Lincoln Hills |
When you build a character, be a PC or NPC, how do you balance gameplay and flavor?...
When I'm designing NPCs, I will always go by flavor. My players aren't privy to the NPC's stats and will only rarely notice synergy between abilities, or optimization of feats. They'll only remember how cool the NPC was, and that owes more to his presentation and his abilities than his actual combat effectiveness.
Building a PC, of course, means that Survival and Success are high priorities, but even here I tend to settle on a theme and then work to make it effective, rather than choosing the most powerful options I see and then trying to figure out how the character wound up that way.
Icehawk |
Is there a typical party? It seems like people are downright allergic to things like humans, elves, and dwarfs half the time. To the point you just about need a warning lable on the character sheet: "warning: may contain core races".
Suspect it's partly for the same reason of Fae Foundling. Want to be human paladin, but being a tiefling paladin is just so much better cus favored class.
Some of it is just repetition. How many different games, rps, and so forth have you played some version of one of the core races now? They aren't just saturated in dnd, they are in fantasy novels and in games and so forth. Given an option to play something else, people jump on it, possibly without considering how it might be different.
Some might simply be that the race itself matters less to them. I mean when you boil it down, funny looking human is a stereotype because they all are. The exotic races often are too but least with planetouched you often can look more like however you want too.
CWheezy |
Hello, the people responding to me didn't understand what I meant.
Jiggy said "well designed game no build is worse than any other". The only way that is possible is a symmetric game. Lots of games are pretty well done while still keeping lots of unique aspects to each side.
Sorry forgot to mention: lots of games are well designed and have varying power of character choice. Sc2 is not perfectly balanced, on race is often favored 's the other
Snowblind |
Hello, the people responding to me didn't understand what I meant.
Jiggy said "well designed game no build is worse than any other". The only way that is possible is a symmetric game. Lots of games are pretty well done while still keeping lots of unique aspects to each side.
Many of those games are pretty well done while still keeping lots of unique aspects to each side while still being balanced. Starcraft is usually given as the archetypal example.
Ashiel |
All characters who picked Reactionary trait were bullied as a child.
Reads right there right?
Who wasn't bullied at some point as a child? If you made it your entire childhood without ever getting intimidated or picked on by someone, you are the oddity not the norm.
It's good fer ya in the long run. :P
Eryx_UK |
In my mind whatever character concept you come up with it must viable mechanically. Not meaning over optimized but it must be a functioning member of your adventuring party.
Saying that, I personally, always come up with a game world concept as opposed to a mechanical concept first and then try to make the character around that.
Lucas Yew |
Yeah, the CR system is like a big lie for humanoids with only PC class levels, especially the higher leveled ones.
Even at gunpoint I'd refuse to say that a 20th level fighter is more threatening than a 20th level wizard, assuming that both following the PC WBL and similar optimization levels.
Equal level means similar performance? Hahaha, NO.
Turelus |
Generally I GM more than I play so my NPC's tend to be combat stats for encounters with some personality bolted on.
When I do play I tend to think of a concept I want to play, then look at what I can do to make that work.
My last PFRPG character was an Evil Human Bones Oracle for Way of the Wicked.
I chose the curse which makes it so your body is wasting away and made some flavour changes (with approval of the GM) that his body was being corrupted with undeath because of a failed deal with a devil.
Then I just looked at what I needed to do with that character to reflect that in RP and gameplay as well as help my party in encounters.
I drew RP inspiration from Dr Doom (Fantastic Four) and Makoto Shishio (Rurouni Kenshin).
Previous to that my old 3.5 character was a Tiefling Swashbuckler of Tymora who was going to take the luck prestige class (I forget the name now).
I focused on luck feats, acrobatics and profession sailor to represent he grew up on the docks and worked on ships.
My general plan is find something I am interested in playing, or a concept which I would like to try then build something which reflects that and work as well as I can within the rules to make a string min/max character but staying true to concept.
I personally have a pet peeve for character design where someone builds only a mechanic then bolts on personality. From my experience as it leaves a weaker roleplay experience for that character as you try to rationalise mechanical choices or just ignore them.
That said as always with RP games it's each to their own, just because I don't like how something's doesn't mean others can't do it and have fun.
Rub-Eta |
Games that create power disparities between things where they clearly favor certain stylistic choices. Such as a game where, hypothetically, you have to spend significantly more resources - let's call them feats - and effort - let's call them actions - merely to reach the same functionality your friend enjoys for free using a bow, for you to be able to use a crossbow on your rogue instead of a shortbow.
I'm in the market for something like this. Can you point me in the right direction?
In a poorly-designed game, there are some builds that are more mechanically powerful than others.
