Linear vs Quadratic


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
So linear warrior, quadratic wizard applied to Pathfinder is mostly a description of options. In the simplest form, a fighter gets a feat every two levels (from class features) and a scaling bonus to attack with choosable sets of weapons. A wizard gets two spells a level (again, at the most basic level). The trick is in implementation, where the fighter can do... well, exactly what it did at level 1, plus whatever it picked up a feat to do. So the power only grows by the feats (well, and other class features, but as I said, very simplistic). For the wizard it gains two new spells a level (four times as many "new things" as the fighter) and can use those and any previous spells in any combination. A wizard with 4 first level spells and 4 first level slots has 35 possible combinations of spells. Please don't make me calculate past this but trust me when I say that number gets a lot bigger, a lot faster.

One of the most significant parts to this is that a higher level Wizard (or other caster) gets spells that do more, that are much more significant. Higher level Fighters largely get to pick from the same feats that were available at 1st level and that remain as significant and useful as they were at 1st level.

So the Fighter has an L-shape for their options where their basic ability to fight increases as the level up and their choices in what to do increase as they level up, and can do those things more-or-less at will. The casters get to increase their basic abilities, add new spells at a faster rate than the fighter adds feats, increase the number spells they can use, and gain more powerful spells too. You absolutely could attempt to balance this by providing "9th level Feats" that were as significant as 9th level spells, but there's a rather predictable reaction to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For a mild comparison:

A 17th-level Fighter gets brand-new access to Stunning Critical. BAB requirement of +17. It also requires two previous feats, so he had to build into it. When he scores a critical hit (at best, this is a bit under one hit in three), he forces a save (at DC 27; 10+BAB) or the target is stunned for 1D4 rounds; if they make the save they're instead staggered.

A 17th-level Wizard gets brand-new access to Dominate Monster, a 9th level spell whose only requirement is "be a 17th-level Wizard". Whenever he feels like it, he forces a save (At DC 19+Int mod; an Int mod of +8 is easily within reach and he has access to DC-boosting feats, so we'll call it DC27 but it could be higher) or the target is his b+@$# for seventeen days.

The Fighter's ability to influence his enemy's actions with a class ability is limited to reducing or removing the actions they can take for 1D4 rounds, and he has absolutely no control over when this activates. The Wizard outright controls the actions they take, for 244800 rounds (minimum; it's probably higher), and can activate this ability with a limit imposed only by his number of spell slots-- and then he can do similarly dramatic things with his 8th, 7th, 6th, and 5th level slots, and probably even lower (note that 5th is the level of Dominate Person, which gives the Wizard a similar level of power to what he has here, eight levels earlier, albeit with a more restricted list of targets).


Wouldn't it be cool if a 2nd level fighter dealt 2d6 damage with a short sword? And a 10th level fighter did 10d6? And if they got 2 new bonus feats every level? If that's preposterous, then so are the casters.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Rynjin wrote:
I'm not sure you and I have the same concept of "balance".

No, no we don't. That's the motivation behind most of my arguments here. The community fetishizes class balance so much that they fail to understand that game balance (and game design) consists of far more than ensuring classes have similar power level. The community does so because it's one of the few aspects of game design that gamers tend to understand. So they mentally latch onto that concept and proclaim it's the most important aspect of game design and the only aspect of game balance.

Rynjin wrote:
Asymmetrical design does not constitute an imbalance.

Determining symmetry (or asymmetry) is an aspect of game balance, so much that it's even listed in the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Rynjin wrote:
Pathfinder favors offense over defense, yes. This is not an imbalance, this is a core part of the design. The game's default assumptions are that a good offense will trump an equally good defense (for a given value of "equal". Equal effort at making them optimized, anyway).

No, that's game balance. This entails balancing strategies. Often a game designer wants to encourage strategies over ones that make the game less fun. This is an example of balancing the game by imbalancing the effectiveness of options.

Rynjin wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
There's many considerations to take when trying to accomplish your design goals with a class. How many offensive, defensive, or utility abilities should they have? Do the mechanics convey the experience or flavor I want in this class? Does the class give the player enough things to do during combat? How flexible do I want possible build paths? All of these are important considerations. Some of them more important than just whether or not the class is strong or weak as a whole.
ALL of this is game balance. Every piece of that (besides the bit I OOC'd) contributes to the balance of the class against both other classes and the game as a whole.

