|
Anyone else agree with me that the PC classes are being powered up way too much?
Good games are about balance and I think it's being tippeed towards powergaming too much. There's too much hyper magic and power getting added, especially to wizards and clerics, but I guess the otehrs will go that way too. This needs limiting or the games balance will suffer.
I like the powering up i have been using things close to this for 2 years it dont seem to hurt anything STAP still had a body count and I didn't alter anything there.half way though and 3 dead pc's the alpha rules would fair about as well i'd say
It seems bad initially, but its all fairly solid, and catches the core classes up with splatbooks, however the new rapid gain of feat and skills, IS too fast. Otherwise, the system is fairly balanced and only slightly ahead of 3.5, for the most part the equal of presitge class users and splat classes.
It's just that the feats and skills NEED to be every third level, to enhance compatibility.
Anyone else agree with me that the PC classes are being powered up way too much?
Good games are about balance and I think it's being tippeed towards powergaming too much. There's too much hyper magic and power getting added, especially to wizards and clerics, but I guess the otehrs will go that way too. This needs limiting or the games balance will suffer.
I'd be all for keeping feat & ability score advancement in line with 3.5 advancement. I'd like a "keep it simple" approach to overhauling 3.5.
Improving broken mechanics (grapple, polymorph) and giving more "high-level" feat options would help quite a bit in improving the game while insuring that the game would still be 3.5 compatible.
I think the "skilled/unskilled" approach to skills helps streamline the game, so I don't have much problem with that (or with folding skills into one another to decrease the number of suboptimal skills).
The Combat Maneuvers and their tackling of cludgy combat mechanics also works for me... though the maneuvers seem a little too complicated at times.
Yeah I agree that powering up the core classes is not a wise move.
In particular, I am not a fan of the rogue's 20th level ability that allows an automatic kill on a crit. Granted, it is a 20th level ability, but it's just too much. An enemy that the players are facing at that point is likely to be pretty major, and having it go down with one blow is just disappointing, not fun.
Creative Director
|
It seems bad initially, but its all fairly solid, and catches the core classes up with splatbooks, however the new rapid gain of feat and skills, IS too fast. Otherwise, the system is fairly balanced and only slightly ahead of 3.5, for the most part the equal of presitge class users and splat classes.
It's just that the feats and skills NEED to be every third level, to enhance compatibility.
Give the accelerated feat train a try. I did the same thing in the Savage Tide game I'm running (for 5 players), and haven't done barely anything to adjust the monsters in power, and the game doesn't feel like it's skewed in the PCs' favor at all. In that they DO end up using a hero point or two every session to stop some sort of catastrophie (often one of their own making...).
Hey, I'll give it a go either way, you guys are the professionals, but the rogue in particular runs out of meaningful choices for skills pretty fast if they have a decent intelligence. One with a simple 14 INT will be trained in eleven skills by second level.
I'm not complaining about a power change, just too many choices for the no. of answers there is, the combat feats go a long way to remedy this for rapid feat advancment, I just get the feeling that by level ten, it will be
"You get new skill!"
"I do, meh, I don't really need anything else."
If a GM doesn't like the racial power-up, then start with fewer points for point-buy. My groups have always used 32 points; now I feel we can go back to 28 point buy and get more flavorful races in exchange.
What an idea. so simple, yet so effective.
Anyone else agree with me that the PC classes are being powered up way too much?
Good games are about balance and I think it's being tippeed towards powergaming too much. There's too much hyper magic and power getting added, especially to wizards and clerics, but I guess the otehrs will go that way too. This needs limiting or the games balance will suffer.
Agreed 100%
3.5 is already *way* too power structured.Is it really any surprise there are so many power-gamers and min-maxers these day... it's just becoming a Fighter vs Wizard vs Druid , (etc.) -- arms race.
Who can blame them really - when all the focus is on power, then more power, and so on, and on...
If you want to add more power/more options with splat books down the road, that's fine (and prob smart marketing) - but putting so much power in the "core" book is just too much.
Please strive to make this RPG more like a Role-Playing game and less like World of Warcraft.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
Anyone else agree with me that the PC classes are being powered up way too much?
Good games are about balance and I think it's being tippeed towards powergaming too much. There's too much hyper magic and power getting added, especially to wizards and clerics, but I guess the otehrs will go that way too. This needs limiting or the games balance will suffer.