In a well-designed game, the gap is never there in the first place. You can still build whatever awesome idea you want, but instead of "I don't really care about if they're good mechanic-wise" there just isn't a question about it in the first place.
Yes. And no. This is but one game design philosophy. Another one is that poorly-designed games are games where choices doesn't matter (or doesn't actually exist, even if it's presented as such). Example: Should the choice of weapon matter? If a crossbow and a bow are the same, it doesn't matter which one you choose (and then it's not really a choice at all). If they're not the same, it suddenly does matter which one you choose. But that doesn't mean that a bow should be "better" than a crossbow (or vise versa), which would imply a poor design as well.
Being able to make any decision without risking to pick a sub-par option does not alone avoid poor game design and is not necessarily at all, in it self, not poor game design.EDIT: Please keep in mind that I'm not saying that these two different design approaches are black and white or that you can't mix them. Just that some aspects of them are contradicting. Such is the complexity of game design.
Bluenose |
If your flavour choices are about looking a particular way then you can usually manage that pretty well. It's when the aesthetics of your flavour choices require performing a particular way that the gameplay becomes important, and where there's often a large number of hoops to jump through to get something that's even an approximate match to the flavour concept. This is frankly something that's most obvious with people who have got their concepts of 'fantasy' from something other than D&D, which has become steadily worse at providing anything other than 'D&D-Flavour-Fantasy' without apparently wanting to notice how different that is from other conceptions - even other versions of itself.
Ashiel wrote:Games that create power disparities between things where they clearly favor certain stylistic choices. Such as a game where, hypothetically, you have to spend significantly more resources - let's call them feats - and effort - let's call them actions - merely to reach the same functionality your friend enjoys for free using a bow, for you to be able to use a crossbow on your rogue instead of a shortbow.I'm in the market for something like this. Can you point me in the right direction?
Anything from GURPS through Runequest or Fate to Heroquest could provide what you're looking for. They've taken a look at what capabilities a certain amount of investment of XP gets you, and made sure it's not easy to get a very large impact in the game from a small investment compared to other choices.
Jiggy wrote:In a poorly-designed game, there are some builds that are more mechanically powerful than others.
In a well-designed game, the gap is never there in the first place. You can still build whatever awesome idea you want, but instead of "I don't really care about if they're good mechanic-wise" there just isn't a question about it in the first place.
Yes. And no. This is but one game design philosophy. Another one is that poorly-designed games are games where choices doesn't matter (or doesn't actually exist, even if it's presented as such). Example: Should the choice of weapon matter? If a crossbow and a bow are the same, it doesn't matter which one you choose (and then it's not really a choice at all). If they're not the same, it suddenly does matter which one you choose. But that doesn't mean that a bow should be "better" than a crossbow (or vise versa), which would imply a poor design as well.
Being able to make any decision without risking to pick a sub-par option does not alone avoid poor game design and is not necessarily at all, in it self, not poor game design.
If the game models detailed interactions and a high amount of process simulation - how you achieve the result matters - then making the choice of bow or crossbow irrelevant would be poor design (unless, I suppose, you believe that they're not that different). If the game isn't modelling things in that way then the difference between a bowman and an arbalesteer isn't necessarily relevant and can be a purely aesthetic choice.
Rub-Eta |
Rub-Eta wrote:Another choice, in Pathfinder, that matters a lot is race: A Kobold will never be the same as a Human. And I wouldn't call that poorly designed.Poor example since Kobold in PF is poorly designed....
You think so? If that's the case, I guess you're referring to the fact that it's a sub-par option?
Klara Meison |
Klara Meison wrote:Flavor vs Gameplay? They aren't mutually opposed. It's like saying "How do you balance the color of the car with it's structural integrity". It is silly-you can have any car you buy painted red, and you can paint your favourite car whatever crazy color your ill imagination can dream up.I decided to look at this thread because I saw Klara posted in it. I am not disappointed unhappy with that decision. :P
Milo v3 |
You think so? If that's the case, I guess you're referring to the fact that it's a sub-par option?
That's a colossal understatement + it has no "interesting" features mechanically to redeem it (even 3.5e developer's realized this). I mean, you can play a character without limbs, it playing differently to a human doesn't mean it's worth pretending and presenting as if it's a real character option.
I mean god, look at it in the Race building rules (which were designed in such a way to reduce the obvious unbalance between races), even in that it shows how pathetic the race is.
... and I say this as someone who's favourite race in RPG's is kobold.
Rub-Eta |
I see what you mean. But I don't think that they should refrain from presenting different degrees as playable options (not necessarily what you are saying). But let me rephrase my example: Most races are sub-par compared to Humans (I picked Kobold just to emphasis that). Offering this variety is not poor game design within it self.
