|
Yeah Bryon, I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are bringing flawed arguments to the table. The extra versatility is just that, an opportunity to do something more useful. You can spend a great deal of time finding feat equivalencies and trying to find a way to balance things that way, but the feat system is not the balance mechanic of the game as a whole, there are far too many other metrics.
Additional set spell choices become less valuable over time, nearly to the point of irrelevancy. Hit points and skill points work on a different metric entirely and maintain a higher level of usefulness. Comparing them using a third system (feat equivalencies) not only does not work very well, but leads you down some odd paths (not to mention the fact that there is no feat that grants skill ranks, just bonuses, which are two very different things).
All of that said... these options were designed to give a special bonus if your combinations added up right. That could certainly be considered power creep, but if it is, it is of a relatively minor and mostly inoffensive nature. The balor did not suddenly become any less deadly because the sorcerer had more spells to choose from. The odds increase that the sorcerer has the right spell to help defeat the balor, but that is about it. That is a good bump, but lets not take it out of proportion here.
Seeing as I need to get back to my next project, I am considering this particular matter closed for the time being.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Totally agree! I'm not much of a power-gamer or optimizer (although I game with such people); as a player and a GM I applaud versatility and options and I get headache if I try to analyze/compare mechanical stuff on the level I'm seeing on this thread.
I don't belive in "absolute balance" in game design, unless we're talking about rule-light systems in which mechanics are simply tools for narration and story (such as in many indie RPGs). The 4E design team aimed tried it with D&D, and although they managed to do pretty well -- considering their design goals -- they also did some serious errors in their calculations and playtesting. If they hadn't, there wouldn't be hundreds of pages of rule updates and errata; not to mention that in MM 2 they admitted that they had screwed up solo HPs, and recently they announced that *ALL* monster powers and attacks should inflict more damage (please note that this is not a jab at 4E or 4E design team; it's a jab at aiming for "absolute balance" in game math).
Anyway, I'm really liking the stuff shown in this preview, and it looks like APG will add more flavour and options to my games! :)
Is it appropriate to put a fix for a class in a supplemental book?Well, preferably it would be in the core book, but given that the core book is already released, where else would it be placed?
Free errata? This isn't Apple.
LotsYou really need to work on making your point in a more concise fashion, what I see is a wall of text
You, sir, have never really seen a wall of text then.
A benefit that is always present is, in my opinion, better than a benefit that's situationally present. An extra few spells known is nice, but I agree with the above posters, there's a limit to how useful an extra four or five 1st and 2nd level spells known are at 12th+ level.
Indeed there is. But how useful is a couple extra fifth level spells at 12th level?
and recently they announced that *ALL* monster powers and attacks should inflict more damage
If D&D Encounters are any indication, that is because they are dicks, not because monsters were too weak.
Free errata? This isn't Apple.
No, but many groups don't use errata, because it can be such a pain to keep up with. By including it in the APG, there's a printed source to bring to the table, and by including it in a free preview, it's free anyway for anyone who doesn't care to buy the APG.
|
Free errata? This isn't Apple.No, but many groups don't use errata, because it can be such a pain to keep up with. By including it in the APG, there's a printed source to bring to the table, and by including it in a free preview, it's free anyway for anyone who doesn't care to buy the APG.
It's free anyway for everyone, because APG will be 100% open content. I'm not sure if it will be included in the PRD, but we can count on Jreyst to upload everything into fan-made d20pfsrd in a jiffy.
Well, maybe two jiffies. Poor Jreyst :)
Orc ferocity has rarely come up in my campaigns, so the idea of swapping it out for a bite attack has some appeal.
Stonesinger seems cool, but its actual power - and that of several other things we've seen during playtesting, like many of the abilities of the "elemental" oracles - will depend on how many new [element] descriptors we get in the spells section of the APG.
Extra rounds of bardic performance, instead of +1 hp (on a race with a Con bonus) or +1 skill point (on a class with 6+Int skills already)? Yes please!