While many of those things have relation to game balance, balance is not the main motivation of those considerations. The major motivation is making sure the class plays well in terms of delivering an experience. Adjusting the power levels is only one aspect of this.

Rynjin wrote:
That's what this whole Linear Warriors vs Quadratic Wizards thing is ABOUT.

Actually, Linear Warriors vs Quadratic relates to power curves. Having classes with different power curves can make an interesting game. It's one of the reasons I like gish classes -- they have an interesting power curve in relation to martials and full casters. It's not a bad thing if some classes have more power than others at different character levels. The problem arises when the power disparity becomes out of line to make classes feel unfun compared to others. So Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards is not bad in of itself. It's just implemented poorly in 3rd Edition.

Rynjin wrote:
Spellcasters in general have more offensive (damage, battlefield control, save or suck), defensive (miss chance, DR, mirror images, flight, etc.), utility (do I need to spell this one out?) than martial classes do which are generally offense (damage and maneuvers), defense (AC and maybe DR), utility (skills).

Full casters are overpowered. I never argued to the contrary.


Though it's worth noting that the Dominate Monster spell is both a one-round cast time (i.e., an entire round of "hit me! hit me! hit me!") and can be hard-countered by a 1st level spell.

But that's just me being nitpicky. =P

Generally, a martial winds up with one thing they're great at (usually a favored fighting style), and maybe some other things they're mediocre, competent, or good at (skills, additional fighting styles, possibly a support role (like paladin healing)).

A caster usually winds up with one "thing" (sometimes a specific spell, sometimes a school of spells, sometimes a spell-bolstered fighting style) they're great at, and then a lot of things they're good at (spells outside their feat/class specializations), and then some things they're competent or mediocre at (skills, class-based support roles, etc.).

By and large, a caster will wind up with a far larger set of good secondary abilities than a non-caster due to the flexibility and power provided by magic.*

How big a deal that is will be on a person by person basis, pretty much.

* Though clever use of magic items (i.e., high value equipment) can partially bridge that gap. Think Green Lantern compared to Batman.


Cyrad wrote:
You can quantify fun. Not numerically, not precisely, but you can do it.

The problem with "fun" is that what's fun for Person A is often horribly unfun for Person B, and vice versa. And there is no "most people" to most of it. The fanbase is split pretty evenly on gunslingers, fudging dice by the DM, furries, and a whole host of other "It's more fun!" "No! Takes away all the fun!" issues.

Cyrad wrote:
Ideally, we want to create content that's both fun and balanced. However, it's more practical to focus on making the content enjoyable.

That's fine if you're playing story hour with your friends -- but doing that is FREE. Most people, if they're going to shell out $30-$50 for a rulebook, sort of do expect both. Much like, if you buy a car for actual use (as opposed to being a fixer-up project), it's nice if it looks cool and is fun to drive -- but most people sort of want it to actually run, too, and not spend more time in the shop than it does on the road.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool if a 2nd level fighter dealt 2d6 damage with a short sword? And a 10th level fighter did 10d6? And if they got 2 new bonus feats every level? If that's preposterous, then so are the casters.

Would they have less hit points? Only be able to swing their sword once per combat? I agree that the double standard between fighters and wizards is stupid, but the issue is more complicated than you frequently claim.

Heck, it would be kind of cool for a martial class to get a limited use nuke or a maybe the ability to increase the damage dice of their weapon for a period of time. Hm...

Cyrad scribbles stuff in his notes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:

For a mild comparison:

A 17th-level Fighter gets brand-new access to Stunning Critical. BAB requirement of +17. It also requires two previous feats, so he had to build into it. When he scores a critical hit (at best, this is a bit under one hit in three), he forces a save (at DC 27; 10+BAB) or the target is stunned for 1D4 rounds; if they make the save they're instead staggered.

A 17th-level Wizard gets brand-new access to Dominate Monster, a 9th level spell whose only requirement is "be a 17th-level Wizard". Whenever he feels like it, he forces a save (At DC 19+Int mod; an Int mod of +8 is easily within reach and he has access to DC-boosting feats, so we'll call it DC27 but it could be higher) or the target is his b%+@@ for seventeen days.

