X to orange-Y (like fighter DPR vs. healer cleric healing), you can't just use direct math, you have to make a call. The call isn't always perfect (like the arcane duelist), but we can't playtest everything (we'd only be able to publish about 256 pages a year if that were the case, over all our product lines), some of it has to be based on feel and general utility. (And in the case of archetypes, they were brand new in the APG and we were still figuring out what they should/shouldn't be able to do, and how to judge their power level compared to the unmodified class.)
...
Sean, looking at things from a strictly mechanical perspective, is as you say an approach that can never end up balanced. However, if you look at things from a higher level I'd argue that it is possible to achieve some balance in the narrative power of the different classes. Note that I'm not arguing that it is impossible to build a character super focused on a single area which may result in an overall decrease in narrative power, but I'd think there would be the possibility to give the different classes somewhat comparable narrative potential via class features at different levels.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "comparable narrative power/potential," but let me point out that earlier I said, So I think we're on the same page.
Dotting hard, because there has been a lot of winning from Mr. Reynolds.
I think that the narrative power comment comes from the potential to shift the story paradigm that is built into certain classes as they level. The reason most people believe casters are more capable than, say, the fighter is that they have the very real capability to throw a change up into the story. The fighter lost a great deal of that potential when the game shifted from early additions into 3.0 and beyond.
It's basically all about peoples feeling of contribution I think. When the narrative of the story can be so easily manipulated by casting classes later in the game, I think the player that is running around as a fighter or a bard feels like they are just tagging along.
If the potential to change the story paradigm was given to lower tiers (by lower tiers I mean classes that suffer from a lower amount of mechanical flexibility) through something like skill feats that allowed for game changing skill checks, then perhaps the ability gap would become less meaningful.
For example, if there was a skill feat that changed the paradigm with the diplomacy skill so that its effects were similar to a mental manipulation... something like dune, where the moment when the character issues a command, the target of that command has to save against it.
This, of course, is just off the top of my head.
a lot of good stuff
Thanks Sean for your sympathetic and enlightening answers and my apology for some of my misreading of your thoughts/posts.
I agree that a lot of the problem with the game is that it starts to break down at higher levels. Perhaps the game need a fix at higher levels. Since the game breaks down anyway why not let skills or mundane classes be able to stuff a real person can’t do. I know you can’t fix it now, but I hope you will give it a thought until next edition.
I agree with pretty much everything you say except that a rogue with an ability to feint as a swift would outdamage the fighter (or any full BAB class). The rogue would still have to be able to succeed with his bluff check and be able to hit the foe. Also some creatures are still immune to SA and stuff like fortification still negate SA. I think the DPR thread showed that a sneak attacking rogue is still outdamaged by a fighter (and most of the other classes). It would also make dumping charisma less appealing.
I hope for some minor (or moderate) changes in PF 1.5 that gives mundane classes and mundane abilities some more versatility at higher levels (say past level 9 or so). Even if that means that high skill bonuses starts breaking expectations of what a real person could do. Especially since high level characters already can do stuff a real person can’t do. Perhaps class specific feats that let you do cool things if you have xx ranks in a skill.
Again. Thanks for your answers. Regardless of my objections (or whatever I shall call them) I think PF is a great game.
Wow, even if my idea hasn’t met with resounding approval (it seems like the response is= OK, why not?, can’t hurt but do we really need it? meh, etc ) this thread has become very interesting, with much cool stuff from Sean and others.
Thanks everyone. Keep it coming.
Sean, how about this for a compromise? If someone starts a thread about a certain feat or spell being broken, and there’s enough FAQ hits, that will merit consideration? What I don’t want is for the Design team to look at the thread and go “Yeah, that’s not being played as we thought it would be, but technically it’s within RAW so let’s hit the “No response needed” button.” OTOH, I don’t want to clutter up your day with too many FAQ hits. Ideas?
Or you could just say that you read enought threads that you are well aware of the issues with stuff like Blood Money, and thanks but no thanks.
I usually agree with you, but if people want to play a character “because he wants to be a protector and interceptor” or a bard or a rogue because they want to play a skill monkey and both concept doesn’t really work, isn’t that a problem?