As I said before, the elven wizard swap looks like a trap to me. Elves, with their Con penalty, and wizards, with that d6 hit die, are in desperate need of the extra hp of the favored class option. Making them give it up in exchange for an ability that does nothing the first time you take it seems harsh; doing so for an ability that is deliberately designed to become obsolete around level 6 seems more like mockery than an actual benefit.
|
As I said before, the elven wizard swap looks like a trap to me. Elves, with their Con penalty, and wizards, with that d6 hit die, are in desperate need of the extra hp of the favored class option. Making them give it up in exchange for an ability that does nothing the first time you take it seems harsh; doing so for an ability that is deliberately designed to become obsolete around level 6 seems more like mockery than an actual benefit.
Wizard: Select one arcane school power at 1st level that is normally usable a number of times per day equal to 3 + the wizard's Intelligence modifier. The wizard adds +1/2 to the number of uses per day of that arcane school power.
Are we SURE this is how this works? I know people have said this is how it works, and others have expressed doubts ...
It may very well turn out to be correct, but up until this point, no one from Paizo has actually confirmed have they?
The way it is worded still sounds wonky, a bit unclear and certainly open to multiple interpretations to me.
Are there ANY other racial traits, alternate or otherwise, that work in "half" steps like this?
The preview itself says "Once an elven wizard takes this power twice, he gains an additional use of that ability." I'm not sure how much more clear it can be...?
Wizard: Select one arcane school power at 1st level that is normally usable a number of times per day equal to 3 + the wizard's Intelligence modifier. The wizard adds +1/2 to the number of uses per day of that arcane school power.Are we SURE this is how this works? I know people have said this is how it works, and others have expressed doubts ...
It may very well turn out to be correct, but up until this point, no one from Paizo has actually confirmed have they?
The way it is worded still sounds wonky, a bit unclear and certainly open to multiple interpretations to me.
Are there ANY other racial traits, alternate or otherwise, that work in "half" steps like this?
I guess you missed this post from page two of the thread that directly addresses this:
On the subject of some of the questions asked:
1. Fractional favored class benefits: Like everything else in Pathfinder, fractions always round down, so any of the fractional favored class elements you have to take enough times to get a whole number before you get any benefit.
2. "One level higher - what does it mean?" It means that abilities that you HAVE function as if you were one level higher. That's it.
It does not mean that you GET any abilities you don't already have.
3. What about everybody else? Dudes, it's a blog post preview. The chapter is like 20+ pages long. Everybody gets some lovin'.
1. Correct.
2. Correct. I cut out a sentence that said just that just to keep the blog post short.
3. Correct.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I guess you missed this post from page two of the thread that directly addresses this:
Hmmm ... yep, I did indeed miss that ...
The preview itself says "Once an elven wizard takes this power twice, he gains an additional use of that ability." I'm not sure how much more clear it can be...?
Hmmm again ...
Was the "Once an elven wizard takes this power twice, he gains an additional use of that ability." always there or was it added for clarification later? Regardless, I obviously missed it as well.
So, looks like it was clarified after all.
Not sure how I feel about the "fractional favored class" mechanic yet. I'll be curious to see if there are more in the APG or if this is the only one like that.
Anyway, thanks for the clarifications!
A benefit that is always present is, in my opinion, better than a benefit that's situationally present. An extra few spells known is nice, but I agree with the above posters, there's a limit to how useful an extra four or five 1st and 2nd level spells known are at 12th+ level.Indeed there is. But how useful is a couple extra fifth level spells at 12th level?
A couple of extra 5th level spells at 12th level would be extremely useful. However, this feat doesn't allow you to have a couple of extra 5th level spells at 12th level.
What it would let you do is get 1 (one) extra 5th level spell at 12th level. You could also get another one at 13th level. However, again, it's not additional magic per day, it's spells known. And, again, there is nothing to compare it to for other racial packages (elf/wizard or halfling/sorcerer for example). So, while useful, it's not a game breaker, and it's far more useful than the feat 3.5 had (which NOBODY took because it was just too expensive).
What it would let you do is get 1 (one) extra 5th level spell at 12th level. You could also get another one at 13th level. However, again, it's not additional magic per day, it's spells known.
Indeed it is. But when your spells known are permanently limited, a couple extra spells of X level means you don't have to choose between Spell 1 and Spell 2.