Milo v3 |
I see what you mean. But I don't think that they should refrain from presenting different degrees as playable options (not necessarily what you are saying). But let me rephrase my example: Most races are sub-par compared to Humans (I picked Kobold just to emphasis that). Offering this variety is not poor game design within it self.
Except that the CR rules don't change if you have a whole kobold party or a whole kobold fighters compared a party of human wizards (though thankfully bestiary 1 did acknowledge kobolds as being weaker than other races and have 1/4 CR rather than 1 CR, meaning paizo basically thinks they are about -2 CR than the average race).
The game pretends that many options are equal in regards to balance and then has rules for writing encounters and making NPC's, but they are innately broken because of how ridiculously varied the character options are in regard to balance.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that several folks are under the impression that for options to be different (and for the choice between them to be meaningful), one must be better than the other.
This is false.
Things can be different (and I mean meaningfully different) without one being clearly better than the other. The key to making that non-hierarchical difference happen is by giving each option a benefit that isn't measured in the same way as the other option's benefits.
For example, in Pathfinder, the only thing your weapon does is spew out HP damage. Therefore, when comparing a bow and crossbow in Pathfinder, the only metric we have for that comparison is "How much damage?". And since Pathfinder relies on the full-attack paradigm for damage output, the crossbow (with its reloading actions) scores lower on the only metric that Pathfinder gives it.
By standardizing the effect of all weapons to be damage and nothing else, the choice of which weapon to use actually ceases to be a "meaningful choice", being instead reduced to a calculation: whatever results in the highest damage output is the winner.
Poorly-executed asymmetry actually reduced "choice" (at least, meaningful choice).
But what if different types of weapons had things going for them other than pure HP depletion? What if two-handed weapons dealt a little more damage but lighter weapons were easier to parry with and thus boosted your defenses? What if the longbow dealt more damage per hit but the crossbow had some kind of armor penetration or was better for sniping? Now the options are asymmetrical, but since they're not simply different values on the same metric, it's not so easy to say that one is "better" or "worse" than the other. (Of course, this requires the rest of your game to be built in such a way that these different abilities can be relevant. If offense is better than defense, then the melee example above falls apart; if the system doesn't support sniping as a viable tactic, then the ability to do it well isn't a benefit. Then we're right back to "one is better than the other", but we're also right back to bad game design.)
Balanced asymmetry requires options that can't be measured with the same ruler. It requires that you think of "difference" and "choice" in terms other than simply one thing having better numbers than another thing. If you think asymmetry requires imbalance, then your thinking is still stuck in that box.
Rub-Eta |
I agree with you, Jiggy. I just had a problem with the general statement "In a poorly-designed game, there are some builds that are more mechanically powerful than others."
It implied too much that isn't universally true about good/bad game design.
The game pretends that many options are equal in regards to balance and then has rules for writing encounters and making NPC's, but they are innately broken because of how ridiculously varied the character options are in regard to balance.
You're definitely right that two very different options (such as Human vs Koblod) shouldn't be presented as equal in power.
Lemmy Z |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one expects perfect balance... Just good balance. Which is a far cry from Pathfinder's current situation, where you have to split classes in tiers just to have a semblance of balance and some character options are (sometimes intentionally) objectively worse than similar options, despite having the same function and requiring just as much (or greater) investment of resources and effort.
Ashiel |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you, Jiggy. I just had a problem with the general statement "In a poorly-designed game, there are some builds that are more mechanically powerful than others."
It implied too much that isn't universally true about good/bad game design.
When two options are presented as being viable and only one of those options is, then that is bad game design. People complain about people sticking with "standardized builds" but then moan and groan if someone thinks that there's a problem with representation of other paths.
Let's look at a simple stylistic choice. Bow vs Crossbow. It takes about 3 feats just to get a crossbow to merely compete with a bow that a player has put no investment in at all. With the same number of feats, the player could be exceedingly good at ranged combat with a bow.
If this is how the game is set up, nobody has any right to complain that people are only using bows. No right at all. Now rinse and repeat for many, many other choices throughout the game. Some investments in Pathfinder actually make you worse than before you invested in them.
As Jiggy pointed out, Pathfinder's only difference between weapon A and weapon B is damage disparity (a horrible way to distinguish one from the other). However, each weapon could have been made equal but different, with their own specific styles that changed the way you play the game with each other.
While bows tend to do best by rapidly firing to maximize damage, crossbows could have been made to deliver heavy damage packages in single shots. Thus right up through high levels, the stylistic differences between each could have been emphasized and a specialist would play very differently from another specialist.
This is how the RPG I'm making works in regards to things like bows, crossbows, and firearms. Each has a certain playstyle that it caters to. Weapons like bows get lots of mileage out of pushing out lots of attacks quickly. X-Bows and Flintlocks reload slowly and making multiple attacks / round isn't really an option, so rather they deliver their payloads in one lump sum (using a special action available to all characters). This makes the latter worse at striking multiple enemies quickly but very good at doing things like punching through DR.