Sword-and-board fighter isn’t really a valid concept at higher levels if protector and interceptor is want you want since, among other things, and I quote you: An offensive bonus is more valuable than a defensive bonus of the same number.
What makes the core bard even more annoying is versatile performance. A badly written ability that causes confusion again and again and the fact that the Arcane duelist get to trade that ability for four feats is amazing. Especially considering that the core bard can’t cash out and reallocate skills they already invested in, that are now covered by a Perform skill.
But they DO work. Yes, S&B is perhaps a little less optimized that THW, but so?
Just because of two valid, working choices, one is a little worse than the other, doesn't mean that they don't both work. Choices. The idea is that rather than having only oNE choice (all fighters must be THW) they give you choices, some of which aren't quite as good as others. Some folks enjoy the challenge. Being 5% off in DPR isn't that much of a handicap.
I can drive to work in a Chevy or a Mercedes. They both get me there in about the same amount of time.
I love Versatile performance, it's one of the best class abilities there is. It's not confusing at all. Yes, I agree, one should be able to retrain each time you get it. Sean?
Arcane Duelist also loses "well-versed" to gain those feats. Since Versatile Performance is usable FOUR times, it's a decent trade.
First I don't agree S&B fighter is a valid concept if you want to play a a protector and interceptor. At least not at higher levels.
So we can agree on disagreeing.Second I do think Versatile performance is confusing and the ability is weak. The restraining thing makes it weak and skills lacking oomph at higher levels makes it even more appealing. True that Ultimate Campaign fixed some of the problem with the ability but the retracing rules are optional and costs time and money. Perhaps we see a cleaned up version in PF 1.5. I also hope for some clarity on how it works and interacts with some magic items and racial skill bonuses.
First I don't agree S&B fighter is a valid concept if you want to play a a protector and interceptor. At least not at higher levels.
So we can agree on disagreeing.Second I do think Versatile performance is confusing and the ability is weak....
Why isn’t it a valid concept? Because it trades DMG for AC? And that the trade isn’t even? So? Isn’t that a Choice? Just because my choice may be sub-optimal as regards DPR why isn’t it valid? And what do you mean by “higher levels”?
I don’t see what’s confusing about VP. If you think skills aren’t very powerful at higher levels, well that’s your opinion, you apparently play a different sort of game than I do. But it’s hardly confusing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First I don't agree S&B fighter is a valid concept if you want to play a a protector and interceptor. At least not at higher levels.
So we can agree on disagreeing.Second I do think Versatile performance is confusing and the ability is weak....
Why isn’t it a valid concept? Because it trades DMG for AC? And that the trade isn’t even? So? Isn’t that a Choice? Just because my choice may be sub-optimal as regards DPR why isn’t it valid? And what do you mean by “higher levels”?
I don’t see what’s confusing about VP. If you think skills aren’t very powerful at higher levels, well that’s your opinion, you apparently play a different sort of game than I do. But it’s hardly confusing.
I think that Zark is referencing the difficulties related to actually protecting someone rather than the trade off of damage for armor class. I would love to be able to throw a hard as nails character between a squishy caster and danger if that fell within the confines of the rules.
First I don't agree S&B fighter is a valid concept if you want to play a a protector and interceptor. At least not at higher levels.
So we can agree on disagreeing.Second I do think Versatile performance is confusing and the ability is weak....
Why isn’t it a valid concept? Because it trades DMG for AC? And that the trade isn’t even? So? Isn’t that a Choice? Just because my choice may be sub-optimal as regards DPR why isn’t it valid? And what do you mean by “higher levels”?
I don’t see what’s confusing about VP. If you think skills aren’t very powerful at higher levels, well that’s your opinion, you apparently play a different sort of game than I do. But it’s hardly confusing.
If you don't find VP confusing cool. A lot of people do. Me Included.
Sean, how about this for a compromise? If someone starts a thread about a certain feat or spell being broken, and there’s enough FAQ hits, that will merit consideration? What I don’t want is for the Design team to look at the thread and go “Yeah, that’s not being played as we thought it would be, but technically it’s within RAW so let’s hit the “No response needed” button.” OTOH, I don’t want to clutter up your day with too many FAQ hits. Ideas?
