| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But as long as it is not a core rule, it is not going to affect all tables and thus improve the game for all tables. That is the advantage of real edition change.
I agree completely - everything 'Unchained' needs to become gospel not some set of possible rules that can be applied.
Unchained rogue is amazing and I'm not against skill unlocks, but there's a lot in those books I'm not touching.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The action economy rules in Unchained are great... for an entirely different system with an entirely different set of classes. There are too many classes in this game that rely on the swift action not taking up your attacks for it to be at all viable.
|
Haven't kept up with the thread much since I posted, but I thought I'd respond to this as a fervent advocate of the "pro-fudge" movement. When I mark down the damage on the boss' attacks just a bit to let you keep standing for one more round at 3 health, securing the vital damage necessary to win the encounter? I'm not going to tell you.
You won't have to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man that interview was really enlightening. Sad to hear the background issues behind all this :(
Taku,
I have to give your system the Ashiel test.
NPC's are at half CR by level. So, a Warrior/20 is effectively CR 10.
==Aelryinth
I have tremendous respect for Ashiel, I consider her to be among the most knowledgeable posters on the boards. However, that is not how NPC CR is determined. CR=NPC Level-2. A quick look through the NPC gallery confirms this.
|
I have tremendous respect for Ashiel, I consider her to be among the most knowledgeable posters on the boards. However, that is not how NPC CR is determined. CR=NPC Level-2. A quick look through the NPC gallery confirms this.Taku,
I have to give your system the Ashiel test.
NPC's are at half CR by level. So, a Warrior/20 is effectively CR 10.
==Aelryinth
I agree with you entirely Fergie, but Ashiel and I have argued this particular point through at least two threads I remember to no real effect on either of us. Let's not start such an argument again.
For the record, Ashiel's argument is that the 1/2 level method for CR results in more accurate CRs (which is true), and matches the rules for leveling monsters in the Bestiary (also true).
I generally respond that the core book says it's Level-2 (true), every NPC Paizo has ever statted is done the -2 way (also true), and that by Ashiel's logic Paladin NPCs should be built on the same CR as Warriors (true...also absurd).
The argument never actually goes anywhere. Lets's just leave this post as a summary and move along, alright?
I have tremendous respect for Ashiel, I consider her to be among the most knowledgeable posters on the boards. However, that is not how NPC CR is determined. CR=NPC Level-2. A quick look through the NPC gallery confirms this.
It's slightly more specific than that:
A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. If this reduction would reduce a creature's CR to below 1, its CR drops one step on the following progression for each step below 1 this reduction would make: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8.
I suppose what I am asking is does anyone else feel these supplements are beginning to unbalance the CR system?Short answer: yes.
I always reverse engineered the CR system (something 5e has already done for you)
Curious. Would you mind elaborating on how 5E does this?
My personal experience with 5E as a GM is actually quite the opposite of yours: That the CR and encounter systems were less reliable than Pathfinder in determining the tabletop experience while also being significantly over-complicated. I wound up trialing this alternative encounter building tool for a while, and while it did streamline the process as a GM, I still found the balance to be extremely dependent on the party composition - more so than in Pathfinder* - and only certain combos could actually achieve anything close to the Adventuring Day the DMG suggests.
*Individual characters don't have the same range of optimization that they do in Pathfinder, however certain 5E party combos are dramatically more effective than others.
Conversely, I find the Pathfinder approach to CR (with a table of rough target numbers) and encounter design to be extremely elegant and useful as a baseline, and then simply adjust to suit the party effectiveness.
My advise is to take a note from D&D 5e.
Find out what your PCs equivalents would be if they were monsters using the Monster Creation Rules, assign a CR to each aspect (go with averages for damage) and then average the CR of each aspect of the PC. This should give you an effective CR for the PC that you should treat them as. Each level, redo this for each PC. Remember to round to the nearest, ignore the always round down rule.Your PCs will be more or less where they should be CR wise in this case. The thing is, this is going to take you a lot more time. Some PCs are going to be glass cannons, and when they show up dealing with things equal to their average CR, things might go badly for them just as easily as they might go badly for the monsters.
My initial observations are:
- A) This isn't something that 5E actually recommends. You might find it a useful tool, but I wouldn't suggest it is 5E working as intended.
B) A lot (if not most) of the monsters in the 5E Monster Manual don't actually line up with that chart - most are too powerful for their CR if you go by it;
C) 5E does not give any guidance how PC class level correlates to CR (and very little about how spellcasting correlates to CR), thus the assumption that "A PC should work out to have a CR equal to their level" is an assumption on your part, not actually part of the system, and will vary depending on when class abilities come online (e.g. a 4th level elven rogue will come in around CR3 without magic arms & armor, not CR4).