In the case of flintlocks which are impractical to reload in the middle of combat (taking multiple rounds to do so), you're encouraged to carry multiple cheap nonmagical ones that you just switch between (similar to how pirates would carry multiple pistols and drop & draw) while making one big attack per round. Since said big attacks punch through DR quite readily, you have less need to keep them leveled to the max.
In that, they are equal but different. Or at least equal enough that you're not going to be a horrible handicap for your team because you decided you wanted to be a crossbow sniper, or a pirate than alternates between fighting with his sword in one hand and taking shots with a pistol in the other.
Firewarrior44 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's how i feel. The game DOES NOT REWARD YOU for playing a "flavorful" or "interesting" character.
There is basically 0 mechanical incentive to do so. So while narratively it would make sense that your character would use a crossbow because of his ethnicity (or whatever factor) it does not make sense mechanically. As one of those things has a definitive tangible impact on the game and how it play you are probably more likely to pick a longbow if your going archer regardless of your character's backstory or whatever (more often than not the backstory is crafted around the mechanics just for this purpose).
Lemmy Z |
Well... There's a way to make sure weapons are varied and balanced...
It's a pretty good solution, if I may say so. ;)
Klara Meison |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rub-Eta wrote:I agree with you, Jiggy. I just had a problem with the general statement "In a poorly-designed game, there are some builds that are more mechanically powerful than others."
It implied too much that isn't universally true about good/bad game design.When two options are presented as being viable and only one of those options is, then that is bad game design. People complain about people sticking with "standardized builds" but then moan and groan if someone thinks that there's a problem with representation of other paths.
Let's look at a simple stylistic choice. Bow vs Crossbow. It takes about 3 feats just to get a crossbow to merely compete with a bow that a player has put no investment in at all. With the same number of feats, the player could be exceedingly good at ranged combat with a bow.
If this is how the game is set up, nobody has any right to complain that people are only using bows. No right at all. Now rinse and repeat for many, many other choices throughout the game. Some investments in Pathfinder actually make you worse than before you invested in them.
As Jiggy pointed out, Pathfinder's only difference between weapon A and weapon B is damage disparity (a horrible way to distinguish one from the other). However, each weapon could have been made equal but different, with their own specific styles that changed the way you play the game with each other.
While bows tend to do best by rapidly firing to maximize damage, crossbows could have been made to deliver heavy damage packages in single shots. Thus right up through high levels, the stylistic differences between each could have been emphasized and a specialist would play very differently from another specialist.
This is how the RPG I'm making works in regards to things like bows, crossbows, and firearms. Each has a certain playstyle that it caters to. Weapons like bows get lots of mileage out of pushing out lots of attacks quickly. X-Bows and Flintlocks reload slowly and making multiple...
I would also like to point out that there are no hard rules concerning how your weapon has to look, sound or feel like. So, hypothetically, if you had weapon proficiency(bow), carried a bow, and used your weapon mechanically as a bow, you aren't actually in any way obligated to fluff it as a bow. You could, hypothetically, say that it's an enormous self-reloading sniper crossbow. Or a sentient alien biogun that literally spews arrows. As long as your fluff fits the mechanical properties of "longbow"(range, weapon damage, type of ammunition, etc) in CRB, you wouldn't be violating any rules that I know of.
This is what I meant by "you can paint your favourite car in whatever crazy way you would like".
Captain Battletoad |
That's how i feel. The game DOES NOT REWARD YOU for playing a "flavorful" or "interesting" character.
There is basically 0 mechanical incentive to do so. So while narratively it would make sense that your character would use a crossbow because of his ethnicity (or whatever factor) it does not make sense mechanically. As one of those things has a definitive tangible impact on the game and how it play you are probably more likely to pick a longbow if your going archer regardless of your character's backstory or whatever (more often than not the backstory is crafted around the mechanics just for this purpose).
While that's definitely the case for people who mostly derive their enjoyment from min-maxing (not saying it's bad since I love to do it, just talking specifically about the sub-set of people who primarily enjoy that), it's not a property inherent to the game. Pathfinder is not (for the most part) a competition. Because it's not a competition, there's no major driving requirement that you do the utmost damage/CC/whatever possible with your character unless that's just what you desire. If you're content with doing a bit less damage with X weapon or spell because you reeeeeally like the thought of your character using X weapon or spell, then the game very much is rewarding you by having that option that you want available.
Milo v3 |
Because it's not a competition, there's no major driving requirement that you do the utmost damage/CC/whatever possible with your character unless that's just what you desire.
