|
Lich-loved: Can i steal your intuition and keep it as a pet? It seems to have its head screwed on right. That is always a good sign in a potential pet intuition.
Steal? Nah. I give it way for free, making theft rather pointless. And for my many detractors, I am sure my intuition is useless, which also makes theft pointless.
Given this, I would just wait around and see what happens with it. If it is useful and worth having, it will be free and if not, well, you wouldn't want it anyway.
Watch this space.
So we shouldn't compare it to class that were built well just because they weren't in splats? Seems real counter intuitive to me.A lot of splat based classes are not built well, they are power gamers wet dreams.
You're partly right... they weren't built well, but I don't know where you're getting the other idea from. With the exception of the beguiler and dread necromancer, the splat-book classes are the living incarnation of suck on a stick.
And what, good sir, should one do if one does NOT wish to play a blaster sorcerer? Furthermore, I challenge you to try such an activity once the blaster wizard can quicken his spells...you will be sorely disappointed.
Well if you want to compete against that, you can take the arcane bloodline, at 3rd level you select Metamagic adept [quicken spell]. At which point you you can do better than a blaster wizard on Even levels and about the same to slight better on odd levels.
As for other approachs, i'll let you work it out for your self, but when it comes to utility spells it is my experience that you are better of having many of them uses and versitility within an encounter. Thats what sorcerers provide.
If i was after a spellknife type build, with magic for concealment and sensory effects, i would likely choose a mix of sorcerer with rogue rather than wizard with rogue.
I did not want to come out and say it quite yet, but this is a change I am seriously considering right now. Each bloodline would have a list of spells, and you would get to choose one every time you gain a new level of spells (4th, 6th, 8th, etc). I like that, but to give them a bit of a bit more balance, I might drop all those levels by one (that is they can choose a bonus 1st lv spell at 3rd, 2nd lv at 5th, etc).I realize that some folks would really like to see their progression change. Right now, I am not willing to make that change. The sorcerers benefit has always been more spells, just at a slightly slower progression. You may disagree, but right now, I am sticking with this concept.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Completely agree, I think the progression needs to stay the same. When I first started playing 3.0 I thought sorcerers were nerfed big time. But as the amount of spells per day became apparent it seemed much more balanced. I think the bonus known spells based on their bloodlines would fit perfectly.
I am also leaning towards giving them 3/4 BAB, otherwise they completely lose their flavor as a slightly buffer spell caster. (Seeing that wizards now have the same hit die.) Plus this would give them a reason to use their touch attacks in melee.
You're partly right... they weren't built well, but I don't know where you're getting the other idea from. With the exception of the beguiler and dread necromancer, the splat-book classes are the living incarnation of suck on a stick.So we shouldn't compare it to class that were built well just because they weren't in splats? Seems real counter intuitive to me.A lot of splat based classes are not built well, they are power gamers wet dreams.
Bad experiences with Optimisers at Uni. Some of the builds i saw at the table should have been gathered up burn, before the entire world be retcon'ed to remove all stain of them.
Oh and "the living incarnation of suck on a stick" i am pickeying that.
So we shouldn't compare it to class that were built well just because they weren't in splats? Seems real counter intuitive to me.A lot of splat based classes are not built well, they are power gamers wet dreams.
Yet most power gamers use classes in the PHB hmmmm
As for other approachs, i'll let you work it out for your self, but when it comes to utility spells it is my experience that you are better of having many of them uses and versitility within an encounter. Thats what sorcerers provide.
No they don't. You don't have enough spells known to be versatile with utility spells. You can spam a handful of them over and over, but most utility spells that matter are spells you cast once per combat. Being able to spam them doesn't actually help.
You're really better off with the leadership feat and a wizard cohort that has memorized haste repeatedly. Then you can use your actions for real things.
|
|
You're partly right... they weren't built well, but I don't know where you're getting the other idea from. With the exception of the beguiler and dread necromancer, the splat-book classes are the living incarnation of suck on a stick.
Really now, this is all becoming too funny. So the following classes suck according to a certain segment of the population:
And the these classes are uber-powerful:
Come on already, what classes are you happy with right now? Which class is designed well as it stands in the 3.5 Core? Elsewhere? Have all of these designers, across the last decade failed to produce much of anything you can use right out of the box? If not, where?