Agreed 100%
3.5 is already *way* too power structured.
Is it really any surprise there are so many power-gamers and min-maxers these day... it's just becoming a Fighter vs Wizard vs Druid , (etc.) -- arms race.Who can blame them really - when all the focus is on power, then more power, and so on, and on...
If you want to add more power/more options with splat books down the road, that's fine (and prob smart marketing) - but putting so much power in the "core" book is just too much.
Please strive to make this RPG more like a Role-Playing game and less like World of Warcraft.
Just my 2 cents.
Phew - I'm not alone! Was beginning to wonder there.
It's kinda hard to judge the power level of the characters when all that is out is a mere Alpha don't you think? Try waiting till the game is finished first AND also seeing just how powerful the monsters are in comparison before crying DOOM!
|
Anyone else agree with me that the PC classes are being powered up way too much?
No, not really.
The new feat system gives characters an extra 3 feats over 20 levels of advancement. Not a huge deal. The cleric loses out on a number of spells per day in exchange for the new domain abilities, which, if anything, is more balanced, not less (less room to tailor spells for specific situations than previous versions of the cleric). The wizard gets some class abilities that are nice, but aside from the "capstone" aren't earthshaking. And the fighter and rogue are now viable 20-level classes. I'm not a fan of losing skill points but I like the consolidated skill list. I like to consider myself a fairly skilled optimizer, and trust me, this is not a major deal. I can get two of those extra feats with flaws that I pick for maximum efficiency and the last one can come from a racial paragon class or prestige class. And before you go telling me that it'll compound that issue, I can then wring more out of the rest of the build to keep pace. The fact of thematter is that there's no such thing as a perfect system. When I played 3rd edition GURPS, everybody had high DX and IQ scores and the Combat Reflexes advantage just to be reasonably effective. At least this system allows for a wider range of viable builds.
It's kinda hard to judge the power level of the characters when all that is out is a mere Alpha don't you think? Try waiting till the game is finished first AND also seeing just how powerful the monsters are in comparison before crying DOOM!
I think that the point of these threads is to offer constructive criticism before the rules are finalized. I'm in the camp that would like to see more options (particularly tiered feat-trees) available to players while leaving the core of the game as close to 3.5 as possible. Repairing the cludgy bits of the game and making it run smoothly should (IMHO) be the top priorities.
At the same time, I don't think 3.5 needs a ramping up of the relative power level of PCs. It's a delicate balance BUT I think it can be done.
I think it does need a ramping up at least very minor ramps. The changes to cleric and mage are nice. More HP does seem like a good idea. Low level parties can die way too easily. A 1st level mage is far too easy to kill, heck even a couple levels later he still dies far too easily and doesn't really have that much to fight back with. I don't mind a ramping up in power when it seems to make the characters more useful and increases their survivability. I still say lets see what the monsters are like. I don't want to just blow them over but hero's should feel heroic. Not like chumps getting wasted by goons.
If the ramps are minor from core, I don't see too much of a problem.
Simply put, some of the classes need a ramp-up and some need a bit of nerf to put things on a more level playing field.
The whole reason I'm not converting to 4th is because they changed the entire system into something that's a complete variation from the way I build my game, the way I run it, and the flavor I spice it with.
I understand the fears of Powercreeping, but also acknowledge that a bit has to be done in some areas so that some classes don't become unaffective in gameplay at higher levels or lose the ability to do some seriously interesting stuff if they are suited... this is why I love the new fighter and like the fact that some of the armorcheck penalty is negated with heavy armor as the levels go up...fantastic!
I think the wizard, cleric, and druid need more of a balancing act and perhaps flavor rather than a ramp-up in power and that's what I kind of see. It will require more testing, but given the poll they put out, they already are aware of some of the issues that may require attendance.
Anyone else agree with me that the PC classes are being powered up way too much?
Powered up, yes. Too much, no.
The biggest changes in power are the with the skills (add new "trained" skills every even level) and feats (gain new feats every odd level instead of every 3rd). Fighters and rogues get a boost over their 3.5 counterparts as they gain levels, but the 3.5 versions tend to be weak compared to casters as the game progresses. Clerics get a little boost, gaining the domain powers for both domains instead of having to choose one bonus domain spell per spell level. Non-specialist wizards also get a little boost with the Universal abilities (which are a bit too good, IMO). The orison/cantrip switch is a minor boost for low levels, but quickly becomes a flavor issue more than a balance issue.