Actually it is because of the NPC rules. Fighting humanoids with class levels isn't exactly an uncommon thing in this game.
Ashiel |
Captain Battletoad wrote:Because it's not a competition, there's no major driving requirement that you do the utmost damage/CC/whatever possible with your character unless that's just what you desire.Actually it is because of the NPC rules. Fighting humanoids with class levels isn't exactly an uncommon thing in this game.
Or Monsters with class levels. Like mummy lords who are also clerics. Or rakshasa who cast as sorcerers. Or hobgoblins who are fighters. Or liches and vampires who are actually NPCs with class levels with some modifications.
HyperMissingno |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firewarrior44 wrote:While that's definitely the case for people who mostly derive their enjoyment from min-maxing (not saying it's bad since I love to do it, just talking specifically about the sub-set of people who primarily enjoy that), it's not a property inherent to the game. Pathfinder is not (for the most part) a competition. Because it's not a competition, there's no major driving requirement that you do the utmost damage/CC/whatever possible with your character unless that's just what you desire. If you're content with doing a bit less damage with X weapon or spell because you reeeeeally like the thought of your character using X weapon or spell, then the game very much is rewarding you by having that option that you want available.That's how i feel. The game DOES NOT REWARD YOU for playing a "flavorful" or "interesting" character.
There is basically 0 mechanical incentive to do so. So while narratively it would make sense that your character would use a crossbow because of his ethnicity (or whatever factor) it does not make sense mechanically. As one of those things has a definitive tangible impact on the game and how it play you are probably more likely to pick a longbow if your going archer regardless of your character's backstory or whatever (more often than not the backstory is crafted around the mechanics just for this purpose).
It might not be a competition but it is a team game, and if you build poorly enough you can be harmful to the team when you waste your teammate's resources.
Ashiel |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Captain Battletoad wrote:It might not be a competition but it is a team game, and if you build poorly enough you can be harmful to the team when you waste your teammate's resources.Firewarrior44 wrote:While that's definitely the case for people who mostly derive their enjoyment from min-maxing (not saying it's bad since I love to do it, just talking specifically about the sub-set of people who primarily enjoy that), it's not a property inherent to the game. Pathfinder is not (for the most part) a competition. Because it's not a competition, there's no major driving requirement that you do the utmost damage/CC/whatever possible with your character unless that's just what you desire. If you're content with doing a bit less damage with X weapon or spell because you reeeeeally like the thought of your character using X weapon or spell, then the game very much is rewarding you by having that option that you want available.That's how i feel. The game DOES NOT REWARD YOU for playing a "flavorful" or "interesting" character.
There is basically 0 mechanical incentive to do so. So while narratively it would make sense that your character would use a crossbow because of his ethnicity (or whatever factor) it does not make sense mechanically. As one of those things has a definitive tangible impact on the game and how it play you are probably more likely to pick a longbow if your going archer regardless of your character's backstory or whatever (more often than not the backstory is crafted around the mechanics just for this purpose).
Lemme tell you, those diamonds that are needed for raise dead and restoration don't grow on trees. :P
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Firewarrior44 wrote:While that's definitely the case for people who mostly derive their enjoyment from min-maxing (not saying it's bad since I love to do it, just talking specifically about the sub-set of people who primarily enjoy that), it's not a property inherent to the game. Pathfinder is not (for the most part) a competition. Because it's not a competition, there's no major driving requirement that you do the utmost damage/CC/whatever possible with your character unless that's just what you desire. If you're content with doing a bit less damage with X weapon or spell because you reeeeeally like the thought of your character using X weapon or spell, then the game very much is rewarding you by having that option that you want available.That's how i feel. The game DOES NOT REWARD YOU for playing a "flavorful" or "interesting" character.
There is basically 0 mechanical incentive to do so. So while narratively it would make sense that your character would use a crossbow because of his ethnicity (or whatever factor) it does not make sense mechanically. As one of those things has a definitive tangible impact on the game and how it play you are probably more likely to pick a longbow if your going archer regardless of your character's backstory or whatever (more often than not the backstory is crafted around the mechanics just for this purpose).
I think you misunderstand what's meant by "the game rewards you for X".
In the context of game design, to say that a game "rewards" (alternatively, "incentivizes") a given action or choice means that the game provides the player some sort of benefit for having chosen that option over some other option. Rewards/incentives refer to some sort of positive mechanical repercussion (not simply your own pre-existing preferences) by which the game tempts you to choose one option over another.
Simply allowing you to do X in the first place isn't "rewarding" X in the manner being discussed here.
Buri Reborn |
When two options are presented as being viable and only one of those options is, then that is bad game design.
In what context? Surely, you don't mean to imply that all feats and options should be useful in all circumstances, do you? Otherwise, this comes down to a scenario by scenario breakdown of what a class can do which is a tiers debate.
