| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was talking with a friend of mine recently about how there seems to be this mindset that can be found on the Paizo boards. A mindset I would describe as confused at best, the mindset that suggests that things like game balance and such doesn't matter because this game is all cooperative and so if someone is better or worse at a thing it doesn't matter because it's not PvP.
The thing is, it's all PvP. Pathfinder, the d20 system in general, is saturated in PvP. PCs and NPCs follow the same core rules for progressing their statistics, classed NPCs draw from the same abilities as PCs, NPCs can take the same feats as the PCs, and for the most part everyone plays by the same rules.
There is no aggro system, there is a human mind pulling the strings of 100% of all enemies and creatures you encounter. Sometimes that mind will pull its punches or make poor choices intentionally or unintentionally as the case may demand, but you can't just throw your meatshield out and let them use Taunt and Sunder Armor over and over and expect everything to stay glued to him like it was a sovereign glue pool party.
The obviousness of this manifests in two very simple ways.
1: Classes aren't created equal and they should be. While many would decry that Fighters don't need to be balanced with Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians because it's a coop game, they still get the same treasure and XP values as those classes which means that if I use a CR 8 barbarian the party may struggle against them, but if use a CR 8 fighter it's a free XP pinata.
2: Groups of characters need ways of reacting to problems that aren't reliant upon their foes making poor decisions. "Tank and spank" doesn't work in Pathfinder. A heavily armored meatbag cannot just shout a few obscenities at an enemy and make them ignore the mages giving him 6th degree burns in the back ranks. This means that the warrior must have a way of being a presence that at the very least hinders their enemies for ignoring them.
It (Pathfinder) is very similar to PvP in World of Warcraft. In PvP, aggro doesn't exist in any form except how much you can legitimately scare someone into fighting you instead of another guy. Tanks in WoW have to make use of things like stuns, interrupts, snares, or abilities that protect their allies from harm because no one in their right mind is going to sit there and fight the hulk while they've got an HP battery behind them or wait for their buddies to murder them.
I gotta go to work now, but I wanted to open this discussion. I propose that 100% of combat in Pathfinder is PvP, always has been, always will be. Balance matters and what you are capable of bringing to your team matters because actually being able to do stuff is the only way you're going to contribute to your group's success outside of just trying to push your damage numbers (and damage is far from the end-all tactic).
I further propose that "this game is not pvp" is a myth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you imagine PvP to mean? PC controlled by player versus NPC with PC class levels controlled by the GM is not PvP in any literal sense.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was an interesting read. I guess a more precise summation than "Pathfinder is PvP" is that "Pathfinder's mechanical setup uses the same foundational framework as PvP and that has implications about the importance of class balance". (I wonder how many readers posters will fail to grasp what you're actually saying and assume your post is trying to declare that there should absolutely be a competition between players to try to be the strongest DPR at the table.)
This is an interesting perspective; I'm curious to see what discussion arises.
Hm that is true.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The argument "class balance does not matter because it's not PvP" can mean, among other things, "class balance does not matter to me because the GM will balance the overall difficulty of the adventure to match our group and as long as I'm not completely useless I can still have fun playing together with my friends".
"Pathfinder combat has more in common with PvP in World of Warcraft than it does with PvE in World of Warcraft" is not a counter to that argument.
What do you imagine PvP to mean? PC controlled by player versus NPC with PC class levels controlled by the GM is not PvP in any literal sense.
Do you mean that the GM isn't at the table?
What do you imagine PvP to mean? PC controlled by player versus NPC with PC class levels controlled by the GM is not PvP in any literal sense.Do you mean that the GM isn't at the table?
Obviously the GM is a programmer and video game developer! He simply wrote script for creature combat xD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought the GM was another player at the table (albeit the player in charge of running the game). So in that sense...
But yeah, given how often class-leveled NPCs are used in Pathfinder APs and modules, it definitely matters. The party's wizard will be going up against NPC fighters at some point, and likewise the party's fighter against NPC casters.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree about the game being PvP not because the GM isn't a player but because in most cases a GM's goal isn't to defeat the party but rather to facilitate the adventure. I think for it to be considered PvP the GM would have to actively trying to destroy or work against the other players.
I disagree about the game being PvP not because the GM isn't a player but because in most cases a GM's goal isn't to defeat the party but rather to facilitate the adventure. I think for it to be considered PvP the GM would have to actively trying to destroy or work against the other players.