The change in skills is what I'm most skeptical about, right now. A 20th level rogue with 10 Int will currently have 18 trained skills (19 as a human or half-elf). That's a bit much, IMO. A slower skill gain (every 3rd level?) and/or more balanced skill awards at 1st level (2-5 or 3-6 instead of 2, 4, 6, and 8?) would make me happier.
Haven't read the whole release carefully, yet, but my initial thinking on this is that while PRPG remains D&D, it is a significant change in the game, much more than 3.0 to 3.5. While a lot of the changes make sense and improve the game, it will definitely take some conversion effort to play older material with the new rules and vice-versa. I'm not opposed to powering things up just a bit, per se, but this seems like it's going to really change the balance of the game, and therefore significant rebalancing will need to be done in other subsystems (monsters, magic items, etc.) to compensate.
That said, one could run characters similar to the Alpha release, scale back on magic items by around 30-50%, and do away with certain categories of items--some adjustment might be needed to the monsters, but I'm guessing that will happen anyhow.
I think the big thing that will happen here is that backwards compatibility--one of the big goals of not going with 4e--will be significantly compromised--it will be hard to judge whether supplemental base classes, bonus classes, etc. will stack up properly to the revamped base classes. Everyone's splatbook collections will have some use, but actually adapting more than the occasional feat or spell from them will require some revamping.
Never discount the possibility that all the boosts are put there to compensate for a reduction of magical items - both in power and number.
My group and I have been playing with accelerated feat acquisition for about half a year now and it's been a lot of fun. It has in no way unbalanced the game, but more importantly it has allowed greater PC differentiation.
Feats are a great way to make a PC stand out from the crowd. As an example, our fighters started taking "social" feats such a Persuasive or Skill Focus (Diplomacy) to turn the PC into a charismatic warrior without having to put a high score in Charisma. When you have more slots available you can take feats that fit the PC's concept without having to worry that doing so will cripple you in a fight. With fewer feat slots available players usually take the most combat-effective feats which tends to make most PCs look the same after a few levels.
Plus, by allowing PCs more feats we can now justify all the money we blew on splat books. :)
|
|
The new changes to the rules aren't really powergamey.
In fact if you look at the underlieing mechanics the feat progression favors monsters.
You gain a feat for every 2 levels or in otherwords every 2 HD. NPCs scale by this rule too. Monsters do too.
Which asks the question who who has more HD(and thus, more feats) at a given CR, Monsters or PCs?
My bet is on the monster 75% of the time.
QFT, especially with big bruiser enemies like dragons and giants...
You really can't argue that the system favors or powers up the PCs if everything else gets a power up. None of the new rule changes are PC only, everyone is effected by them. The party isn't going to be any more powerful against a NPC wizard than they were in 3.5 because the NPC will get a power boost. The net effect is zero.
You can argue the the whole system is more powerful, but not the PCs.
And by virtue of what you've described above, the relative power of the PCs actually drops a little.
At first I thought that would be a problem too, the characters are getting too much powered up. Indeed they are when compared to the standard D&D, but then, 3.5 D&D is heavily dependent on magical stuff, it´s actually the edition which most focuses on magic items (compared to 1st, 2nd and the classic D&D); too much for my taste. So, the way I see this "powering up" is a way to focus less on the magical items of your character and more "on the character".
At 10th level, the new Pathfinder fighter has a lot more feats and special abilities and weapon attack and damage bonuses than the 3.5 D&D Fighter; but he can fight his 10th level challenges just fine with a good sword, decent armor and one or two healing potions; while the other fighter depends heavily on his +3 Flaming Electric Keen Sword, +4 Fortified Armor of SR 20, Boots of Con +2, cloak of something, amulet of another thing, ring of something else, etc...
So, for balancing issues, to be able to keep up with the other classes and be a match for challenges appropriates to their levels with less magic stuff, the Pathfinder classes needed to be a little pumped up. Just keep the magical items lower and they´ll be fine.
Remember, this is just my way of viewing things.
|
|
Anyone else agree with me that the PC classes are being powered up way too much?No, not really.