Edit: spelling, clarity
As for other approachs, i'll let you work it out for your self, but when it comes to utility spells it is my experience that you are better of having many of them uses and versitility within an encounter. Thats what sorcerers provide.
No they don't. You don't have enough spells known to be versatile with utility spells. You can spam a handful of them over and over, but most utility spells that matter are spells you cast once per combat. Being able to spam them doesn't actually help.
You're really better off with the leadership feat and a wizard cohort that has memorized haste repeatedly. Then you can use your actions for real things.
I think we probably consider different things to be useful utility spells :)
i can never have enough spider climbs, feather falls and expeditious retreats. not to metion the solid gold that is knock and detect thoughts.
Thank you for what you've done Jason.
I'd like to start by echoing this sentiment. Me and my whole group are enjoying the open playtest loads and the sorcerer, our most popular class after paladin, was eagerly anticipated. We loved the new look sorcerer and let out a collective 'wow' when we got our hands on it. It was more than we were expecting and we can't wait to playtest it.
Jason (and all the other Paizonians) - please don't get too down by negative and non-constructive comments, incendiary-titled threads and general b*tching. We all appreciate what you're doing, we just don't all know how to express it. Thank you again. :)
(STUFF)
Dude - your posts always make me smile. You should get your own show.
Re: the Sorcerer
My group likes the new set up - it's a lot more than we thought was going to happen. We house ruled that Sorcerers get eschew materials as a bonus feat some time ago. Quite a few other groups in our area have done that too and it was something we were surprised wasn't in Alpha 2. I don't think it needs any more explanation.
More HP is good and the bloodline powers are nice - in some cases better than the wizard school specializations, in others not so. But all pretty well balanced. What about giving them more Cha-based skills? They really could use Diplomacy too, or at the very least a choice between Bluff/Dip. It's nice to read that they do get cantrips at will (I assume that this applies to the druid also then?).
I'll post more info after my group has had a chance to playtest the changes.
Flavor doesn't make you more valuable as a party member.
Finally, I read this comment and felt like I had to respond. I strongly disagree with this. Anything that ties your character to the world is very valuable, drawing the whole party deeper into the ongoing story. Sorcerer's bloodlines are another opportunity to do this - parents/grandparents/family enemies you didn't know you had/unlocking ancestral knowledge etc. Wonderful!
Does it directly help you kill orcs? No.
Can it be used to increase everyone's participation and immersion in the game? Yes. That is very valuable to me and my group both in and out of game.
Peace,
tfad
Come on already, what classes are you happy with right now? Which class is designed well as it stands in the 3.5 Core? Elsewhere? Have all of these designers, across the last decade failed to produce much of anything you can use right out of the box? If not, where?
Edit: spelling, clarity
From what I've seen (Can't stress this enough) the classes that most people agree about are the ToB classes (Blah blah Exalted blah blah Wuxia blah blah magic there thats out of the way), the Psionics classes (With the exception of the Divine Mind) ,Binders, Warlocks, Rogues, and the Dragonfire Adept.
|
|
You're really better off with the leadership feat and a wizard cohort that has memorized haste repeatedly. Then you can use your actions for real things.
Wouldn't every character be better off with this? I cannot believe that anyone would suggest this as a basis for why a class might not measure up to its peers.
If this were a valid point, one could say the Beguiler is underpowered because despite his spell selection, he can still only cast one spell per round, two with Quicken Spell. However, a Beguiler with a wizard cohort that can also cast Quickened spells - now there is a measure of what a real wizard-type should be able to do!
That is IT! Improve the Beguiler! It sucks!!1!1!!1!
You're really better off with the leadership feat and a wizard cohort that has memorized haste repeatedly. Then you can use your actions for real things.Wouldn't every character be better off with this? I cannot believe that anyone would suggest this as a basis for why a class might not measure up to its peers.
If this were a valid point, one could say the Beguiler is underpowered because despite his spell selection, he can still only cast one spell per round, two with Quicken Spell. However, a Beguiler with a wizard cohort that can also cast Quickened spells - now there is a measure of what a real wizard-type should be able to do!
That is IT! Improve the Beguiler! It sucks!!1!1!!1!