In essence, what you are suggesting is to adjust the party APL according to their performance. In my experience this is something that is commonly done, but I find best determined empirically (via table experience) rather than theoretically. My reasoning is that I find that party performance comes from three things;
- 1) Individual capabilities of the group members - attack, damage, hp, saves, spells etc.
2) Party tactics and coordination.
3) Encounter and location design
The former is easy to read on paper, but the latter two really only come to life on the table - a group that uses the terrain against the enemies and coordinates positioning, CC spells and buffs really well will invariably do far better than a group that act like loosely allied individuals.
On a related note: Magic item wealth is actually an extremely poor measure of PC power, since a lot (or most) of the "fun" magic items which don't actually present a lot of combat potential are also very expensive. So while having excessive WBL is arguably a justification to raise the party's effective level, I find it more important to look at how they actually handle encounters, personally.
I have tremendous respect for Ashiel, I consider her to be among the most knowledgeable posters on the boards. However, that is not how NPC CR is determined. CR=NPC Level-2. A quick look through the NPC gallery confirms this.It's slightly more specific than that:
A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. If this reduction would reduce a creature's CR to below 1, its CR drops one step on the following progression for each step below 1 this reduction would make: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8.
As Deadman noted, the Bestiary rule exactly contradicts this, for good reason.
--------------------Fergie, Ashiel is a Him, FYI. Ignore the picture.
--------------
Gronka,
Spells in 1e were more powerful in the game. You didn't need 3 fireballs, because a stinking cloud or web took apart the enemy just as well, you just needed to cut them down while they were helpless. save or die spells were definitely a thing all the way around.
The number of spells per day is a thing, and I acknowledge it, but since spells were stronger and saves more horrible at low levels, all it did was change party tactics a bit. Sure, at level 1, the wizard might only get 1 spell. Cast sleep, he wins, encounter done, boss monster down. He only NEEDS to cast the 1 spell at the proper time.
At level 2, now he has two sleeps a day. he can get the boss AND the elite bodyguards!
And as levels grow, he just gets stronger. Yes, the PF caster starts out with more spells, but they aren't as effective, and he's going to run out of them if all he does is cast, until about the same time as the 1e wizard always has a spell for the situation he's in.
Early edition casters didn't run out of spells after 10th level unless combat was insanely long, and since low level spells were viable a lot longer, had more tools in the arsenal (many of them fairly broken!)
PF is caster edition, make no bones about it, but just the number of spells isn't what is breaking things. After all, a PF sorc casting 3 fireballs sounds impressive...until you realize he'll probably need ALL THREE fireballs to kill a CR 6 foe, unless he's a devoted blaster build. A 1e wizard will kill any 8 hd or less foe with 2, on average.
==Aelryinth
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is definitely imbalanced, always has been. I think the basis of this has been well hashed out in this thread thus far. I do not expect this to change unless there is a significant business need to do so. The game is held back by legacy concerns, absolutely atrociously written early material, and design staff that are seemingly not interested in moving on to more modern "RPG technology." Addressing these items is a significant risk to the platform and market position.
I think the legacy concerns are self-evident. This thread has significantly covered the imbalances in the CRB. Core spells are among the least balanced in the entire system and frequently the most ambiguously powerful. Consider the fact that Ultimate Intrigue has several pages devoted to "Spells of Intrigue" that clarifies CRB spells almost exclusively. Other elements of the game have also been addressed in later releases with limited success. Pathfinder Unchained introduced replacement subsystems to address perceived holes in game design, including the Stamina subsystem to allow martials to do more with their feats. In both cases, these were effectively errata and FAQs masquerading as new content, filling holes that have been known since 3.5's heyday.
This brings me to point 2: the CRB is the worst-written book in Pathfinder. To be fair, this was at a point when Paizo simply did not have the resources that they have today. Paizo is a fundamentally different company today than they were when the CRB came out in 2009. I cannot stress that point enough. Still, there are significant grievances to be had with the CRB. Needless variation in language muddles important concepts. Entire sections of rules were left out. Because of the need at release to maintain ties with 3.5 content, incredibly little was done to address concerns other than slapping a couple extra things on classes (i.e. feats more frequently, prohibited schools to opposition, etc.). As releases became successful, the quality of the writing increased dramatically. None of that, though, makes up for the fact that the system is running on bandages and duct tape.
What this all circles back to, though, is a design team where there are new, interesting ideas from some and old, tired ideas from others. There is no more perfect example of this than the Psychic class. I say this as someone with a level 11 Psychic in PFS. The Psychic is the pinnacle of lazy design. It is a phoned-in Sorceror with the serial number filed off. It's a "good" class for two reasons only: (1) it's a 9-level caster that (2) has a lot of CRB spells on its list. This is to say that it's a "good" class for the same reasons that Sorcerors, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are "good" - it's imbalanced. It's a continuation of the same bad design choices made before Pathfinder was written. When you compare that to the Kineticist, which has riskier gambits within the game's framework, it's pretty clear that there's a divide between original design concepts and "stay safe to the core" design. This is a fundamental problem frequently caused by clique formation and echo chambers of ideas.