It's PvP in the sense that there's human intelligence behind the NPCs and they play by the same mechanical rules of the PCs.
That the goal isn't to defeat the opponent counts to a certain point as there are PvP scenarios like the WoW battlegrounds in which there are specific objectives that are beyond killing the opponent players.
But at the same time, once combat starts, the GM should be running the enemies as if they are try to kill the enemy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree about the game being PvP not because the GM isn't a player but because in most cases a GM's goal isn't to defeat the party but rather to facilitate the adventure. I think for it to be considered PvP the GM would have to actively trying to destroy or work against the other players.It's PvP in the sense that there's human intelligence behind the NPCs and they play by the same mechanical rules of the PCs.
That the goal isn't to defeat the opponent counts to a certain point as there are PvP scenarios like the WoW battlegrounds in which there are specific objectives that are beyond killing the opponent players.
Yes I understood the post. My point was that the GM isn't in opposition to the other players. The GM may provide obstacles for the other players but many of these obstacles are meant to be overcome rather than to stop or work against the other players' goals. The term "versus" in Player versus Player would imply that the GM is in direct opposition to the other players which often is not the case.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I understood the post. My point was that the GM isn't in opposition to the other players. The GM may provide obstacles for the other players but many of these obstacles are meant to be overcome rather than to stop or work against the other players' goals. The term "versus" in Player versus Player would imply that the GM is in direct opposition to the other players which often is not the case.I disagree about the game being PvP not because the GM isn't a player but because in most cases a GM's goal isn't to defeat the party but rather to facilitate the adventure. I think for it to be considered PvP the GM would have to actively trying to destroy or work against the other players.It's PvP in the sense that there's human intelligence behind the NPCs and they play by the same mechanical rules of the PCs.
That the goal isn't to defeat the opponent counts to a certain point as there are PvP scenarios like the WoW battlegrounds in which there are specific objectives that are beyond killing the opponent players.
Would you feel better if you thought of "PvP" as standing for "PC mechanics versus PC mechanics"?
Yes I understood the post. My point was that the GM isn't in opposition to the other players. The GM may provide obstacles for the other players but many of these obstacles are meant to be overcome rather than to stop or work against the other players' goals. The term "versus" in Player versus Player would imply that the GM is in direct opposition to the other players which often is not the case.I disagree about the game being PvP not because the GM isn't a player but because in most cases a GM's goal isn't to defeat the party but rather to facilitate the adventure. I think for it to be considered PvP the GM would have to actively trying to destroy or work against the other players.It's PvP in the sense that there's human intelligence behind the NPCs and they play by the same mechanical rules of the PCs.
That the goal isn't to defeat the opponent counts to a certain point as there are PvP scenarios like the WoW battlegrounds in which there are specific objectives that are beyond killing the opponent players.
Except, in combat, the GM SHOULD be trying to kill the PCs to the extent the NPCs.can. unless of course your one of those GMs who have a dragon landing 5ft away from the fighter and.just focusing on melee against the fighter so he can feel like he can do something...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the point of your comparison.
You are saying that Tabletop RPG's are not the same as MMORPG's to me this is obvious. I have never played a tabletop game with an 'aggro' mechanic and I will try my best to never do so. I just don't see a comparison between the PVP/PVE enmvironments of a MMORPG and a tabletop RPG. Perhaps that is because I am so ancient I played tabletop games for a long time before WoW and its ilk came into being.
However a 'normal' table top game with the GM running the world is not GM vs player or should not be in a healthy game. It is in many ways a mutual storytelling exercise with a tactical components not something I think MMORPG's do at all let alone well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well yeah, if you redefine the acronym you can make it mean anything you want. But the game's just not PvP by the accepted definition of the term. The players are not in competition with each other, and they're not in competition with the DM. It's a cooperative endeavor.Would you feel better if you thought of "PvP" as standing for "PC mechanics versus PC mechanics"?Yes I understood the post. My point was that the GM isn't in opposition to the other players. The GM may provide obstacles for the other players but many of these obstacles are meant to be overcome rather than to stop or work against the other players' goals. The term "versus" in Player versus Player would imply that the GM is in direct opposition to the other players which often is not the case.I disagree about the game being PvP not because the GM isn't a player but because in most cases a GM's goal isn't to defeat the party but rather to facilitate the adventure. I think for it to be considered PvP the GM would have to actively trying to destroy or work against the other players.It's PvP in the sense that there's human intelligence behind the NPCs and they play by the same mechanical rules of the PCs.