Free errata? This isn't Apple.Is it appropriate to put a fix for a class in a supplemental book?Well, preferably it would be in the core book, but given that the core book is already released, where else would it be placed?
Free errata?/Rules modification?
...Like, say, a change to the mechanics of Paladin Smite?I definitely sympathize with Dennis` point here. `Fixing` a problem in a supplementary product means those playing without that product are at a disadvantage... Beyond the sorceror, it seemed pretty clear from Paizo`s feedback that they considered Barbarian Rage Powers to not be quite done (or, ideally done), and were planning to us the APG to fix that situation. On one hand, I`m glad that the game is getting the attention that it`s creators and fans feel it needs... On the other hand, I`d rather see some of these changes folded into a new printing of the Core Rules and updated for everybody else via PDF/PRD.
Does that mean that conceivably the Elven Wizard can take a special ability from a different school than his chosen one? Say, for example, An Abjurer taking the acid bolt from the Conjurer?
It sounds as if he is not restricted to his current ability.
Uh... no, it´s granting an additional use.
Additional in the sense of more of something you already have.It doesn`t need to specifiy this because it is a modification of a pre-existing ability you got when you chose the class, it would need to say so if it was granting an entirely different ability.
<SNIP>I`d rather see some of these changes folded into a new printing of the Core Rules and updated for everybody else via PDF/PRD. </SNIP>
This.
That alternative is too reminiscent of the 4E paladin/Divine Power fiasco -- that is, fundamental fixes to a class being tucked away in a splat book.
That alternative is too reminiscent of the 4E paladin/Divine Power fiasco -- that is, fundamental fixes to a class being tucked away in a splat book.
Definitely. But I don`t want this to get too carried away.
Obviously alot of people feel it`s just another option somewhat on par with existing ones.I don`t actually think this is a case where such a ¨fix¨ is being implemented in a 2ndary book,
I just hope that Paizo feels similarly if they come across something that they really want to implement as a FIX, and put it in an update to the Core Rules rather than a new product.
|
That alternative is too reminiscent of the 4E paladin/Divine Power fiasco -- that is, fundamental fixes to a class being tucked away in a splat book.Definitely. But I don`t want this to get too carried away.
Obviously alot of people feel it`s just another option somewhat on par with existing ones.
I don`t actually think this is a case where such a ¨fix¨ is being implemented in a 2ndary book,
I just hope that Paizo feels similarly if they come across something that they really want to implement as a FIX, and put it in an update to the Core Rules rather than a new product.
I don't either, my quote was in reply to another poster and was taken a bit out of context. I agree with you and haven't seen any indication from Paizo that this was intended as a fix.
|
I note that most of the comparisons here are "+1HP vs Additional Spell"...do most of you consider +1 HP to be a no brainer over +1 Skill point?
Not a no-brainer, but I'd say the HP option is far more attractive in most cases. However..., I expect the APG to also introduce attractive options for skill use that may make it more compelling to have a wider range of skills available or max out existing skills.
I'm not at all worried about the previewed options. I'm OK with some choices being more attractive, and I'm also not worried about choosing the sub-optimal picks if they make more sense for a character. The game has always been this way, hasn't it?
+1 Spell > (+1 Hp <=> +1 Skill point)
The change to the way skills max out in Pathfinder (if I understand it correctly), makes this ALSO a no brainer.
+1 Spell > (+1 Hp <=> +1 Skill point)
Does it automatically follow, then, that +5 Spell > +5 hp? Or +10 Spell > +10 hp or even +10 Spell > +5 hp +5 Spell?
If you're looking at getting a spell compared to getting a single hit point, then I think you've got a point. The immediate ramifications of picking a new spell will look better than picking up a single hit point. But what about a long term strategy? Or a mixed strategy? Must your line of thought lead to always taking a spell compared to mixing choices?
Bill, I'd say "yes", it's always better. Probably even when it's cantrips. But even if 2nd and 3rd level is a hp or sp, all the rest will probably be spells. That's just silly.
The change to the way skills max out in Pathfinder (if I understand it correctly), makes this ALSO a no brainer.
Not sure what you mean by that Cartigan. You can always use another skill point (unless you're a 70 Int Rogue or 50 Int Bard).