I don't think the FAQ is the way to introduce suggestions for incremental changes to the rules, especially as we avoid making incremental changes to the rules unless there is a problem with the existing rules not working at all (such as stealth).
If a FAQ topic is popular and needs to be addressed, that's great, but I don't want it to become the way people try to get the design team's attention. (Even though it's already becoming that.)
Fair dinkum.
Still a good thread, eh?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@SKR - This is not meant as a kiss-up, I think the problem is that many people on here have gotten to the point where they don't respect any opinion that disagrees with them, even when it comes from a developer.
So the conversation Dev would like to have about topics either becomes pronouncements made Ex Cathedra, which can become an issue if there are disagreements within the Dev team, or are dismissed like the people who actually are paid to write the game have no more insight into the rules than some guy on the messageboard "who said it was totally allowed."
I don't think any of us have a solution. It is a basic lack of respect, which makes little to no sense if you are going to pay cash money for a ruleset written by...you know, the Developers.
It seems like this doesn't happen at Cons and such. It is a function of the internet, I suppose. But it is a shame we can't have the dialogue I think everyone would like to have.
Aside from maybe a VIP lounge of some sort, I got nothing.
It is more of the "Why we can't have nice things" problem....
I agree.
I don't think the FAQ is the way to introduce suggestions for incremental changes to the rules, especially as we avoid making incremental changes to the rules unless there is a problem with the existing rules not working at all (such as stealth).
This one is a sore topic for me, Sean, but I'm going to try to raise it politely here and hope for a positive response.
How does the above quote fit with the recent SLA changes? Specifically, allowing SLAs to qualify for feats and prestige classes which require "ability to cast arcane spells", etc. To me, this seems like a strong example of changes introduced by the FAQ, and in this case, they were incremental (you can use SLAs to qualify for feats specific to specific spells, you can use specific SLAs to craft specific items, etc.) right up until the big one at the end.
Just looking for your insight on the reasoning behind this ruling...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I've both agreed and disagreed with SKR so much in a single thread.
I guess I'll take a crack at each bit individually as I find them.
For one, I vehemently disagree that balance leads to homogeneity. This goes back to the same thing I wrote in another thread about how some people say they don't WANT the game to be balanced because class balance means every class is the same. To "prove" their point they try to say something like "They balanced 4E, all the classes in 4E are the same, 4E failed, therefore all attempts to further balance in a game will result in homogenous classes and a failed game".
Yes, perfect balance is impossible, but BETTER balance is not, and there are a few places where this game could use better balance, I don't think anyone would dispute that, though their opinion on WHERE it should be balanced may be different.
I hear where you're coming from, but skills aren't magical, and allowing nonmagical skills to suddenly achieve supernatural results with high skill bonuses starts breaking expectations of what a real person could do. I'm all in favor of analyzing the game, drawing a line at level X, and saying, "real Earth humans don't get past level X, and therefore beyond level X (and skill rank X) you can start to do things that Earth people would consider superhuman, impossible, or even magical," even with a nonmagical class like fighter or rogue.
I think this is a very good idea and would like very much to see it happen. IMO one of the core balance issues in the game is the fact that many skills (especially the physical ones like Climb and Swim) are obsoleted by common and pretty low level spells (not one above 3rd level, I don't believe). And every time I see someone arguing in favor of this, it's because "Magic should be able to do anything, the non-magical classes shouldn't get anything comparable. They're NOT MAGICAL."
Drawing a line that essentially says "Above this line everyone is a superhuman" and making this line explicit (rather than implied as it is now) would help greatly.
Because the rogue is designed with the assumption that she's only getting sneak attack some of the time vs. the fighter dealing consistent damage every round. If the rogue could feint as a swift action, the rogue would always be getting sneak attack damage, and she'd rapidly outpace the fighter's damage output. (Damage output is something we can measure, and therefore we can make comparisons of apples to apples—in this case, expected rogue DPR vs. expected fighter DPR.)
A lot of people have run the math on this and I don't think DPR has ever come out in favor of the Rogue even when Sneak Attack was assumed to be going all the time.
An apples to apples comparison shows that at best a Rogue can MATCH a Fighter's damage output (at a lower to-hit).