While true, this is simplified, perhaps overly so. The 17th level fighter can do so every hit; the 17th level wizard once, perhaps twice or three times, per day. Of course, the wizard can also control when this effect triggers, while the fighter has to hope for a lucky roll, so this simplification cuts both ways.

I think one of the issues is a fundamental mistake by EGG that has continued to the present; an overvaluing of always-available abilities. In theory, the fighter could stun/stagger thousands of people over the course of a day, the wizard only three, which means that the fighter's ability is possibly undervalued.

In practice, the fighter will face the same 3-5 encounters the wizard does, with each encounter taking perhaps 3-5 rounds, so he's not going to be able to use his ability more than 25 times or so.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say that the main martial/caster issue isn't power level (besides a double-handful of OP spells - simulacrum etc) - it's that there isn't a proper amount of inter-dependency.

For example - if there weren't as many defensive arcane spells, and their most potent spells all took a full round or two to cast - arcane casters would be somewhat dependent upon martials to protect them while casting, even if their overall power level were far higher. An arcane caster alone would be beat over the head while he tried to cast, and probably fail his concentration checks.

The martial would be dependent upon the arcane caster for raw power to overcome the most difficult challenges. But it wouldn't be as big an issue - because the arcane caster would need to be protected by the martial to pull it off.

This would make combined arms the way to go.

In addition - there are too many spells which allow arcane casters to do the job of a martial. (Polymorph/summon monster and a couple others)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:


Though clever use of magic items (i.e., high value equipment) can partially bridge that gap. Think Green Lantern compared to Batman.

Batman also has the benefit of having the narrator on his side, which means both that he has access to his equipment (no matter how improbably) and also that his equipment is useful to the task that he faces (again, no matter how improbably).

I'm reminded of a very bad martial arts movie from the 80s, starring Kurt Thomas (the gymnast), where, in order to display his awesome "martial arts" skill, there just happened to be all sorts of equipment lying around that just happened to duplicate the standard gymnastics equipment -- a well in the exact size and shape of a pommel horse, a bar across an alley the exact shape, size, and height of the men's horizontal bar, and so forth. When God (or the director) puts exactly the right equipment there for you, you can shine like someone has polished the sun.

.... and in a group game, that kind of favoritism is obvious, patronizing, disruptive, and unfun. If anything, it makes the wizard look better when the GM has to spend so much time putting in traps and encounters that exist only to make the fighter seem adequate.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Rynjin and Cyrad

you're in a semantics war, stop.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
You can quantify fun. Not numerically, not precisely, but you can do it.
The problem with "fun" is that what's fun for Person A is often horribly unfun for Person B, and vice versa. And there is no "most people" to most of it. The fanbase is split pretty evenly on gunslingers, fudging dice by the DM, furries, and a whole host of other "It's more fun!" "No! Takes away all the fun!" issues.

As I explained earlier, an game designer can learn how a design influences the fun factor for most people through experience and skill.

If some content causes some players to have fun at the expense of others, a game designer has to weigh on the ratio between fun and antifun. Game designer Tom Cadwell talked about this in detail when describing character design for League of Legends. This ratio should be high for Pathfinder because it's a cooperative team game, not a competitive game. So if a designer creates a class/feat that makes the game significantly less fun for others, that's a big problem.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Ideally, we want to create content that's both fun and balanced. However, it's more practical to focus on making the content enjoyable.
That's fine if you're playing story hour with your friends -- but doing that is FREE. Most people, if they're going to shell out $30-$50 for a rulebook, sort of do expect both. Much like, if you buy a car for actual use (as opposed to being a fixer-up project), it's nice if it looks cool and is fun to drive -- but most people sort of want it to actually run, too, and not spend more time in the shop than it does on the road.

That analogy makes absolutely no sense in this context.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

think of "taking it to the shop" as adding house rules.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Zhangar wrote:


Though clever use of magic items (i.e., high value equipment) can partially bridge that gap. Think Green Lantern compared to Batman.

Batman also has the benefit of having the narrator on his side, which means both that he has access to his equipment (no matter how improbably) and also that his equipment is useful to the task that he faces (again, no matter how improbably).