Lich...i no longer like you...their is now snot in my tea and i think i have scalded my nostrals...
Really now, this is all becoming too funny. So the following classes suck according to a certain segment of the population:
Monks
Fighters
Sorcerers - even the PRPG one
Paladins
The vast majority of the splatbook classes And the these classes are uber-powerful:
Clerics
Druids
Wizards (unless we consider the 15 minute adventuring day, then they suck)
Um...that's actually pretty accurate. Sorcerers are weak compared to the other casters, and monks, fighters, paladins, hexblades, samurais, ninjas, and spellthieves are all fairly weak.
Right. As far as counter-intuitiveness, I suppose it depends on what your intuition is telling you to start with. It isn't counterintuitive to me because it has seemed clear to me from the outset that PRPG has enough to do just improving the Core rules and therefore every class/PRC that appeared in the various splatbooks is offlimits from a design/balance standpoint.
Trying to publish a revised/improved rulesset is a daunting task. Trying to balance those rules and make them "better/powerful" versus the worst of WotC's efforts (represented by the ridiculous power levels in the splatbooks) is a nearly futile task, one that no business would want to take on, especially when their goal is to "continue to tell the kinds of stories they wanted to tell in the Pathfinder Universe". Have you seen any Beguilers in the Pathfinder products, even when they were allowed? How about 99% of the other PRC/feats/ new core classes? No? Neither have I. Is it any wonder then, that you are not seeing the new sorcerer being as powerful as the Beguiler? To me it isn't a surprise at all. They are trying to "tell the kinds of stories they want to tell". Thus far, their stories haven't included much splatbook-sourced material and I don't think they are going to change that approach now. But hey, it's just my intuition.
Paizo is going to make some workable compromises as a result of all the feedback.
Regarding your first point while the actual class itself maybe off limits legally. The various game mechanics under the OGL are not.
Regarding your second point Beguilers are not OGL even though they appeared in the PHBII in May 2006.
With backwards 3.5 compatibility they and other classes are an option to play in game.
Every spontaneous full caster WOTC has designed has improved on the original Sorcerer class mechanic in some form. It's not a sacred cow.
What I would like to see is a class that is more fun to play at low levels L7 and below. IMO it should be comparable to the Favored Soul for known spells at the minimum.
Almost every proponent of the Sorcerer class cites I never run out of spells in game.
Great that means we don't need that class spellcasting mechanic which is penalizing the class by delaying standard spellcasting and limiting known spells.
Lets trade out some extra daily spellcasting for other class features. I favor more known spells and standard progression spellcasting (Jason doesn't but he keeps an open mind). IMO it would be a lot more fun to play a sorcerer who knows quite a few more spells like a Beguiler barring that I'd like to see something like spells known by the Favored Soul basically two spells one of which would be a fixed bloodline heritage feat like the ones that were published in the Dragon magazine or based on a SRD Bonus Arcane Domain mechanic.
Under the OGL can Paizo use the Variant Spellcaster mechanic for a PFRPG spontaneous caster class? Yes.
Can they incorportate a SRD Major Bloodline into the same class as part of the class special? Yes.
Can they create new SRD Bloodlines? Yes.
Can they give this spontaneous caster a domain like the SRD Domain wizards? Yes
Do they have to do any of this? No.
Are they prohibited from applying these game mechanics to a class? NO
Err on the side of more fun since it's just a game.
Well if you want to compete against that, you can take the arcane bloodline, at 3rd level you select Metamagic adept [quicken spell]. At which point you you can do better than a blaster wizard on Even levels and about the same to slight better on odd levels.
...And thus a single bloodline can possibly compete. Unless the blaster wizard decides to put more than one metamagic effect one the spell, of course.
A fix that I would suggest for the sorcerer is giving them a domain that grants an at-will power, bonus spells known, and a special ability. For instance:
Special: All fire spells you cast get a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1 + your Charisma bonus. This bonus to damage improves by +1 for every five levels you have. This bonus only applies once per spell, not once per ray, missile, etc.
At-will: As a standard action, you can shoot a ray of fire. This has a range of 30', and it does 1d6 points of damage, +1 damage for every two levels that you have. Your special ability applies to this so that it has a modicum of use at high levels.
1: Burning hands.
2: Scorching ray.
3: Fireball.