That the goal isn't to defeat the opponent counts to a certain point as there are PvP scenarios like the WoW battlegrounds in which there are specific objectives that are beyond killing the opponent players.
Except AGAIN, when.combat starts, the NPC mage should be doing everything he can to kill the PCs... the NPC barbarian who is known for destroying everything and smashing his opponents weapons SHOULD be sundering the PCs and going all out.
Now I am not saying the GM SHOULD BE KILLING THE PLAYERS. But the NPCs under his control.should try and play like the PCs, i.e. INTELLIGENTLY.
I don't see the point of your comparison.
You are saying that Tabletop RPG's are not the same as MMORPG's to me this is obvious. I have never played a tabletop game with an 'aggro' mechanic and I will try my best to never do so. I just don't see a comparison between the PVP/PVE enmvironments of a MMORPG and a tabletop RPG. Perhaps that is because I am so ancient I played tabletop games for a long time before WoW and its ilk came into being.However a 'normal' table top game with the GM running the world is not GM vs player or should not be in a healthy game. It is in many ways a mutual storytelling exercise with a tactical components not something I think MMORPG's do at all let alone well.
Except, combat is not a "cooperative exercise". Unless you are softballing everything..
Except, combat is not a "cooperative exercise". Unless you are softballing everything..I don't see the point of your comparison.
You are saying that Tabletop RPG's are not the same as MMORPG's to me this is obvious. I have never played a tabletop game with an 'aggro' mechanic and I will try my best to never do so. I just don't see a comparison between the PVP/PVE enmvironments of a MMORPG and a tabletop RPG. Perhaps that is because I am so ancient I played tabletop games for a long time before WoW and its ilk came into being.However a 'normal' table top game with the GM running the world is not GM vs player or should not be in a healthy game. It is in many ways a mutual storytelling exercise with a tactical components not something I think MMORPG's do at all let alone well.
No one is saying combat is a cooperative exercise. What we are saying is that Player vs Player isn't an accurate term. Player vs Player means the players themselves are opposing each other. In combat, the characters are in opposition. A more accurate term would be Player Character versus Player Character since the GM is still more often than not rigging the odds so that the other players win.
I don't see how equating "the DM should...Well yeah, if you redefine the acronym you can make it mean anything you want. But the game's just not PvP by the accepted definition of the term. The players are not in competition with each other, and they're not in competition with the DM. It's a cooperative endeavor.Would you feel better if you thought of "PvP" as standing for "PC mechanics versus PC mechanics"?Yes I understood the post. My point was that the GM isn't in opposition to the other players. The GM may provide obstacles for the other players but many of these obstacles are meant to be overcome rather than to stop or work against the other players' goals. The term "versus" in Player versus Player would imply that the GM is in direct opposition to the other players which often is not the case.I disagree about the game being PvP not because the GM isn't a player but because in most cases a GM's goal isn't to defeat the party but rather to facilitate the adventure. I think for it to be considered PvP the GM would have to actively trying to destroy or work against the other players.It's PvP in the sense that there's human intelligence behind the NPCs and they play by the same mechanical rules of the PCs.
That the goal isn't to defeat the opponent counts to a certain point as there are PvP scenarios like the WoW battlegrounds in which there are specific objectives that are beyond killing the opponent players.
Except AGAIN, when.combat starts, the NPC mage should be doing everything he can to kill the PCs... the NPC barbarian who is known for destroying everything and smashing his opponents weapons SHOULD be sundering the PCs and going all out.
Now I am not saying the GM SHOULD BE KILLING THE PLAYERS. But the NPCs under his control.should try and play like the PCs, i.e. INTELLIGENTLY.
PvP only refers to combat. In COMBAT IT IS PVP. I.e. the players (P) vs the.DM (P).