I'm reminded of a very bad martial arts movie from the 80s, starring Kurt Thomas (the gymnast), where, in order to display his awesome "martial arts" skill, there just happened to be all sorts of equipment lying around that just happened to duplicate the standard gymnastics equipment -- a well in the exact size and shape of a pommel horse, a bar across an alley the exact shape, size, and height of the men's horizontal bar, and so forth. When God (or the director) puts exactly the right equipment there for you, you can shine like someone has polished the sun.

.... and in a group game, that kind of favoritism is obvious, patronizing, disruptive, and unfun. If anything, it makes the wizard look better when the GM has to spend so much time putting in traps and encounters that exist only to make the fighter seem adequate.

I don't think a martial putting some thought and planning into his gear (flight item, something for going through walls, situational consumables, etc.) equates to GM favoritism.

I'm seriously baffled that you're trying to compare a well-played martial to Gymkata.

(Now, if the GM has to do all of the thinking and planning, then no, you're not dealing with a well-played martial.)


Zhangar wrote:


I don't think a martial putting some thought and planning into his gear (flight item, something for going through walls, situational consumables, etc.) equates to GM favoritism.

No. But there's a limit to what an ordinary player can do in terms of putting thought and planning into his gear, and even at that limit, it provides nowhere near the flexibility of a single fabricate spell.

That's what makes Batman,.... well, Batman. The fact that he can plan to a degree that defies comprehension, because that's his superpower. And the only way that that superpower can really exist in a narrative structure is because the narrator is actively cooperating. The scriptwriter knows that, no matter what Batman needs, he has it in is pocket.

Or, alternatively, if Q gives James Bond a gadget in the first reel, the scriptwriter and director will make sure it gets used in the third. "Why, of course, I will need a high-end watch with a built-in rotary saw!".... and he did, the one time he received it, and we've never seen that trick again; instead we get a watch with a printer, several watches with an explosive charge, a watch with a radio transmitter, a watch with a HF/DF setup, and two watches with a laser cutter.

Oh, and a watch with a grappling setup in The World is Not Enough. Which is true. To be Batman, you need magic, or God, on your side.


Bandw2 wrote:
think of "taking it to the shop" as adding house rules.

Yes! That, or fixing it at the table through an elaborate series of gentleman's agreements not to use certain abilities, staying on the railroad, DM fiat, etc. -- which is what a lot of people do (including the developers, by their own admission).


Orfamay Quest wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

For a mild comparison:

A 17th-level Fighter gets brand-new access to Stunning Critical. BAB requirement of +17. It also requires two previous feats, so he had to build into it. When he scores a critical hit (at best, this is a bit under one hit in three), he forces a save (at DC 27; 10+BAB) or the target is stunned for 1D4 rounds; if they make the save they're instead staggered.

A 17th-level Wizard gets brand-new access to Dominate Monster, a 9th level spell whose only requirement is "be a 17th-level Wizard". Whenever he feels like it, he forces a save (At DC 19+Int mod; an Int mod of +8 is easily within reach and he has access to DC-boosting feats, so we'll call it DC27 but it could be higher) or the target is his b%+@@ for seventeen days.

While true, this is simplified, perhaps overly so. The 17th level fighter can do so every hit; the 17th level wizard once, perhaps twice or three times, per day. Of course, the wizard can also control when this effect triggers, while the fighter has to hope for a lucky roll, so this simplification cuts both ways.

I did mention both of those points in that post. :P

You're not wrong, and especially not in the notion that the Fighter is probably only going to Stun/Stagger 3-5 people over the course of the day (or rather 3-5 that matter; "I crit him, he's dead and he's stunned too" isn't worth much), while the Wizard can probably only cast ~3 Dominates over the course of the day.

But really... even in the Fighter managed to stun, oh, twelve people and the Wizard only Dominated two, it would not be hard to make the argument that Dominate Monster is more than six times as good as Stunning Critical. And that's... backwards. Stunning Critical is actually harder to obtain, as you have to go out of your way to get the pre-req feats and be a 17th level martial too. Dominate Person you don't have to go out of your way for, it's just there if you want it and are a 17th level Wizard. And yet the one that's harder to obtain is weaker, because it's still linear.

One part in seven of a Fighter's build-- drastically more for any other class-- has to go toward obtaining that one 17th level ability. The Wizard dedicated, at most, one part in forty (his free level-up spells) to it.

Zhangar wrote:

Though it's worth noting that the Dominate Monster spell is both a one-round cast time (i.e., an entire round of "hit me! hit me! hit me!") and can be hard-countered by a 1st level spell.