Is 10 spells better than 10 hp? 10 spells better than 5 hp and 5 spells? More than likely since those hp are spread over the same number of levels, which means the power level in spells available to add to your list goes up.
The change to the way skills max out in Pathfinder (if I understand it correctly), makes this ALSO a no brainer.Not sure what you mean by that Cartigan. You can always use another skill point (unless you're a 70 Int Rogue or 50 Int Bard).
But given the scaled down skills list and the change to a max skill rank of level, your need for every single skill point is significantly less than that of 3.5. Where in 3.5, you could maybe max 2 skills at any given level, you can now max 6 in Pathfinder. And that's not even counting the combination of search, spot, & listen and hide & move silently each into single skills.
But given the scaled down skills list and the change to a max skill rank of level, your need for every single skill point is significantly less than that of 3.5. Where in 3.5, you could maybe max 2 skills at any given level, you can now max 6 in Pathfinder. And that's not even counting the combination of search, spot, & listen and hide & move silently each into single skills.
Hmm... I think you might have a slight confusion, but not sure. The skill list is still rather full even after the consolidation, but you're right they don't need to stretch as far (but are also thereby more valuable).
You can have X+Int skills maxed at any time, where X is your number of class skills. Favored class point ups that by 1, not 1 per level or anything. So a 14 Int Human Sorcerer could have 2+2+1 = 5 skills maxed, 6 if he uses his favored class point. Other than the favored class point, this is exactly the same as 3.5 (there was just 3 more skill points in each skill, and no +3 class bonus).
|
|
Does it automatically follow, then, that +5 Spell > +5 hp? Or +10 Spell > +10 hp or even +10 Spell > +5 hp +5 Spell?
You don't get to decide it that way though. A 16th level wizard might be better off with 2 extra hit points than 2 extra 1st level spells but when you are at 4th level making the choice it's better to take the spell and remains the better choice for some time.
|
|
+1 Spell > (+1 Hp <=> +1 Skill point)
The change to the way skills max out in Pathfinder (if I understand it correctly), makes this ALSO a no brainer.
This is a gross oversimplification at best. Blatant trolling at worst.
You fall somewhere in between these two things. Please, get your wits about you.
|
|
I suspect that if they had released a small snippet of the rules for the Core Rulebook, and among them had been the new paladin smite (well pre-errata), and two much weaker class features, but not shown anything else, this same thread would have happened, with smite instead of human sorcerer favored class being the arguing point.
Going back to 3.5 there were obviously certain cleric domains that were superior and others no player would ever take. Not all choices are equal, and we got used to it. If every choice were exactly equal, there would be no such thing as optimization now would there? Where would be the fun it that? :)
/hides the remote control for the power creep panic button
This is really a sinister method of making sorcerers weaker. It convinces them to trade their hard earned HP for the illusion of more power. He still can only cast so many spells per day, and he already has the most powerful spells of each level available. Just say no to the weakening of your sorcerer! Pick extra HP instead of those third rate extra spells you'll never use! Buy a scroll/wand/staff instead! Save the HP poor sorcerer from himself!
Time for everyone to cool down or some of you are going to be sitting in the corner for a while.
Nyoorgh... spurtle ... APG overpowered ! broken ! ... sploortch ... nobody will play Celestial Dire Roper Sorcerers anymore ... shlooop ... Eric Monna's comment ... GOOOP ... unlawful assault on the First Amendment ! ... splooortch ... NERDRAGEEEEE !!!!
Well, I've already preordered one of these at a local bookstore to get them into the store. Time for me to do this one, too.
Hmm... I think you might have a slight confusion, but not sure. The skill list is still rather full even after the consolidation, but you're right they don't need to stretch as far (but are also thereby more valuable).
...what? There are fewer skills, lower max rank, and generally more skill points, but that means skill points are more valuable? I think you are confused.
After reading all the posts, I'm no more so sure that the human/sorcerer favored class option is unbalanced. It's pretty strong, and a wonderful choice for someone who love the sorcerer but has always dreamed of being more versatile. But probably not game-breaking or a troublesome power creep.
|
Hmm... I think you might have a slight confusion, but not sure. The skill list is still rather full even after the consolidation, but you're right they don't need to stretch as far (but are also thereby more valuable)....what? There are fewer skills, lower max rank, and generally more skill points, but that means skill points are more valuable? I think you are confused.