Outside combat, the GM sets up the scenerios and such, but once combat starts its PvP
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well yeah, if you redefine the acronym you can make it mean anything you want. But the game's just not PvP by the accepted definition of the term. The players are not in competition with each other, and they're not in competition with the DM. It's a cooperative endeavor.Would you feel better if you thought of "PvP" as standing for "PC mechanics versus PC mechanics"?Yes I understood the post. My point was that the GM isn't in opposition to the other players. The GM may provide obstacles for the other players but many of these obstacles are meant to be overcome rather than to stop or work against the other players' goals. The term "versus" in Player versus Player would imply that the GM is in direct opposition to the other players which often is not the case.I disagree about the game being PvP not because the GM isn't a player but because in most cases a GM's goal isn't to defeat the party but rather to facilitate the adventure. I think for it to be considered PvP the GM would have to actively trying to destroy or work against the other players.It's PvP in the sense that there's human intelligence behind the NPCs and they play by the same mechanical rules of the PCs.
That the goal isn't to defeat the opponent counts to a certain point as there are PvP scenarios like the WoW battlegrounds in which there are specific objectives that are beyond killing the opponent players.
I agree that the use of the term "PvP" as a description of Pathfinder isn't entirely accurate; I seem to recall even saying so in my first post in this thread.
Yep, there it is.
So, do you have any thoughts on the OP's ideas beyond the use of that specific term?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You may wish to turn away from PvP as a term as it has baggage attached to it, usually meaning players attacking other players. What you mean is that a GM is responsible for the obstacles and challenges to the PC group.
I can understand that you desire balanced classes, yet changing it would alter the game at its fundamental. In other words, you are looking for a point buy game like GURPs.
Classes are not the only problems. Many creatures are estimated CRs, and mileage can vary wildly with party variation. Swarms are deadlier to martials than to a party of area affect casters. Constructs are deadly against illusion and enchantment biased casters than they are against martials.
To compare it to an MMO, I would rather see the GM as the world programmer, not "the enemy" since the GM is also responsible for any helpful or background NPCs and situations. The idea of challenging conflict is more the nature of how we define entertaining storytelling. No conflict, no story. Easily overcome conflict means an unsatisfying story (usually). Overpowering opposition in a conflict means an unsatisfying story in the opposite end of the spectrum.
Pathfinder (and nearly all RPGs) rely on violence for conflict. Of course, if you want to develop a subsystem, conflict by social mechanics could be developed (a sort of combat-like resolution for using diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, leadership, etc. that can give mechanical benefits or penalties).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well yeah, if you redefine the acronym you can make it mean anything you want. But the game's just not PvP by the accepted definition of the term. The players are not in competition with each other, and they're not in competition with the DM. It's a cooperative endeavor.Would you feel better if you thought of "PvP" as standing for "PC mechanics versus PC mechanics"?Yes I understood the post. My point was that the GM isn't in opposition to the other players. The GM may provide obstacles for the other players but many of these obstacles are meant to be overcome rather than to stop or work against the other players' goals. The term "versus" in Player versus Player would imply that the GM is in direct opposition to the other players which often is not the case.I disagree about the game being PvP not because the GM isn't a player but because in most cases a GM's goal isn't to defeat the party but rather to facilitate the adventure. I think for it to be considered PvP the GM would have to actively trying to destroy or work against the other players.It's PvP in the sense that there's human intelligence behind the NPCs and they play by the same mechanical rules of the PCs.
That the goal isn't to defeat the opponent counts to a certain point as there are PvP scenarios like the WoW battlegrounds in which there are specific objectives that are beyond killing the opponent players.
I agree that the use of the term "PvP" as a description of Pathfinder isn't entirely accurate; I seem to recall even saying so in my first post in this thread.
Yep, there it is.
So, do you have any thoughts on the OP's ideas beyond the use of that specific term?
Beyond arguing on PvP being an inaccurate term when the entire point was that the game was in fact PvP? No but I'm pretty sure most of us were on the same page for every other point made in the OP already.
If your DM is rigging it.so you always win, that is boring. Once.combat starts, if the PCs use stupid tactis and no teamwork,.they will die. I am not going to hand hold them by having my dragon land in.convient melee range of the fighter willingly. They better find a way to get it to land.or bust put a bow.No one is saying combat is a cooperative exercise. What we are saying is that Player vs Player isn't an accurate term. Player vs Player means the players themselves are opposing each other. In combat, the characters are in opposition. A more accurate term would be Player Character versus Player Character since the GM is still more often than not rigging the odds so that the other players win.Except, combat is not a "cooperative exercise". Unless you are softballing everything..I don't see the point of your comparison.