Snowblind |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel wrote:When two options are presented as being viable and only one of those options is, then that is bad game design.In what context? Surely, you don't mean to imply that all feats and options should be useful in all circumstances, do you? Otherwise, this comes down to a scenario by scenario breakdown of what a class can do which is a tiers debate.
How about we start with "any non-trivial context where the option is implied to be competitive with other competing options", and work our way up from there?
Ashiel |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel wrote:When two options are presented as being viable and only one of those options is, then that is bad game design.In what context? Surely, you don't mean to imply that all feats and options should be useful in all circumstances, do you? Otherwise, this comes down to a scenario by scenario breakdown of what a class can do which is a tiers debate.
Far from it Buri. If you read the rest of that post you'll actually note that every example I've given has been having pros and cons in certain areas.
For example, if crossbows were better at delivering large damage payloads but worse at making multiple attacks than bows, they would be better in cases when dealing with DR or when combining with 1-attack kicker effects, but they would be quite poor at dealing with multiple foes, delivering one-hit effects, or maximizing bonus static damage.
All examples of how two things could both be viable choices but function differently and have different strengths and weaknesses (which means one or the other would be the superior choice in different situations).
However as is, bow is simply the superior ranged weapon. Hursk the iconic dwarf ranger has neutered himself for using a crossbow, even though it is flavorful. You have to invest many resources into just getting it comparable to a bow, and while a bow user could have invested those same resources into being better with their bow (furthering the divide) or rounded themselves out with additional goodies (such as making themselves better at skills or improving their saves).
Notice that Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, and Ranger are all viable. They likewise have different strengths and weaknesses that make them better in their own specific dominion but not totally useless when out of their element.
HyperMissingno |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, a crossbow is a simple weapon while a bow is a marital weapon. I'd expect the martial weapon to be better.
That said doesn't excuse the gap between bows and throwing weapons though since there are martial throwing weapons here and there. And don't get me started on the exotic weapons and how 90% of them are worse than a lot of martial weapons.
Buri Reborn |
I think Paizo has acknowledged the bow vs. crossbow thing. However, they didn't simply address it with even more feats, as is often groaned about. That's why the bolt ace even exists. I would say its alternate being the arcane archer even though one is an archetype and the other is a PrC.
For Harsk, that the ranger gets free feats explicitly for ranged weapons alleviates some feat pressure. Are they "for" crossbows, per se? Crossbow mastery is and iirc all its prerequisites are part of the ranger bonus feat selections for archery even though they don't need to take them. So, I don't really think Harsk has gimped himself all that much.
Do I think it'd be cool if what you were talking about were in the game? Sure. I don't think there's a detrimental effect with respect to flavor and gameplay, though.
The system tends to be quite friendly when you use its built-in mechanisms to do what you want. When you ignore them and still try to get the exact same mechanical advantages is where pain starts. In which case, why not stick to the system provided happy path and flavor to your heart's content?
If it's a beef with "highly optimized bow user" is better than "highly optimized crossbow user" then I would wager that makes sense. Crossbows are hella slow to load no matter your strength and prowess. Crossbow mastery puts it back on equal ground, though. Which, with heavy crossbows having more damage and increased crit range, they can actually come out on top.
If you're unhappy that all it comes down to is damage output, then what you're proposing doesn't really change anything. That one can bypass a certain amount of DR or whatever, doesn't change the fact you're simply dealing more damage. It would actually quazi-force your players to use one over another and spend even more resources being effective at both depending on the situation. This is true if there's ever a moment during an encounter where your bow wielding PC isn't getting enough damage in and you're thinking as the GM "you should have taken advantage of my special crossbow mechanics."
Another Ashiel Cultist |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While that's definitely the case for people who mostly derive their enjoyment from min-maxing (not saying it's bad since I love to do it, just talking specifically about the sub-set of people who primarily enjoy that), it's not a property inherent to the game. Pathfinder is not (for the most part) a competition. Because it's not a competition, there's no major driving requirement that you do the utmost damage/CC/whatever possible with your character unless that's just what you desire. If you're content with doing a bit less damage with X weapon or spell because you reeeeeally like the thought of your character using X weapon or spell, then the game very much is rewarding you by having that option that you want available.
Here, let me make it really simple for thee: read this Post, and allow its glorious wisdom to seep into thine mortal mind. If'n thou doth still object to the notion that relative power betwixt Pathfinder characters ith significant, please respondeth further in light of the knowledge thou hast gained.
HyperMissingno |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, you're wrong about your post up there, sorry.
I can post game design articles when I am not on my phone, but I would like you to come up with an example of something meaningfully different and exact equal power. To my knowledge this does not exist in any asymmetric game.