But that's just me being nitpicky. =P

I was originally going to use Mass Suffocation as my reference point, but that just felt like cheating.


I think the other thing that gets looked over alot is that a martial is stuck with certain saves (for instance Fort). He needs multiple abilities to target different saves which is much harder for him since his abilities are all behind feat chains. The wizard though can very easily hit whatever you are weak too. Oh got a good fort save? Make a reflex save to not fall into mawing hole. Oh got a good reflex? Make a will save to not be my slave.

The monk is a perfect example of this problem. His abilities all targets fort (beside his spell stuff from Qinggong or unchained). The oroblem is that when he goes up against something strong fort (prtty much everything) alot of his abilities kinda becomw... well... useless. Gou see it all the time with Stunning Fist.

Oh and the other example of the problem is simply taking a Party of a Witch, Blaster Wizard, Control Wizard, and Master Summoner and comparing them to damn near any other party at almost any level beyond like... 3. They can pretty much crush anything the other parties do AND do things they cannot. Especially a full martial party. A full martial party has a harD time matching a full caster party...


Honestly I feel like the best way to reign in magic without just making them feel useless (rounds long spell casting) or bland (4.0...) is to do what Wizards of The Coast did with Tome of Magic Shadowcaster. Spells were broken down into 3 spell level trees (the trees would be 1-3,4-6,7-9) and in order to learn the most powerful spell in the tree (3,6,9) you would need to build on the fundamentals (1-2,4-5,7-8). The spells were thematically connected and felt cool.

The other nifty thing was how it showed a gradual understanding of lower level spells. All spells started as arcane like spells (spell failure and such) but then progressed to Sp and then finally Su. Also, instead of spell slots you can only cast each spell a certain amount of times. It was different and honestly flavorful


Linear Fighter > Combat Expertise > Dodge > Mobility > Spring Attack > Whirlwind Attack

Quadratic Wizard > Jump > Levitate > Fly > Dimension Door > Teleport > Plane Shift > Wish

Now imagine if the wizard could only know 22 spells throughout his entire 20 level career.

Now imagine that the wizard HAD TO CHOOSE Jump, Levitate, Fly, Dimension Door, and Teleport as prerequisites to Plane Shift.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

if spells has spell prerequisites (needing a prior spell or number of spells) then it might go a long way of curbing their power as wizards would be forced to specialist just like fighters do.

can't just pick up fireball at 5th level when you were an illusionist until now.


Bandw2 wrote:

if spells has spell prerequisites (needing a prior spell or number of spells) then it might go a long way of curbing their power as wizards would be forced to specialist just like fighters do.

can't just pick up fireball at 5th level when you were an illusionist until now.

That was exactly how the Shadowcaster was. It wasnt underpowered per se but was rarely used because the wizard was just TOO powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
You can quantify fun. Not numerically, not precisely, but you can do it.
The problem with "fun" is that what's fun for Person A is often horribly unfun for Person B, and vice versa. And there is no "most people" to most of it. The fanbase is split pretty evenly on gunslingers, fudging dice by the DM, furries, and a whole host of other "It's more fun!" "No! Takes away all the fun!" issues.

Indeed. To tie this back to the martial/caster issue, there seem to be a divide on how to handle non-spellcasters. Some people think it would be a lot more fun "mundane" characters were able to perform superhuman feats at high levels, while others think it ruins in their fun if level 20 martial does anything that the player couldn't replicate in real life.


PIXIE DUST wrote:
I think the other thing that gets looked over alot is that a martial is stuck with certain saves (for instance Fort). He needs multiple abilities to target different saves which is much harder for him since his abilities are all behind feat chains. The wizard though can very easily hit whatever you are weak too. Oh got a good fort save? Make a reflex save to not fall into mawing hole. Oh got a good reflex? Make a will save to not be my slave.

Take it a step further even.

A Wizard can affect an enemy by targeting Fort, Ref, Will, AC, CMD, or bypassing defenses outright.

A Fighter can affect an enemy by targeting AC and CMD.

Bandw2 wrote:

if spells has spell prerequisites (needing a prior spell or number of spells) then it might go a long way of curbing their power as wizards would be forced to specialist just like fighters do.

can't just pick up fireball at 5th level when you were an illusionist until now.