4: Wall of fire.
5: Cone of fire (works like cone of cold).
6: Fire seeds.
7: Delayed blast fireball, firestorm.
8: Incendiary cloud.
9: Meteor swarm, elemental swarm.This would allow the sorcerer to have a number of thematic spells while freeing him to take some utility spells as well, greatly increasing his efficacy.
Triple-post, but I'd at least like SOME feedback on this.
|
|
From what I've seen (Can't stress this enough) the classes that most people agree about are the ToB classes (Blah blah Exalted blah blah Wuxia blah blah magic there thats out of the way), the Psionics classes (With the exception of the Divine Mind) ,Binders, Warlocks, Rogues, and the Dragonfire Adept.
So out of the 12 core classes only the rogue is useful to you as written. That is very, very interesting really though hardly surprising.
Let's think about this for a second.It means that the 3.x designers totally screwed up, in a major way, better than 90% of the classes and core class options (feats/skills et. al.) available in the game. This is what your view really means. Better than 90% of the classes are weak and essentially unplayable as written regardlerss of how you decorate them with core options. In short, they must not have had a clue what they were doing to so far miss the mark. This is one explanation that fits your belief structure. A second would be that you wanted something 90% different from the game than the designers intended. Based upon which classes you do like, I would say you wanted a high-degree of anime/wuxia and supers-like powers and these were not included in the core classes. Hence, you find them useless.
Now we don't know which way it is, really. Perhaps Cook, Tweet and Williams (and their playtest teams) monumentally failed at game design or perhaps not and it is just your perception they did. However, Occam's Razor points us in the direction we should look to resolve this discrepancy. This task is left as an exercise for the reader.
]
I did not want to come out and say it quite yet, but this is a change I am seriously considering right now. Each bloodline would have a list of spells, and you would get to choose one every time you gain a new level of spells (4th, 6th, 8th, etc). I like that, but to give them a bit of a bit more balance, I might drop all those levels by one (that is they can choose a bonus 1st lv spell at 3rd, 2nd lv at 5th, etc).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think this with the addition of Orisons would help the Sorcerer greatly
Triple-post, but I'd at least like SOME feedback on this.A fix that I would suggest for the sorcerer is giving them a domain that grants an at-will power, bonus spells known, and a special ability. For instance:
Special: All fire spells you cast get a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1 + your Charisma bonus. This bonus to damage improves by +1 for every five levels you have. This bonus only applies once per spell, not once per ray, missile, etc.
At-will: As a standard action, you can shoot a ray of fire. This has a range of 30', and it does 1d6 points of damage, +1 damage for every two levels that you have. Your special ability applies to this so that it has a modicum of use at high levels.
1: Burning hands.
2: Scorching ray.
3: Fireball.
4: Wall of fire.
5: Cone of fire (works like cone of cold).
6: Fire seeds.
7: Delayed blast fireball, firestorm.
8: Incendiary cloud.
9: Meteor swarm, elemental swarm.This would allow the sorcerer to have a number of thematic spells while freeing him to take some utility spells as well, greatly increasing his efficacy.
I like it. Looks a lot like a SRD Arcane Domain:
Antimagic Domain
0—detect magic; 1st—protection from chaos/evil/good/law; 2nd—obscure object; 3rd—dispel magic; 4th—minor globe of invulnerability; 5th—break enchantment; 6th—antimagic field; 7th—spell turning; 8th—protection from spells; 9th—mage's disjunction
Battle Domain
0—daze; 1st—true strike; 2nd—protection from arrows; 3rd—greater magic weapon; 4th—fire shield; 5th—interposing hand; 6th—transformation; 7th—power word blind; 8th—moment of prescience; 9th—time stop.
Conjuration Domain
0—acid splash; 1st—mage armor; 2nd—web; 3rd—stinking cloud; 4th—summon monster IV; 5th—wall of stone; 6th—acid fog; 7th—summon monster VII; 8th—maze; 9th—gate
Divination Domain
0—detect magic; 1st—detect secret doors; 2nd—see invisibility; 3rd—arcane sight; 4th—arcane eye; 5th—prying eyes; 6th—true seeing; 7th—greater arcane sight; 8th—discern location; 9th—foresight.