Starcraft has been mentioned multiple times, you might wanna read the thread carefully.
Newly Converted Ashiel Cultist |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Captain Battletoad wrote:Here, let me make it really simple for thee: read this Post, and allow its glorious wisdom to seep into thine mortal mind. If'n thou doth still object to the notion that relative power betwixt Pathfinder characters ith significant, please respondeth further in light of the knowledge thou hast gained.
While that's definitely the case for people who mostly derive their enjoyment from min-maxing (not saying it's bad since I love to do it, just talking specifically about the sub-set of people who primarily enjoy that), it's not a property inherent to the game. Pathfinder is not (for the most part) a competition. Because it's not a competition, there's no major driving requirement that you do the utmost damage/CC/whatever possible with your character unless that's just what you desire. If you're content with doing a bit less damage with X weapon or spell because you reeeeeally like the thought of your character using X weapon or spell, then the game very much is rewarding you by having that option that you want available.
Amen.
Klara Meison |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo has acknowledged the bow vs. crossbow thing. However, they didn't simply address it with even more feats, as is often groaned about. That's why the bolt ace even exists. I would say its alternate being the arcane archer even though one is an archetype and the other is a PrC.
For Harsk, that the ranger gets free feats explicitly for ranged weapons alleviates some feat pressure. Are they "for" crossbows, per se? Crossbow mastery is and iirc all its prerequisites are part of the ranger bonus feat selections for archery even though they don't need to take them. So, I don't really think Harsk has gimped himself all that much.
Do I think it'd be cool if what you were talking about were in the game? Sure. I don't think there's a detrimental effect with respect to flavor and gameplay, though.
The system tends to be quite friendly when you use its built-in mechanisms to do what you want. When you ignore them and still try to get the exact same mechanical advantages is where pain starts. In which case, why not stick to the system provided happy path and flavor to your heart's content?
If it's a beef with "highly optimized bow user" is better than "highly optimized crossbow user" then I would wager that makes sense. Crossbows are hella slow to load no matter your strength and prowess. Crossbow mastery puts it back on equal ground, though. Which, with heavy crossbows having more damage and increased crit range, they can actually come out on top.
If you're unhappy that all it comes down to is damage output, then what you're proposing doesn't really change anything. That one can bypass a certain amount of DR or whatever, doesn't change the fact you're simply dealing more damage. It would actually quazi-force your players to use one over another and spend even more resources being effective at both depending on the situation. This is true if there's ever a moment during an encounter where your bow wielding PC isn't getting enough damage in and you're thinking as the GM "you should have taken...
>If it's a beef with "highly optimized bow user" is better than "highly optimized crossbow user" then I would wager that makes sense. Crossbows are hella slow to load no matter your strength and prowess. Crossbow mastery puts it back on equal ground, though. Which, with heavy crossbows having more damage and increased crit range, they can actually come out on top.
Problem is, people are actually pretty bad at guessing what "makes sense" in terms of weapons and combat. For example, in real life, real combat units use a variety of weapons. They use assault rifles, shotguns, sniper rifles, pistols, grenade launchers and so on. That is because all those weapons are useful in different circumstances that could suddenly come up in real combat, and you really don't want to be stuck without effective weapons IRL(makes you die faster).
Now, those weapons obviously aren't useful in every circumstance. You can't shoot a pistol from 200m. You aren't going to break a door and storm a house with a sniper rifle in hands. Shotgun is worse in close quarters compared to a pistol.
However, they are all viable options. A good commander, noticing that one of his soldiers is really good with a rifle, isn't going to give him a grenade launcher for no reason. Instead, he will attempt to use the talents of this particular soldier by giving him a goddamn rifle. Obviously there is some viggle room, but this principle holds up in general.
"What in the name of grandfather Nurgle are you going on about, Klara? Get to the point."
Point is that in real life weapons have strengths and weaknesses which make most of them viable choices in combat without making one choice strictly better than the other. This means that if you were playing a pen and paper RPG set in a modern army(vietnam war or whatever), your players could make characters who use completely different weapons, and those character concepts would actually be viable (I am assuming here that this hypothetical pen and paper RPG properly simulates combat).
On the other hand, if you are playing pathfinder and are trying to make an army, you are not going to make dedicated crossbowmen regiments. You really aren't. Because they are just worse than bows. At best you are going to give your frontline troops pre-loaded crossbows that they would fire once on the charging army, drop, and draw their melee weapons. This ultimately limits possible character concepts-if your character is the best marksman out there who knows everything about ranged weaponry, why is he using a crossbow? He would know bows are better, would he not?
But turns out-crossbows were used along with bows for quite a while, so what's up with that? Well, as it just so happens, crossbows are better at dealing a lot of damage up close, while bows fire further. Bam. Impossible to replace one with another. And your master marksman doesn't have to be an idiot to use a crossbow instead of a bow.