I'd honestly really like that. It'd require a significant rework of prepared casters, but it'd be cool.


Zhangar wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Zhangar wrote:


Though clever use of magic items (i.e., high value equipment) can partially bridge that gap. Think Green Lantern compared to Batman.

Batman also has the benefit of having the narrator on his side, which means both that he has access to his equipment (no matter how improbably) and also that his equipment is useful to the task that he faces (again, no matter how improbably).

I'm reminded of a very bad martial arts movie from the 80s, starring Kurt Thomas (the gymnast), where, in order to display his awesome "martial arts" skill, there just happened to be all sorts of equipment lying around that just happened to duplicate the standard gymnastics equipment -- a well in the exact size and shape of a pommel horse, a bar across an alley the exact shape, size, and height of the men's horizontal bar, and so forth. When God (or the director) puts exactly the right equipment there for you, you can shine like someone has polished the sun.

.... and in a group game, that kind of favoritism is obvious, patronizing, disruptive, and unfun. If anything, it makes the wizard look better when the GM has to spend so much time putting in traps and encounters that exist only to make the fighter seem adequate.

I don't think a martial putting some thought and planning into his gear (flight item, something for going through walls, situational consumables, etc.) equates to GM favoritism.

Of course, if the player simply played a caster they could get those items, have the magical effects that those give, and still have all the extra options and power available to casters over martials at the same time. The Fighter who gets a magic item that lets them fly might be thinking how cool it is to be able to keep up with some of what the casters can do; the Wizard is thinking that it's a spell slot he can fill with something equally useful.

Of course, this thread is at least in part about how magic has so many more options and so much more effect than mundane ability. You propose to solve this by giving out more magic. That might not be entirely logical.


BigDTBone wrote:

Linear Fighter > Combat Expertise > Dodge > Mobility > Spring Attack > Whirlwind Attack

Quadratic Wizard > Jump > Levitate > Fly > Dimension Door > Teleport > Plane Shift > Wish

Now imagine if the wizard could only know 22 spells throughout his entire 20 level career.

Now imagine that the wizard HAD TO CHOOSE Jump, Levitate, Fly, Dimension Door, and Teleport as prerequisites to Plane Shift.

I have said it before, it would be less of a double standard if you had to know Spark, Burning Hands, and Flaming Sphere to learn Fireball and so on, but people would frigging riot over that becoming an official rule and it's STILL less of a hindrance to wizards and arcanists than feat taxes and chains are to martials.

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
You can quantify fun. Not numerically, not precisely, but you can do it.
The problem with "fun" is that what's fun for Person A is often horribly unfun for Person B, and vice versa. And there is no "most people" to most of it. The fanbase is split pretty evenly on gunslingers, fudging dice by the DM, furries, and a whole host of other "It's more fun!" "No! Takes away all the fun!" issues.
Indeed. To tie this back to the martial/caster issue, there seem to be a divide on how to handle non-spellcasters. Some people think it would be a lot more fun "mundane" characters were able to perform superhuman feats at high levels, while others think it ruins in their fun if level 20 martial does anything that the player couldn't replicate in real life.

The latter always struck me as a kind of stupid stance. A martial does things the player can't replicate in real life in the first couple of levels, why the HELL would you expect a superhuman paragon of heroic might to do the kind of things we squishy humans can? Our best swordsmen ever were like 5th level at best, holding someone four times their level to that standard is ludicrous.

I stand by my stance that Pathfinder is too inherently high-magic a system for "realism" to be anything but a hindrance after a few levels. It's not a realistic game. All trying to force realism where it doesn't belong accomplishes is barring perfectly good classes from having abilities that keep up with their blatantly unrealistic counterparts for no good reason.


Its kinda funny because a level 20 wizard kind of even makes greek gods look sad...


PIXIE DUST wrote:
Its kinda funny because a level 20 wizard kind of even makes greek gods look sad...

There's a reason level 17-20 characters in my campaigns are classified as deities [and deities in my campaign are simply level 17-20 characters.]


Cyrad wrote:
Determining symmetry (or asymmetry) is an aspect of game balance, so much that it's even listed in the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Just popping in to point out that Wikipedia is not an authority on anything, it's written and edited by a random guy. "Even Wikipedia says" is incredibly flimsy at best.