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "comparable narrative power/potential," but let me point out that earlier I said, "All you can do is make sure people can have fun playing the characters they want to play, and don't dominate the play experience at the expense of the other players' fun." So I think we're on the same page.
The problem I find with this is that balancing something that is unbalanced will rarely, if ever, result in less fun. Quite the contrary, IMO, whether it be buffing underpowered class (which will increase both the fun and effectiveness of people who play that class, and please fans of it) or nerfing an overpowered class (which may decrease the fun of those that played and enjoyed the brokenness, but will certainly increase the fun of those that are no longer overshadowed by said class).
I just don't see how making some options specifically inferior increases the fun of anyone. And while it may be oversight in some cases, I know of at least two occasions where you have gone into creating something specifically with that idea in mind, Unarmed Strikes and Crossbows.
You told me directly to my face (...well, online face) that Unarmed Strikes were SUPPOSED to be inferior to weapon attacks because it didn't make any sense for Unarmed Strikes to be good, even for the class DEFINED by its use of unarmed attacks.
Personally, I don't think that logic holds up when the Square/Cube law is laughed at daily by dragons and such and a scrawny, sickly, antisocial old man can make reality his b$~~!, but a Monk can't make his punches as powerful as a longsword (and no, the extra damage dice don't really change that).
If the damage dice were really the issue (I believe you said something along the lines of "if the damage is that large, why would anyone use weapons?"), why wasn't replacing the high damage dice (which aren't very helpful anyway) with an enhancement bonus or some Weapon Training-esque class feature an option?
Eh. That's a bit rant-y I guess, but the core point still stands I think.
Players of healing-focused characters don't do it to be badasses, they do it because they like to take care of people. A player of a sword-and-board fighter might deal less damage than a TH or TW fighter, but plays that character because he wants to be a protector and interceptor. A player of an enchanter wizard might not care about how much damage she's dealing, she just likes to turn enemies against each other. The bard's player might not care that she never makes attack rolls, she just likes to write IRL songs about the adventures and give a constant casual buff to the rest of the party so she doesn't have to roll any dice. You can't measure that. You can't balance that. All you can do is make sure people can have fun playing the characters they want to play, and don't dominate the play experience at the expense of the other players' fun.
But you CAN balance that. Maybe not by crunching numbers, but as you said, you can make a judgement call on whether something is worthwhile or not.
It's pretty easy to see that if one character's main schtick is healing, but every monster in the game is able to outpace said healing, that healing is not a balanced schtick (though that is provable by numbers, but whatever).
Yes, sometimes your judgement call will be wrong, something will look great in theory but fall flat in practice, but that doesn't mean it can't be balanced, and just because it isn't a numerical difference doesn't mean that this imbalance doesn't exist.
Like, let's pick on the Rogue some more.
His 8 skill points are supposed to offset his lower damage/to-hit and overall squishy nature.
His skill point total is mathematically superior to any other class' skill points, on the surface.
However, looking deeper into it, it doesn't really balance out. Int based casters will at least match him unless he pumps Int (dropping his already lackluster combat ability even further, which I don't find very balanced), but retain spells (that ironically render their skill points kinda redundant in some cases).
The Bard has a mere 2 points less per level, but receives bonuses to skills and Versatile Performance which pushes his effective skill total FAR above what the Rogue can achieve with any reasonable investment.
The Ranger also has that mere 2 skills per level less, but his combat ability blows the Rogue's out of the water, making him a generally more attractive option to a party looking to round out their group with a skill guy.
These two classes are overall more balanced to the game as a whole than the Rogue is, and fill much the same role, but with extra stuff that makes them more effective options.
You can't really "measure" that inferiority (for the most part) but it's fairly clear that it exists both in theory and in practice to most people that play the game (and I would assume its developers).
Yes, you have to feel your way into it, and that can be hard to do when playtests aren't an option, but that doesn't mean the imbalance doesn't exist or that it can't be seen.
I understand it's a bit much to ask for complete class and skill overhauls in a game that's this long out and with a dedicated fanbase, but saying "balance isn't possible without numerical differences" rings very hollow to me.
I think I've rambled on long enough though. I guess I'll wrap up by saying that I kinda feel like an a!@~++# sometimes for so often being on the opposite side of a lot of things you say.