Klara Meison |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, in terms of RPG design, I would prefer if mechanics supported a variety of playstyles while letting you fluff things in any way you want. You could have different "weapon groups" with different properties, like:
"Bows": lots of range, low damage, low armor penetration
"Crossbows": Medium-close range, medium-high damage(higher the closer you are), medium armor penetration
"Guns": medium range, medium damage, high AP(say, ignores up to 5 points or DR)
Which you could then fluff like whatever, to support the maximum number of concepts(e.g. a bow could be a part of any of these weapon groups). This would make for some interesting unbalanced balanced design if you do it right.
Pathfinder doesn't really do that. Crossbows aren't meaningfully different from bows, and they are strictly worse in some ways. Which means that in pathfinder, choosing your main ranged weapon isn't a choice, it is a calculation. And that calculation says "Pick a bow if you have proficiency, crossbow if you don't and need a sidearm."
Rub-Eta |
When two options are presented as being viable and only one of those options is, then that is bad game design.
Actually, no. The presentation has little to do with game design (I really have to differentiate between these two). If both options are "supposed" to be viable but only one of them is, that is bad game design.
(Insert weak race other than Kobold here) are not "supposed" to be equal to humans.But crossbows aren't necessarily "supposed" to be this bad, compared to regular bows.
Bandw2 |
Another choice, in Pathfinder, that matters a lot is race: A Kobold will never be the same as a Human.
I'll prove you wrong, you'll see. ;-;
covers up like the 3 kobold 3pp books I have
though, onto seriousness, the Warhammer 40k game does some good stuff with this. Specifically it's a system where you buy abilities directly with XP. So the lesser race Human starts play with many more XPs than the greater race, Space Marines.
The idea was, that for someone to be human and gain the fame or power to be recognized on the same level as a space marine(read Player character), they must have experienced a lot of stuff and gained many valuable skills.
Milo v3 |
(Insert weak race other than Kobold here) are not "supposed" to be equal to humans.
What makes you think this? I can see the thinking behind weapons not supposed to be equal, but weak races I'm not sure where the assumption comes from (some races do, like Drow and Noble Drow being good examples, but I don't know why weak races would).
SheepishEidolon |
When you build a character, be a PC or NPC, how do you balance gameplay and flavor?
When it comes to NPCs, it depends on their role. If they are supposed to be battled, I will usually build them with a certain theme in mind. Meet the tripping eidolon, the barbarian with natural attacks or the mage with damage on hit spells. I try to make sure the theme makes sense in the situation, but primarily I want to challenge my players with a certain aspect of the game. So the trip will be effective, the natural attacks will hit hard and the spells will be mean.
If they are supposed to be RP characters, I don't build them at all. Luckily my group is reasonable enough to not attack everything on sight, so I don't need stats for everything. Three, maybe four RP properties are enough to sketch a NPC players talk with, more can be added if the need arises.
When I design a new PC, I honestly emphasize power till I am confident he will do well within the group. I don't need to be the star of the show and I know mediocre PCs can do very well with some creativity. But since GMs are humans too, I don't want to completely rely on their fairness and ability to judge.
Once the PC is strong enough, I happily explore unusual options and add flavor I personally like.
Bandw2 |
Ashiel wrote:When two options are presented as being viable and only one of those options is, then that is bad game design.Actually, no. The presentation has little to do with game design (I really have to differentiate between these two). If both options are "supposed" to be viable but only one of them is, that is bad game design.
(Insert weak race other than Kobold here) are not "supposed" to be equal to humans.
But crossbows aren't necessarily "supposed" to be this bad, compared to regular bows.
I disagree, it leads to traps, Like the game says here's the rogue class, so if you want to be effective at rogury, pick this class. Meanwhile, it's not, the best rogue classes are Fighter(the combat rogue), Investigator(the non-combat rogue), Slayer(the assassin), The Ranger(the scout), heck the ninja also is up there.
being designed poorly has little to do with the designer's intent, both the de facto and de jure designs can both end up being poor. That is the actual game system and the game system the designer intended to create can both be poorly designed.
CWheezy |
CWheezy wrote:Starcraft has been mentioned multiple times, you might wanna read the thread carefully.Jiggy, you're wrong about your post up there, sorry.
I can post game design articles when I am not on my phone, but I would like you to come up with an example of something meaningfully different and exact equal power. To my knowledge this does not exist in any asymmetric game.
Wow sc is balanced perfectly????
That's a pretty bold claim let's Google search it. Wow great, they used map design to help out race imbalance.There won't be a result found for an asymmetric game btw, because by definition there cannot be perfect balance and asymmetry.