Also, looking at video game examples, Starcraft is widely regarded as one of the most balanced, if not the most balanced, RTS's ever made. It is also one of the most asymmetrical. Balance is most easily achieved by perfect symmetry, but is by no means a necessary condition to it.


Sorry to bring third part into this but this is from my review of Spheres of Power;

"Normal magic is way more powerful because it’s in limited resource. Each spell scales on it’s own, there are 9 levels of casting and you get more spells at each level. That is three axis in which spells grow in power. Compared to talent/feat based classes like the Fighter this is too much. With spherecasting the growth is as linear as a fighter by being talent-based so even adding the optional advanced talents to spheres that let you do more worldchanging magic you don’t get into God-tier power and fall more into the power level of an Inquisitor or Bard in terms of raw power and versatility."

Also I wanted to point out the TVTropes article


Bandw2 wrote:

if spells has spell prerequisites (needing a prior spell or number of spells) then it might go a long way of curbing their power as wizards would be forced to specialist just like fighters do.

can't just pick up fireball at 5th level when you were an illusionist until now.

Honestly, I was thinking this as I read the thread.

Make spells with prereqs, either skill, feat, or other spell. Want to learn Greater Invisibility? You have to be able to cast Invisibility. Want Spider Climb? You need ranks in Climb. Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion? The Improved Grapple feat.

Casters can still outshine others... but at least it is in fewer areas, because they had to invest more to do so, and since it is more likely they'll have invested in areas early on where other party members weren't focusing, it helps ensure they maintain that niche later.


Cyrad wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I'm not sure you and I have the same concept of "balance".

No, no we don't. That's the motivation behind most of my arguments here. The community fetishizes class balance so much that they fail to understand that game balance (and game design) consists of far more than ensuring classes have similar power level. The community does so because it's one of the few aspects of game design that gamers tend to understand. So they mentally latch onto that concept and proclaim it's the most important aspect of game design and the only aspect of game balance.

Rynjin wrote:
Asymmetrical design does not constitute an imbalance.

Determining symmetry (or asymmetry) is an aspect of game balance, so much that it's even listed in the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Rynjin wrote:
Pathfinder favors offense over defense, yes. This is not an imbalance, this is a core part of the design. The game's default assumptions are that a good offense will trump an equally good defense (for a given value of "equal". Equal effort at making them optimized, anyway).

No, that's game balance. This entails balancing strategies. Often a game designer wants to encourage strategies over ones that make the game less fun. This is an example of balancing the game by imbalancing the effectiveness of options.

Rynjin wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
There's many considerations to take when trying to accomplish your design goals with a class. How many offensive, defensive, or utility abilities should they have? Do the mechanics convey the experience or flavor I want in this class? Does the class give the player enough things to do during combat? How flexible do I want possible build paths? All of these are important considerations. Some of them more important than just whether or not the class is strong or weak as a whole.
ALL of this is game balance. Every piece of that (besides the bit I OOC'd) contributes to the balance of the class against both other classes and the game as a
...

It's like

You literally quoted some of the bits of my post

Ignored the content

And then proceeded to agree with me aggressively on everything but the exact words used

Why


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:

Rynjin and Cyrad

you're in a semantics war, stop.

*screams internally*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

Rynjin and Cyrad

you're in a semantics war, stop.

*screams internally*

*Screams externally*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

Rynjin and Cyrad

you're in a semantics war, stop.

*screams internally*
*Screams externally*

*Screams non-euclidean-ly*


PIXIE DUST wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

Rynjin and Cyrad

you're in a semantics war, stop.

*screams internally*
*Screams externally*
*Screams non-euclidean-ly*

*Screams eternally*


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

wut

Sovereign Court

AndIMustMask wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

Rynjin and Cyrad

you're in a semantics war, stop.

*screams internally*
*Screams externally*
*Screams non-euclidean-ly*
*Screams eternally*

*puts in earplugs*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm beginning to be sorry I asked...

Thanks to everyone who's answered thus far.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Rynjin wrote:

It's like

You literally quoted some of the bits of my post

Ignored the content

And then proceeded to agree with me aggressively on everything but the exact words used

Why

I said all this ages ago. Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhy!?!

Headdesk


Yeah you said it but didn't seem to get that's what you were doing.

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Linear vs Quadratic All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.