It's not that I disagree with everything you say (I agree with quite a lot of it) or dislike the game (I love it) but I rarely feel the need to comment or add to something I agree with, and I tend to get more passionate (or at least vocal) about the issues in something I enjoy than the strengths (which are many, I think).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does the above quote fit with the recent SLA changes? Specifically, allowing SLAs to qualify for feats and prestige classes which require "ability to cast arcane spells", etc. To me, this seems like a strong example of changes introduced by the FAQ, and in this case, they were incremental (you can use SLAs to qualify for feats specific to specific spells, you can use specific SLAs to craft specific items, etc.) right up until the big one at the end.
Just looking for your insight on the reasoning behind this ruling...
Good question.
"What exactly is the line between a spell and a spell-like ability?" has not been very clear in the books. SLAs certainly act much like spells, have caster levels, can be dispelled or disrupted, and can be used as prerequisites for item creation—those things are all explicit within the rules.But there were still several things about them that were unclear. Does having one count as having "a caster level" for feats? Prestige classes? Are they arcane or divine? No answer one way or the other in the books.
By making the rulings that we did ("yes," "yes," "depends"), we didn't have to change any text in the existing books. In fact, if we had ruled it the other way, we still wouldn't have to change any text in the books because the books don't suggest that one way or the other is correct.
That sort of thing isn't incremental rules changes: none of the printed rules are being changed, they're just being clarified. It was taking something unclear in the books and making it more clear. Like the fighter retraining bonus feat question... you could interpret that as "only fighter bonus feats may be retrained," or as "the fighter can use this ability to retrain any bonus feat he has, from any source, so long as that source identifies it as a 'bonus feat.'" Could we add additional text in the book to make that ruling (whether SLAs or fighter bonus feats) clearer? Yes. If we did so, would that be going against other text that said the opposite? No.
By comparison, there are examples of incremental rules changes that we've done because of FAQ questions:
• the revised flurry rules (whether or not your group played it the way it runs now, making the change in the book is a rule change that contradicts existing printed material)
• the revised stealth rules
• not being allowed to bypass a spell prerequisite when making a potion by taking a +5 increase on the Spellcraft DC
• reducing the price on the amulet of mighty fists
Other examples of things players have suggested, which (if made official) would be incremental rules changes:
• fighters get 4 skill ranks per level
• bards with versatile performance can swap out skill ranks in skills made obsolete by versatile performance
Incremental rules design is changing existing rules so that what was explicitly said earlier (like, in an earlier printing of the Core Rulebook) is now incorrect.
The SLA ruling isn't incremental rules design because it's not contradicting any existing rules. Nothing in the book actually said "hey, you can't use your SLA caster level as a prerequisite for a feat or prestige class that requires a caster level," so this ruling isn't contradicting that. (And, as I said, ruling it the other way likewise wouldn't cause any rules contradictions.) And by making this ruling, we don't have to change any existing printed characters or monsters (by comparison, the suggested fighter skill rank ruling would mean EVERY fighter we've published so far wouldn't have the right number of skill ranks).
The SLA ruling may have some broader repercussions for the game, like sneakily getting into some prestige classes before character level 6. BUT "you can't take a prestige class level before character level 6" isn't an explicit rule stated anywhere in the game; the prestige classes in PF are built under that assumption, but that's still a guideline for designers and not something expressly forbidden by the rulebook.
So by making this SLA ruling, we're
(1) clearing up something that's unclear,
(2) allowing some new and possibly interesting character combos, and
(3) not violating any existing rules of the game.
Which are three good things as the result of this decision, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Mythic tried to address some of the 'Skills aren't magic' issues, but not everyone is going to have Mythic, nor are they going to want to have to 'bend the rules' just to get their character to do what they think or know is possible.
Also, some of the problems with skills is their are a lot of people who say things aren't possible if it isn't actually in the book. Things like using Acrobatics or maybe Climb to run up/across walls. We know this is possible, many martial artists have done it, and even just athletic people, but since it's not in the book, it's not allowed.
Or things like playing a non-magical hypnotist. Whether someone believes in it or not, Hypnotists have been able to do many things with other people. Some of it is reading cues and predicting responses, or influencing thoughts, but never-the-less real hypnotists have real skills that can't really be transitioned over into the game without magic.