Fire Domain
0—flare; 1st—burning hands; 2nd—scorching ray; 3rd—fireball; 4th—wall of fire; 5th—cone of fire (as cone of cold, but deals fire damage instead of cold damage); 6th—summon monster VI (fire creatures only); 7th—delayed blast fireball; 8th—incendiary cloud; 9th—meteor swarm
Necromancy Domain
0—disrupt undead; 1st—ray of enfeeblement; 2nd—false life; 3rd—vampiric touch; 4th—fear; 5th—waves of fatigue; 6th—circle of death; 7th—control undead; 8th—horrid wilting; 9th—energy drain.
Come on already, what classes are you happy with right now? Which class is designed well as it stands in the 3.5 Core? Elsewhere? Have all of these designers, across the last decade failed to produce much of anything you can use right out of the box? If not, where?
Edit: spelling, clarity
Honestly? In 3rd edition?
I'd rank them like this-Too good:
Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Beguiler, Artificer
About right:
Rogue, Binder, Sorcerer (if the players knows exactly what he's doing and plans the character out from level one AND can survive to level 4) Dread Necromancer
Not quite there:
Barbarian, Sorcerers (anyone who doesn't fit the criteria above), Duskblades (though the flavor and feel is awful), Warmage, ninja, scout, shaman (largely because of the MAD issue, if that was fixed they'd be about right)
The designers should be flogged:
fighters, paladins, warlocks (they get 1 good thing, and thats Deceive Item at level 4. Otherwise they're a dip for the invocations of giant skill bonuses), rangers, bards, hexblades, spell thief, shugenja, favored soul, shadowcaster (for spending 14 out 20 levels with exactly 1 level appropriate effect each day)
Oh, and artificer's designer for being just that stupid, even if the class is too good.
The designers should be more than flogged, they should be blacklisted:
samurai, true-namer, monk
So I'd say about 3 3rd edition classes are well designed. The sorcerer depends too much on the player not being an idiot.
Now we don't know which way it is, really. Perhaps Cook, Tweet and Williams (and their playtest teams) monumentally failed at game design
Bingo.
There were a lot of interesting ideas with 3rd edition. But the implementation fails pretty much across the board.
|
Now we don't know which way it is, really. Perhaps Cook, Tweet and Williams (and their playtest teams) monumentally failed at game design or perhaps not and it is just your perception they did. However, Occam's Razor points us in the direction we should look to resolve this discrepancy. This task is left as an exercise for the reader.
Nice.
I like it. Looks a lot like a SRD Arcane Domain:
Antimagic Domain
0—detect magic; 1st—protection from chaos/evil/good/law; 2nd—obscure object; 3rd—dispel magic; 4th—minor globe of invulnerability; 5th—break enchantment; 6th—antimagic field; 7th—spell turning; 8th—protection from spells; 9th—mage's disjunctionBattle Domain
0—daze; 1st—true strike; 2nd—protection from arrows; 3rd—greater magic weapon; 4th—fire shield; 5th—interposing hand; 6th—transformation; 7th—power word blind; 8th—moment of prescience; 9th—time stop.Conjuration Domain
0—acid splash; 1st—mage armor; 2nd—web; 3rd—stinking cloud; 4th—summon monster IV; 5th—wall of stone; 6th—acid fog; 7th—summon monster VII; 8th—maze; 9th—gateDivination Domain
0—detect magic; 1st—detect secret doors; 2nd—see invisibility; 3rd—arcane sight; 4th—arcane eye; 5th—prying eyes; 6th—true seeing; 7th—greater...
Yes, that was my inspiration.
I like the idea of getting some extra spells known from a certain list (fire spells, necromancy spells, etc. including stuff from the cleric/druid spell list) and at-will powers more like the specialist/domain powers.
But I also think some of the abilities in some of the bloodlines are quite interesting, too. E.g. Abberant bloodline's 20th level ability (blindsight + immune to criticals), Abyssal bloodline's 15th level ability (extra demons), Arcane bloodline's 15th level ability (+2 to DCs), Undead's 15th level ability (incorporealness).
The only parts I don't care for are some of the weaker abilities (like "you get a claw attack -- and eventually it's a FLAMING CLAW attack!" or "energy resistance 5" or "you can blast Xd6 damage once or twice a day").