The max rank isn't lower, at least not for class skills. So if you get more out of each point spent, particularly in class skills, wouldn't that make them MORE valuable?
Hello I am after some clarification.
Power Creep - I thought this was splat-book classes being more powerful than the core classes so nobody played core classes any-more, is this correct?
So these new options are available to the core classes - that prevents that form of power creep, is that correct?
The extra spell known is cool, good but its not massive but it is an option. Everybody gets cool stuff - Orc monks with a bite attack and so on.
What drove me away from D&D in the past was the lack of mechanics to allow me bend stuff to my view of the universe. Jason is building that stuff in.
On the release of PRPG people were howling that it wasn't different enough - now that Jason and his team are opening the game up and incrementally evolving the game into something that looks brilliant and what I want my D&D to be I cant be more happy.
At the moment critiquing the APG based on one blog post is like the story about the blind guys trying to work out what an elephant is by touch only.
"When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went to each of them and said to each: 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?"
The men assert the elephant is either like a pot (the blind man who felt the elephants' head), a winnowing basket (ear), a ploughshare (tusk), a plough (trunk), a granary (body), a pillar (foot), a mortar (back), a pestle (tail) or a brush (tip of the tail).
The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king. The Buddha ends the story by compareing the six blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: "Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus." The Buddha then speaks the following verse:
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.[4]
The max rank isn't lower, at least not for class skills. So if you get more out of each point spent, particularly in class skills, wouldn't that make them MORE valuable?
That makes each rank more useful, but less valuable in the sense that you need less ranks to get all the skills you want to have. That said...I've never had enough skill points for all the skills I want to have, so yeah, skill points are worth a lot for me.
On a completely different note, I think I finally figured out why our resident cute druid is so big in the painting.
She's obviously had an 'Enlarge Person' spell cast on her so she can really dish it out to those pesky goblins. :)
|
|
The max rank isn't lower, at least not for class skills. So if you get more out of each point spent, particularly in class skills, wouldn't that make them MORE valuable?That makes each rank more useful, but less valuable in the sense that you need less ranks to get all the skills you want to have. That said...I've never had enough skill points for all the skills I want to have, so yeah, skill points are worth a lot for me.
Difference in our definition of value I suppose, but I agree with on never having enough of the precious skill points.
|
|
Power Creep - I thought this was splat-book classes being more powerful than the core classes so nobody played core classes any-more, is this correct?
IMO power creep is the simple concept that the guy who has the biggest library and most recent source books can make the most powerful character. It's not specific to any one thing.
What drove me away from D&D in the past was the lack of mechanics to allow me bend stuff to my view of the universe. Jason is building that stuff in.
Yep, I like that there are tons of new options, things like the naked fighter and the drunk barbarian are great (not mentioned here but mentioned at Paizocon).
At the moment critiquing the APG based on one blog post is like the story about the blind guys trying to work out what an elephant is by touch only.
Ultimately, yeah. I think it's reasonable to express some concerns but it's way to early to pass judgment on anything. Your story of the blind guy with the elephant is very apt.
So, uh, when can we expect the next preview Jason? Will the core classes have alternate abilities not related to the races or favored classes? Will there be alternate race traits for Aasimar/Tieflings as well as alternate favored class options (such as Paladin for the Aasimar)? Do tell! ^^
IMO power creep is the simple concept that the guy who has the biggest library and most recent source books can make the most powerful character. It's not specific to any one thing.
Well, I kinda disagree on this definition. Since, by design, splat books must be approved by the GM, everybody gets cool new abilities ( although you have a point on class specific splat books ).
Power creep means to me that every subsequent book introduces more powerful options rather than more diverse options. D&D 3.5 heavily suffered from that at its tail-end and I hope Pathfinder manages to avert it. Both power creep and a deluge of splatbooks, that is... I find that after a certain tipping point, too many options become a huge mess. OTOH, before that tipping point they are a great addition to the game. ^^