With all that said, though, there's little reason for Paizo to stop doing what they're doing. The game is, in some aspects, imbalanced in all the wrong ways, but the appeal of the game remains marketable. There is insufficient fiscal inducement to change the game address these issues. I still open my wallet to them, after all, and so do thousands of other people. As long as Paizo remains profitable and growing (or even profitable and stable), I wouldn't expect the lingering issues to be properly addressed.
tl;dr: It's not the new stuff that's broken. It's the old stuff and old people.
Let's not start such an argument again.
Agree 100%
EDIT:
Ignore the picture.
Never! When I read the boards, I think of everyone as the character in their portrait... sitting at a keyboard... in their underwear, (unless depicted otherwise). Thinking of posters this way gets confusing when different people use the same portrait, but it keeps me from taking things too seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There has NEVER in the history of rpg's been a balanced rpg. Attempts to provide "balanced" rpg's have relegated the product offered to miniscule barely profitable margins (gurps/nWoD), or complete failure and rejection by the market. (a-la 4th ed d+d)
The reality of the situation is, the closer a game comes to balance, the more unacceptable tiny variations in balance become for the segment of the community heavily interested in balance.
If the game is fun for you, play it, if it isn't, don't. The idea that a company should or will completely rework their product from the ground up on the assumption that a vocal group on the forums will be happy is kind of pipe dreamy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has NEVER in the history of rpg's been a balanced rpg. Attempts to provide "balanced" rpg's have relegated the product offered to miniscule barely profitable margins (gurps/nWoD), or complete failure and rejection by the market. (a-la 4th ed d+d)
The reality of the situation is, the closer a game comes to balance, the more unacceptable tiny variations in balance become for the segment of the community heavily interested in balance.
If the game is fun for you, play it, if it isn't, don't. The idea that a company should or will completely rework their product from the ground up on the assumption that a vocal group on the forums will be happy is kind of pipe dreamy.
Alas, one must always strive for perfection. It gives meaning, purpose, and an image to strive for.
After all, if imbalance is the status quo, eventually that too will grow stale.
How many brilliant ideas must go wasted when someone tells them merely that "NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF -BLANK-"? Count me glad that there are many who ignore such ignorant and progress hating cries.
There has NEVER in the history of rpg's been a balanced rpg. Attempts to provide "balanced" rpg's have relegated the product offered to miniscule barely profitable margins (gurps/nWoD), or complete failure and rejection by the market. (a-la 4th ed d+d)
The reality of the situation is, the closer a game comes to balance, the more unacceptable tiny variations in balance become for the segment of the community heavily interested in balance.
If the game is fun for you, play it, if it isn't, don't. The idea that a company should or will completely rework their product from the ground up on the assumption that a vocal group on the forums will be happy is kind of pipe dreamy.
Alas, one must always strive for perfection. It gives meaning, purpose, and an image to strive for.
After all, if imbalance is the status quo, eventually that too will grow stale.
How many brilliant ideas must go wasted when someone tells them merely that "NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF -BLANK-"? Count me glad that there are many who ignore such ignorant and progress hating cries.
I mean, thats some great rhetoric but the purpose of a game company isn't the pursuit of some platonic ideal of a game. Its to make a living, often doing something you love. Burning down "good enough" because you think you want more in a luxury industry is Games Workshop level bad business.
Incidentally 4th ed actually did quite well......
At this point there isn't much that isn't broken and Paizo seems intent on keeping it that way. If you want a more balanced campaign you really need to limit the selection to pretty much CRB and that will generally work. Not that there aren't broken builds in the CRb because there are they are just harder to make than something like the ACG or Ultimate Intrigue.
Hah. Haha. HAHAHA.
Limiting yourself to CRB is probably the one true way of ensuring that the game will be unbalanced. Verily, the game has only become slightly more balanced since then. The "Ceiling" has never risen for the top classes since the Core Rulebook. The floor on the other hand yes. It is easier to play a decent cleric/wizard/druid/sorcerer with more books but more powerful? No not noticeably. The most game changing and utility powerful spells all sit within the Core Rulebook.
For everyone else, adding more books is what makes more varied and balanced characters. Paizo knows how to design well-balanced classes...though they occasionally have their own hiccup or two. Just look at the Alchemist, Inquisitor, or Ranger.
I mean, thats some great rhetoric but the purpose of a game company isn't the pursuit of some platonic ideal of a game. Its to make a living, often doing something you love. Burning down "good enough" because you think you want more in a luxury industry is Games Workshop level bad business.