You are saying that Tabletop RPG's are not the same as MMORPG's to me this is obvious. I have never played a tabletop game with an 'aggro' mechanic and I will try my best to never do so. I just don't see a comparison between the PVP/PVE enmvironments of a MMORPG and a tabletop RPG. Perhaps that is because I am so ancient I played tabletop games for a long time before WoW and its ilk came into being.However a 'normal' table top game with the GM running the world is not GM vs player or should not be in a healthy game. It is in many ways a mutual storytelling exercise with a tactical components not something I think MMORPG's do at all let alone well.
Yes exactly! The GM is there to facilitate the game not to oppose the players themselves. The NPCs may be opposing the player characters but if we start defining PvP by the characters rather than the players things start to get a little hazy.
|
I can't speak for other game masters, but when GMing I have been known to fudge in the player's favor. And I tend to go easy on them the first few adventures. For example I'll have them facing foes who for one reason or another have shoddy equipment. Rusty swords that do a die size less damage then normal and rusty armor that provides a bit less protection for example. Or since I tend to do my GM combat rolls behind a screen, I might lie and tell them it's a normal hit instead of the critical hit for max (x3) damage I actually rolled.
I'm not here to kill the party. Instead I'm here to tell a story. Player death is a possibility, but not my actual goal. If things go REALLY bad for the players in an encounter due to unlucky dice rolls they may find themselves waking up in a cell, not rolling new characters. That said, you do something incredibly stupid and you should expect there to be consequences. Do something crazy but cool? Well, it probably wont work but it just might. And if you decide to sleep with the local king's virgin daughter... You had better expect to be hunted by royal forces.
Yes exactly! The GM is there to facilitate the game not to oppose the players themselves. The NPCs may be opposing the player characters but if we start defining PvP by the characters rather than the players things start to get a little hazy.If your DM is rigging it.so you always win, that is boring. Once.combat starts, if the PCs use stupid tactis and no teamwork,.they will die. I am not going to hand hold them by having my dragon land in.convient melee range of the fighter willingly. They better find a way to get it to land.or bust put a bow.No one is saying combat is a cooperative exercise. What we are saying is that Player vs Player isn't an accurate term. Player vs Player means the players themselves are opposing each other. In combat, the characters are in opposition. A more accurate term would be Player Character versus Player Character since the GM is still more often than not rigging the odds so that the other players win.Except, combat is not a "cooperative exercise". Unless you are softballing everything..I don't see the point of your comparison.
You are saying that Tabletop RPG's are not the same as MMORPG's to me this is obvious. I have never played a tabletop game with an 'aggro' mechanic and I will try my best to never do so. I just don't see a comparison between the PVP/PVE enmvironments of a MMORPG and a tabletop RPG. Perhaps that is because I am so ancient I played tabletop games for a long time before WoW and its ilk came into being.However a 'normal' table top game with the GM running the world is not GM vs player or should not be in a healthy game. It is in many ways a mutual storytelling exercise with a tactical components not something I think MMORPG's do at all let alone well.
No, the point of this thread was partially mechanical balance. Therefore it IS CHARACTER vs CHARACTER. Its about a DM wizard vs a party or a DM rogue vs a.party. Tje DM characters are using all the same rules and such as the PCs.
No, the point of this thread was partially mechanical balance. Therefore it IS CHARACTER vs CHARACTER. Its about a DM...Yes exactly! The GM is there to facilitate the game not to oppose the players themselves. The NPCs may be opposing the player characters but if we start defining PvP by the characters rather than the players things start to get a little hazy.If your DM is rigging it.so you always win, that is boring. Once.combat starts, if the PCs use stupid tactis and no teamwork,.they will die. I am not going to hand hold them by having my dragon land in.convient melee range of the fighter willingly. They better find a way to get it to land.or bust put a bow.No one is saying combat is a cooperative exercise. What we are saying is that Player vs Player isn't an accurate term. Player vs Player means the players themselves are opposing each other. In combat, the characters are in opposition. A more accurate term would be Player Character versus Player Character since the GM is still more often than not rigging the odds so that the other players win.Except, combat is not a "cooperative exercise". Unless you are softballing everything..I don't see the point of your comparison.