Maybe I'll change my mind if I playtest it, though.
Triple-post, but I'd at least like SOME feedback on this.A fix that I would suggest for the sorcerer is giving them a domain that grants an at-will power, bonus spells known, and a special ability. For instance:
Special: All fire spells you cast get a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1 + your Charisma bonus. This bonus to damage improves by +1 for every five levels you have. This bonus only applies once per spell, not once per ray, missile, etc.
At-will: As a standard action, you can shoot a ray of fire. This has a range of 30', and it does 1d6 points of damage, +1 damage for every two levels that you have. Your special ability applies to this so that it has a modicum of use at high levels.
1: Burning hands.
2: Scorching ray.
3: Fireball.
4: Wall of fire.
5: Cone of fire (works like cone of cold).
6: Fire seeds.
7: Delayed blast fireball, firestorm.
8: Incendiary cloud.
9: Meteor swarm, elemental swarm.This would allow the sorcerer to have a number of thematic spells while freeing him to take some utility spells as well, greatly increasing his efficacy.
i can never have enough spider climbs, feather falls and expeditious retreats. not to metion the solid gold that is knock and detect thoughts.
Yes. Yes we do. I can't remember the last time I had a character fall in a hole, and knock and spider climb = someone should play a rogue. Expeditious retreat is too situational to blow a known spell. Detect thoughts is decent, but really depends on the campaign- if its an intrigue campaign, certainly. If its a 'Let Blood, Blood, Blood be your motto' campaign, then certainly not. If it might come up during the campaign, its probably wizard territory. He can afford to have spells that don't come up often, the sorcerer can't. If you don't run into circumstances where the spell would be a viable option every day, you shouldn't be taking up space with it.
Good low level utility spells: silent image, invisibility (which you immediately forget when you can get your claws on greater invis). A couple others, but its mostly stuff that a wizard would just have on a scroll, just in case in comes up. Like fireball.
|
|
...some good stuff about what is available to draw upon for an improved sorcerer class...
I don't think I can point by point disagree with you here. All of these things are doable. I do have a comment or two to make though.
There is a difference between Core and SRD. The SRD is a superset of the core rules. Not all that is in the SRD must by default be brought forward into Pathfinder. This is especially true for variant magic systems (Eric Mona has said we will see Vancian magic stay and I take this to mean we won't see variant casters of other types as central figures in Pathfinder. This means sorcerers are not going to radically change to me.) Domain Wizards are not Core, they are variant (hence optional) and are therefore not a sound basis for comparison though Jason clearly feels there is merit in the Domain Wizard given the way he has incorporated something like this into PRPG.
Again, I believe it comes down to cost and practicality. 3.5 D&D is huge, just considering the "official/WotC" content, let alone the other 3rd party content. It is not feasible to check all of these sources against one another to be sure the PRPG sorcerer or fighter or whatever is "as good as anything else out there". It isn't even their intention to try. The vast majority of what is developed for PRPG will be backward compatible, but that in no way implies it will be backward-competitive, especially give the wildly different views of character usefulness among the game's players.
Can we mine these other sources for ideas? Yes of course. But such ideas have to be brought back to a PRPG-level of power, not a 3.5 post-bloat level of power.
Really now, this is all becoming too funny. So the following classes suck according to a certain segment of the population:
Monks
Fighters
Sorcerers - even the PRPG one
Paladins
The vast majority of the splatbook classes And the these classes are uber-powerful:
Clerics
Druids
Wizards (unless we consider the 15 minute adventuring day, then they suck) Come on already, what classes are you happy with right now? Which class is designed well as it stands in the 3.5 Core?
Well, in my experience, clerics are about delayed gratification. If you can handle a year of heal-botting in a weekly campaign, then you get a huge payoff at higher levels.
Wizards are also about delayed gratification. If you can handle a year of being taunted for your combat inadequacies by the barbarian while you're low level, you'll get your sweet revenge when running out of spells stops being an issue at the mid-levels, between scrolls, wands, and your own spells. Wizards also depend on the DM and the other classes to correctly identify challenges ahead of time so as to maximize their power.
Druids are fun right out the gate, because they have options: a functional combat familiar, blasting with spells, morphing into a melee-capable form, summoning etc. Their Kryptonite should be the dialogue sections, as they have few social skills and are interested in plants and animals, but lo! They have diplomacy so they're pretty good at that too.