Thanks. I'm feeling eloquent today. Or maybe preachy? Dunno, been enjoying playing a priest lately in a campaign.
In any event, burning down anything won't be necessary. Paizo will inadvertently eventually push the bill on bringing balance up to par with a new book and eventually a balanced game may come of it. Barring a new edition of course. I would highly doubt a new edition would rehash the same martial-caster disparity though.
Though I'd be willing to bet that high level magic gets quite the rewriting in a new edition if recent FAQs and "clarifications" are any indication.
Incidentally 4th ed actually did quite well......
So well they ceded top RPG to pathfinder for years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Deadmanwalking and I've discussed the whole NPC CR thing to death. Suffice to say it more or less comes down to which you consider to trump the other in the case of a rule's dispute.
I consider the Bestiary the specific authority on monsters and their CRs as the rules are far more complete and intended explicitly for this sort of thing, and the section that mentions it is the authority on creating and advancing creatures.
I consider the single paragraph in the core rulebook to be the general authority, seemingly there to just give a default starting point. It's not even 100% inaccurate (the bestiary assumes the same CRs for 1st level NPCs), it just falls apart as levels advance, and falls apart hard.
So I consider the Bestiary (being specific) to overrule the Gamemastering chapter in the CRB (general), because to my knowledge that's the way these things are supposed to work (specific > general).
Your mileage may vary. However, I cannot fathom a reasonable reason to use the CRB method over the Bestiary method when it's been shown, time and time again, that the Bestiary method results in something that works and the single paragraph in the Gamemastering section of the core rulebook doesn't.
It doesn't work this much in fact. Notice the statistics that most CR 7 creatures would laugh at for being a wussy.
I see so many people griping about how this build or that build ruins their game. In almost every instance, they're using 20 or 25 point buys. I'm sure I'm not alone in in stating that the 15-point buy (upon which the original D&D 3.X engine was built around) approach and maybe disallowing things that make action economy unfair to the other players in the group (we're looking at you Summoner and Leadership feat) produces a game that is reasonably balanced and very fun for everyone. No game with this much complexity could ever be perfectly balanced.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see so many people griping about how this build or that build ruins their game. In almost every instance, they're using 20 or 25 point buys. I'm sure I'm not alone in in stating that the 15-point buy (upon which the original D&D 3.X engine was built around) approach and maybe disallowing things that make action economy unfair to the other players in the group (we're looking at you Summoner and Leadership feat) produces a game that is reasonably balanced and very fun for everyone. No game with this much complexity could ever be perfectly balanced.
In my experience point buys below 20 make things harder for the weaker classes, since they tend to be more MAD.
I see so many people griping about how this build or that build ruins their game. In almost every instance, they're using 20 or 25 point buys. I'm sure I'm not alone in in stating that the 15-point buy (upon which the original D&D 3.X engine was built around) approach and maybe disallowing things that make action economy unfair to the other players in the group (we're looking at you Summoner and Leadership feat) produces a game that is reasonably balanced and very fun for everyone. No game with this much complexity could ever be perfectly balanced.In my experience point buys below 20 make things harder for the weaker classes, since they tend to be more MAD.
Agreed. With a 15 point buy, your Wizard is still going to pump INT; they may just skip DEX or any of the other attributes in order to keep INT high. And they will probably do just fine.
Your Fighter on the other hand is going to have to decide how much STR to give up to keep his CON competitive. Your Monk is going to choose a different class.
Low point buys don't tend to help with the imbalance because the true monsters in terms of unbalanced high power are SAD full casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the game should really be all about telling a story. That's why it kind of bugs me that 3rd ed has reduced so much to dice rolls.
Then just ignore them. If all you want to do is tell a story, just tell a story. Make up any "rules" you need on the spot, as long as they serve the story.
Conversely, people who want to also play a game, actually want to do so. Unless it's Calvinball, a game involves actual consistent rules that are expected to be followed by the participants.
The great thing about RPGs is that you can, in theory, have both. People who advocate for comprehensive rules want to follow them, and then add the story based on what happens according to the results. People like you can just ignore what the results are and declare that your story trumps the one that the dice are trying to tell.
Now here's the important thing: for people who want a game, the rules have to work towards that end. Some degree of balance is pretty much needed for that. And, no, GURPS is not balanced, and, no, 4e is not the only possible endpoint. For the people like you who just want a story, it doesn't matter if the rules are balanced, because they can always ignore them anyway.
So, in essence, your argument boils down to "I get what I want either way, so I'm going to vociferously advocate that half of the other participants not get what they want." If there is some motivation there other than pure spite or a misguided sense of a need for consensus ("WE MUST ALL DO THINGS THE SAME WAY I DO!!!" -- I have yet to hear it.