One could theoretically see someone using Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Sleight of Hand to imitate things Hypnotists do, but there isn't much support for it. Nor is there support for non-magical brainwashing, which is a staple of fears, like the 'sleeper agent'.
One of the many benefits of this game, vs a computer game, however, is I am in charge. Any issue I have with skills not having enough oomph, I can solve myself. Non-magical hypnotism is possible in my games, and I don't really put much of a limit on skills. I understand, that the majority of humans fall in the less than 5th level range. So everything we expect someone to be able to do, should fall into that same category. 5th level and high is where you start getting into realm where skills defy logic, because the person is no extraordinary. 10th level and higher and you're super-human in your abilities.
I saw James make a comment about simulacrum that it wouldn't know anything the target knew and rejoiced inside that someone else shared a similar opinion with me about it. Just because it has certain skill ranks doesn't mean it knows what it knows. Everytime someone says that spell is broken I go back to reread it and don't see the brokenness.
He did. However, given the claims, reading the text, I don't see the same conclusions I've seen on this board about it. It's just not there. It makes zero sense, given the text of the spell, that you could use simulacrum to make a sculpture of your girlfriend and expect to get an accurate recounting of her night last night to make sure she wasn't a floozy. It might be able to dance half as well as her, but nothing in there says it could tell you her preferences so you could *always* get her the perfect gifts.
Eh?
You think THAT is why people say Simulacrum is broken? Because they could keep tabs on their girlfriends?
Not because, as written, it allows for free Wishes? Or failing that, free <Insert At-Will Ability of high level creature here>?
Honestly, I think the way Simulacrum and skills work is the Sim knew what the Original knew at that point in time. If you make a Sim of a 10th level wizard (getting a 5th level copy), then you get a Sim of what that Wizard knew at 5th level.
When it comes to monsters, I look at it more as when the monster was younger. You might even be able to use it for odd role-play moments.
What happens if you Sim a Dragon, but he hasn't learned to breathe fire yet? Maybe you get to teach him! (Eragon much?)
Or you could Sim the BBEG and learn about his fall into the depths of what made him a BBEG. You might learn what and why he did what he did. Hell, you might learn the key to defeating him by doing so!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For one, I vehemently disagree that balance leads to homogeneity. This goes back to the same thing I wrote in another thread about how some people say they don't WANT the game to be balanced because class balance means every class is the same. To "prove" their point they try to say something like "They balanced 4E, all the classes in 4E are the same, 4E failed, therefore all attempts to further balance in a game will result in homogenous classes and a failed game".
Yes, perfect balance is impossible, but BETTER balance is not, and there are a few places where this game could use better balance, I don't think anyone would dispute that, though their opinion on WHERE it should be balanced may be different.
Hmm, I don't think we're disagreeing. What I said was:
A lot of people have run the math on this and I don't think DPR has ever come out in favor of the Rogue even when Sneak Attack was assumed to be going all the time.
If that's the case, then good, because the fighter is supposed to be best for consistent damage throughout the day. And the rogue shouldn't be as good as that overall because the rogue has other abilities (evasion, more skills, weird rogue talents) that offset her lower damage potential.
I just don't see how making some options specifically inferior increases the fun of anyone. And while it may be oversight in some cases, I know of at least two occasions where you have gone into creating something specifically with that idea in mind, Unarmed Strikes and Crossbows.
And as I'm sure I told you before, it's not just that "swords should be hitting harder than fists" (which I think they should), but also "the fighter doesn't have any class features EXCEPT for combat, and the monk has many class features that are valuable outside of combat, so the monk shouldn't deal as much damage as the fighter because dealing damage is ALL the fighter does."
In other words, you can be the best at one thing, or not-quite-the best at that thing and good at another thing.In other other words, let's say I created a point-buy class-building system. I build a class and put 90 of my points into "damage per round," and 10 points into "skills." You build a class and put 70 into "damage per round," 20 into "skills," and 10 into "weird other abilities" (like dimension door, immunities to certain attacks, and evasion). My class should be better at DPR than your class because I focused more resources into that goal.