Rogues work. They do damage. They have scouting ability so they can seize the spotlight. They have TONS to do to advance the plot. They work as the party face. And they're simple to run, while being very versatile.
Barbarians work. They do damage. They have a niche in skills. They have an easy hook to roleplay. They're easy and a great starter class.
Fighters work and then they don't work. They're combat oriented, but eventually get over-shadowed at higher levels by the walking tactical nukes and battlefield control nerfers. They have nothing to do in the RP sections. (You might as well take a profession and get some employment during the civilization parts of the game.) Your job eventually becomes soaking damage or avoiding damage while protecting the PCs who are going to win the battle for you. It becomes fairly masochistic, really.
Rangers don't work. Their best ability--favored enemy--is dependent on the DM. They've a ton of skills, but there's almost always a rogue in the party. They wield smaller weapons and face a -2 penalty to get extra attacks, so they end up doing less damage. They do more damage when they face melee brute monsters, but brutes are the ones best able to pummel the ranger, what with their low AC and d8 HPs. If they didn't have track, nobody would bother. They're second or third best at everything. In short, they're the bard.
The bard, ironically, works, albeit for a very small subset of players. But for those players, the bard works very well. Essentially, one plays a bard because one really does not care about the miniature war gaming part of DnD. You're there to ROLEPLAY. And no class does it better than the enchanter bard, with the rogue a close second, I'll grant you. You've have nothing invested in killing the monsters, so you're more than willing to buff the testosterone addicts. So, if this describes you, the bard works perfectly.
Paladins work, if everyone's on board with being Big #$%@ Heroes, not dark mercenaries. They have something to roleplay, right out of the box. They're combat capable. They have special features, like turning and limited healing. The special mount is a con, however, as you either waste feats on mounted combat in a small arms campaign or you're in one of the few campaigns where a lot of battles are outdoors in wide open spaces. They do face the fighter's dilemma at high levels, however.
I have no experience with monks, and they have wierd character goals like being happy or centered, or something.
YMMV, of course.
|
|
So I'd say about 3 3rd edition classes are well designed. The sorcerer depends too much on the player not being an idiot.
A rough count of the classes you listed gives the 3.x designers about an 11% success rate on class design (3 in 27). So you too agree they monumentally failed. That is, over the last decade, all of the authors of all of these books have basically been way off the mark.
I have two questions for you. What makes these classes a failure and would you even consider that their might be another explanation for this perceived failure?
Director of Games
|
Hello everybody,
I would like to thank a number of you for keeping things civil in this relatively heated discussion. I have been thinking very critically about the sorcerer for the past few days. It has become apparent to me that perhaps I did not push the envelop far enough. There will be some adjustment, probably along the lines I have already mentioned. There might be a number of adjustments to individual bloodlines as well to bring them up to par.
The only thing I can say for certain right now is that the BAB and casting progression will not be changing. These two really hurt backwards compatability.
Thanks for the feedback. Stay tuned.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hello everybody,
I would like to thank a number of you for keeping things civil in this relatively heated discussion. I have been thinking very critically about the sorcerer for the past few days. It has become apparent to me that perhaps I did not push the envelop far enough. There will be some adjustment, probably along the lines I have already mentioned. There might be a number of adjustments to individual bloodlines as well to bring them up to par.
The only thing I can say for certain right now is that the BAB and casting progression will not be changing. These two really hurt backwards compatability.
Thanks for the feedback. Stay tuned.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Excellent news!
So I'd say about 3 3rd edition classes are well designed. The sorcerer depends too much on the player not being an idiot.A rough count of the classes you listed gives the 3.x designers about an 11% success rate on class design (3 in 27). So you too agree they monumentally failed. That is, over the last decade, allof the authors of all of these books have basically been way off the mark.
I have two questions for you. What makes these classes a failure and would you even consider that their might be another explanation for this perceived failure?
What makes them a failure? They're barely capable of playing the game as designed at 1st level. They fall behind somewhere between 2nd and 5th. From then on, they just can't deal with what the game throws at them. (or could throw at them).