The new feat system gives characters an extra 3 feats over 20 levels of advancement. Not a huge deal. The cleric loses out on a number of spells per day in exchange for the new domain abilities, which, if anything, is more balanced, not less (less room to tailor spells for specific situations than previous versions of the cleric). The wizard gets some class abilities that are nice, but aside from the "capstone" aren't earthshaking. And the fighter and rogue are now viable 20-level classes. I'm not a fan of losing skill points but I like the consolidated skill list. I like to consider myself a fairly skilled optimizer, and trust me, this is not a major deal. I can get two of those extra feats with flaws that I pick for maximum efficiency and the last one can come from a racial paragon class or prestige class. And before you go telling me that it'll compound that issue, I can then wring more out of the rest of the build to keep pace. The fact of thematter is that there's no such thing as a perfect system. When I played 3rd edition GURPS, everybody had high DX and IQ scores and the Combat Reflexes advantage just to be reasonably effective. At least this system allows for a wider range of viable builds.
The fact that wizards abilities have no daily limit is a huge increase. Same for Clerics, which are widely acknowledged as being overpowered already.
|
|
It's kinda hard to judge the power level of the characters when all that is out is a mere Alpha don't you think? Try waiting till the game is finished first AND also seeing just how powerful the monsters are in comparison before crying DOOM!
Didn't cry DOOM, just ensuring there's a discussion about a part that concerns me.
|
|
I think it does need a ramping up at least very minor ramps. The changes to cleric and mage are nice. More HP does seem like a good idea. Low level parties can die way too easily. A 1st level mage is far too easy to kill, heck even a couple levels later he still dies far too easily and doesn't really have that much to fight back with. I don't mind a ramping up in power when it seems to make the characters more useful and increases their survivability. I still say lets see what the monsters are like. I don't want to just blow them over but hero's should feel heroic. Not like chumps getting wasted by goons.
You need to learn how to play them then! In combat they'll die, but fighters are for fighting (the clues in the name :) ) so stand back and let them do that bit. Then do the bit you're good at as a mage.
Some of the classes (such as fighter and wizard) definitely needed a power increase, simply to keep them level with some of the other classes available in various splatbooks/resources. I'm not so sure about the skill and feat accumulation, then again some DMs advocate that players should be getting a feat every single level!
|
|
I understand the fears of Powercreeping, but also acknowledge that a bit has to be done in some areas so that some classes don't become unaffective in gameplay at higher levels or lose the ability to do some seriously interesting stuff if they are suited... this is why I love the new fighter and like the fact that some of the armorcheck penalty is negated with heavy armor as the levels go up...fantastic!
I think the wizard, cleric, and druid need more of a balancing act and perhaps flavor rather than a ramp-up in power and that's what I kind of see. It will require more testing, but given the poll they put out, they already are aware of some of the issues that may require attendance.
Agreed, the fighter changes appear good. Your comment re. the others is spot on, balance.
I think it does need a ramping up at least very minor ramps. The changes to cleric and mage are nice. More HP does seem like a good idea. Low level parties can die way too easily. A 1st level mage is far too easy to kill, heck even a couple levels later he still dies far too easily and doesn't really have that much to fight back with. I don't mind a ramping up in power when it seems to make the characters more useful and increases their survivability. I still say lets see what the monsters are like. I don't want to just blow them over but hero's should feel heroic. Not like chumps getting wasted by goons.You need to learn how to play them then! In combat they'll die, but fighters are for fighting (the clues in the name :) ) so stand back and let them do that bit. Then do the bit you're good at as a mage.
You are SOOO oversimplyfing things it's not even funny. Dude, people get past fighters. Ever heard of ranged combat? I shot the mage he dies. Sometimes people are sneaky and get to the mage. No, they needed the extra HP. It is not fun to die like some chump in low level games. It has NOTHING to do with "learning to play". The dice are fickle and the DM can throw lots of different things to challenge you. Staying at the back of the group does not help when you actually have a intelligent DM who has ranged combatants shot the mage down or people move around the sides. Not to mention low level mages in current 3.5 have practically no spells to cast.
In truth I am tired of D&D anyway. This stupid reliance on tons of magical items is annoying. I dislike classes and levels. I hate people who set their mind on some PrC at level 1. Those kind of people who don't let a PC develop as the game unfolds, they instead say "Nope nope, I will be this uberl33T PrC no matter what!" I will still play but I'm looking for a more generic system that I could use to still run D&D like games in the setting I like without the rules I hate.