You are saying that Tabletop RPG's are not the same as MMORPG's to me this is obvious. I have never played a tabletop game with an 'aggro' mechanic and I will try my best to never do so. I just don't see a comparison between the PVP/PVE enmvironments of a MMORPG and a tabletop RPG. Perhaps that is because I am so ancient I played tabletop games for a long time before WoW and its ilk came into being.However a 'normal' table top game with the GM running the world is not GM vs player or should not be in a healthy game. It is in many ways a mutual storytelling exercise with a tactical components not something I think MMORPG's do at all let alone well.
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you here! All I was saying was that Character versus Character would be a more accurate description than Player versus Player. In fact I believe I said so in an earlier post. To clarify, I am not arguing that the characters are not in opposition to each other, just that the players and the GM aren't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But at the same time, once combat starts, the GM should be running the enemies as if they are try to kill the enemy.There's a big BUT in that statement. The NPC's however should not have knowledge that they aren't supposed to have, i.e. they should not have perfect access to the copies of the player character sheets the GM keeps.
That's why it's not PVP. When you play in my games... I'm not trying to kill you, it's the NPC's that are trying to kill you.
A game that has no distinction between the two.. is a game badly run.
Neither the player characters are supposed to metagame, so what's your point again?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: Classes aren't created equal and they should be.
The only way for the classes to be equal would be to have only one class.
That being said, a 3rd level fighter in melee combat with a 3rd level wizard isn't 'equal'... the wizard has virtually no hope. Nor is any fighter vs any wizard in an anti-magic zone 'equal'.
Circumstances, gear, builds all contribute to 'inequality'. I disagree with claims that 'class XYZ is useless'. Every class has ways in which it shines that other classes do not.
1: Classes aren't created equal and they should be.The only way for the classes to be equal would be to have only one class.
That being said, a 3rd level fighter in melee combat with a 3rd level wizard isn't 'equal'... the wizard has virtually no hope. Nor is any fighter vs any wizard in an anti-magic zone 'equal'.
Circumstances, gear, builds all contribute to 'inequality'. I disagree with claims that 'class XYZ is useless'. Every class has ways in which it shines that other classes do not.
What can a fighter do tjat a Barbaria, paladin, slayer, brawler, bloodrager, swashbuckler not do?
The rogue is damn near in the same boat except for trapfinding to disable magical traps... and even that there are ways arpund... there is a reason the rogue and fighter are often disparaged as being useless/pointles...
And lets not forget that the.fighter needs to GET into melee IN the.first place... which is the hard part...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I get your point, but using the term PvP makes it confusing. In Pathfinder, there are "Players" controlling their Player Characters, and "Gamemasters" controlling the environment including monsters and NPCs. In the vast majority of games, I think PCs don't battle other PCs. The accepted default is that a mixed group of PCs has several encounters against traps, environment, and friendly and hostile NPCs and monsters. NPCs can be PC races and classes, but they may be specifically NPC classes and of a race not found in the core rulebook. While pathfinder may feature something like PvP it would be more accurate to say that it is PCsvNPCs, and that would still not capture the fundamental difference that unlike WoW or other computer games, Pathfinder is not limited to Side Vs Side (Spy Vs Spy?) but is really a co-operative story telling framework, where confrontation is just one aspect of the stories being told.
EDIT:
Related post about comparing class power related to other classes.
Designing a PC class to function as a solo monster encounter is in my opinion bad game design.
Designing a PC class to function as a member of an adventuring party is good game design.
|
|
I think the fact the DM has much more control than has been suggested here is being overlooked.
The DM can add, or take away enemies, change the weather, terrain, or the laws of physics, in the middle of combat.
No matter which direction a battle goes, the DM can push it one way or the other, with the universe itself, and the balance of classes neither helps, nor hinders, this power.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: Classes aren't created equal and they should be.The only way for the classes to be equal would be to have only one class.
No.
Class balance is achievable by having every class do an equivalently valuable thing on relatively equal terms.
Basically they would all have to sit in the same power tier.
Right now certain classes are in the T1 range, some are in the T5 range.
The ideal, it seems is for classes to sit in the T3 range. Which is defined as;
"Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time."
If you think that means every class will be the same keep in mind the classes normally designated this encompass a wide variety of roles and strategies.
Now, if you only include what paizo publishes that includes all the 3/4 6th level casters.
If you go 3pp that actually encompasses a ton more things.
So no, "One class" is just an assumption made when you don't think very far in terms of power and capability and what those mean in terms of balance.