If there were a monk class that didn't have the magical powers, I'd be fine with its damage output increasing to be on par with the fighter (whether through more dice, or a class-based enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks). As it is, the monk has worse armor, worse attack bonus except when flurrying, and worse hp than the fighter, so without the weird powers you'd need to boost something to compensate.
And as I'm sure I told you before, crossbows are the way they are because the game tries to model reality, at least at low levels where the nonmagical PCs are much like real-world athletes. I'm sorry that the crossbow doesn't deal as much damage as a bow because the bow automatically gets iterative attacks, but the dagger fighter's DPR is likewise inferior compared to the greatsword fighter's DPR, and so on. When the nonmagical aspects of the game are modeled on reality, reality dictates that some options are worse than others. Light weapons deal less damage than 2H weapons. Puny characters can't carry as much as strong characters. Sickly characters have fewer hp than tough characters. That's reality. That makes the game make sense.
Yes, sometimes your judgement call will be wrong, something will look great in theory but fall flat in practice, but that doesn't mean it can't be balanced, and just because it isn't a numerical difference doesn't mean that this imbalance doesn't exist.
Which we do. We don't ignore that at all.
However, looking deeper into it, it doesn't really balance out. Int based casters will at least match him
No, no they won't.
The three Int-based character classes are the wizard (2 skill ranks per level), witch (ditto), and magus (ditto). A rogue gets 8 ranks per level, which means an Int-based character needs Int 22 to get the same number of skill ranks per level as a rogue. Even an 18-Int human wizard only has 6 ranks per level, 2 less than the rogue's default 8 per level. And their class skills are so very different, and the rogue gets more class skills, so she's adding class skill bonuses to more adventure-useful skills.Which, mind you, is deliberate. Many times in the past 13 years people have asked, "If the wizard is supposed to be the smart character, why does he only get 2 skill ranks per level?" Answer: because we expect him to have an Int bonus, so we don't have to give him a high number per level, because if we did, his Int bonus on top of that would mean he'd get way more than the rogue does, defeating the purpose of trying to make the rogue the "has the most skills" class.
What I think it comes down to is: It's never a simple answer. (Which, ironically, is a simple answer.)
How does the above quote fit with the recent SLA changes? Specifically, allowing SLAs to qualify for feats and prestige classes which require "ability to cast arcane spells", etc. To me, this seems like a strong example of changes introduced by the FAQ, and in this case, they were incremental (you can use SLAs to qualify for feats specific to specific spells, you can use specific SLAs to craft specific items, etc.) right up until the big one at the end.
Just looking for your insight on the reasoning behind this ruling...Good question...
<Snip>
Thanks Sean - I still don't like it much, but I'm going to calmly see how it plays out here on the forums before considering it for my own games...
Other examples of things players have suggested, which (if made official) would be incremental rules changes:
• fighters get 4 skill ranks per level
• bards with versatile performance can swap out skill ranks in skills made obsolete by versatile performance
Both of these things have actually come up in my group recently. The Versatile Performance one sounds decent, but I think it should be limited to only swapping skill ranks between the effected skills and Perform skills - otherwise it's doing a lot more than intended, or at least as I would think it to be intended.
As for the skill ranks, it's not just fighters that our group has discussed. We have a house-rule that all 2 + Int mod classes instead get 3+Int modifier. Is there a reason this is ONLY being considered for the fighter when the cleric only gets 2 + Int mod skills per day while the Oracle gets 4 + Int mod skills. What about the sorcerer? Likewise, there are dozens of prestige classes and I'm sure some of them only get 2 + Int mod skills per level. Is there a reason the skill changes can't be applied to all 2 + Int mod classes? (Yes, this is probably not necessary for a Wizard, Magus, or Witch, since Int is their casting stat, but I don't think it would significantly impact the balance of the Wizard or Witch, at least, as their magic generally trumps their skills at higher levels, and more skills at lower levels may actually be a good thing for the class as it starts out a bit slow. The Magus, maybe so, but I still think it would be ok.) Or maybe all non-intelligence based casting classes which receive 2 + Int modifier skills per level instead receive X + Int modifier per level. (Where X equals 3 or 4, your choice.)
Just my thoughts, since I have your ear. Thanks again.