On the opposite side, (clerics, wizards and company) are taking the game in a different direction. They aren't playing the game because they can take a single action and win any given situation. They don't win 100% of the time, but they're up around the 75% mark, easily.
And thats by themselves, mind. The party should win most of the time, but the game is less fun if some people are winning by themselves (or with their giant frickin' menagerie) or if other people are actually dragging the party down- and thats really the problem I have with the below par classes. I don't mind if some shows up with a barbarian or binder, because I rarely play at high level where their flaws really stand out. They can at least do *something* at the table, even if it amounts to 'get beat on by a fire elemental'. But when someone shows up with a monk, it becomes a problem for everyone else, because he simply isn't effective, and it actually raises the chances of a TPK.
|
|
I have two questions for you. What makes these classes a failure and would you even consider that their might be another explanation for this perceived failure?What makes them a failure? They're barely capable of playing the game as designed at 1st level. They fall behind somewhere between 2nd and 5th. From then on, they just can't deal with what the game throws at them. (or could throw at them).
On the opposite side, (clerics, wizards and company) are taking the game in a different direction. They aren't playing the game because they can take a single action and win any given situation. They don't win 100% of the time, but they're up around the 75% mark, easily.
Yes this is the point I thought would be raised. And - it's a fair point, or at least I concede that it can be shown they cannot meet these challenges (Frank Trollman has done an excellent job showing some of this in other threads). However, I would like to provide the following analysis; one of the following must be true to make your general statement about characters failing to meet the game's challenges true:
(1) The character designs are a monumental failure because they cannot meet the challenges the game expects (your view)
(2) The game challenge system is a failure because it misguides DMs on how to set level-appropriate challenges, causing the well-designed characters to fail (or succeed too easily) too often (a second view)
The question is: which one? To resolve this dilemma, I return to Occam's Razor. Either Cook, Tweet, Williams and the myriad of other authors were all completely off base better than 90% of the time or the CR system is off base 90% of the time. Which is the simplest explanation? The situation only becomes clearer when one notes that the CR system has always been acknowledged to be a bit difficult to work with and may not in all cases work as intended (reference monster design in the MM and CR/EL information in the DMG for pages - yes pages - of conversation regarding the difficulty of CR assignment).
I believe (obviously) the simplest explanation that meets the fact (and I am assuming it is a fact that characters fail to be successful in general) is that the CR system is either badly off base or partially off base and any further disparity between the core character classes as designed and "perfect classes" is not an additional failure of the designers but falls upon the reader, who hoped to find a more supers/anime/wuxia feel to the characters and did not.
To simplify and summarize, if one assumes that the core character classes are a failure, I postulate this failure points to inherent flaws in the CR system and in players' attitudes concerning how heroic characters should respond in game, rather than catastrophic failure of the designers, playtesters and many gamers to develop a game over the last decade.
As an aside, I find it telling that you did not answer my second question: would you even consider that there are other causes for perceived character failure other than bad character design? I do. Do you?
Sudden thought:
What if bloodlines grant bonus known spells, sort of like how domain spells worked in 3.5. This adds flavor while simultaneously adding a nice mechanical advantage to up the sorcerer's repertoire without significantly increasing firepower.
I did not want to come out and say it quite yet, but this is a change I am seriously considering right now. Each bloodline would have a list of spells, and you would get to choose one every time you gain a new level of spells (4th, 6th, 8th, etc). I like that, but to give them a bit of a bit more balance, I might drop all those levels by one (that is they can choose a bonus 1st lv spell at 3rd, 2nd lv at 5th, etc).
I realize that some folks would really like to see their progression change. Right now, I am not willing to make that change. The sorcerers benefit has always been more spells, just at a slightly slower progression. You may disagree, but right now, I am sticking with this concept.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I always saw it as sorcerers could cast only a smaller number of spells but more each day.
|
|
Hello everybody,
I would like to thank a number of you for keeping things civil in this relatively heated discussion. I have been thinking very critically about the sorcerer for the past few days. It has become apparent to me that perhaps I did not push the envelop far enough. There will be some adjustment, probably along the lines I have already mentioned. There might be a number of adjustments to individual bloodlines as well to bring them up to par.
The only thing I can say for certain right now is that the BAB and casting progression will not be changing. These two really hurt backwards compatability.
Thanks for the feedback. Stay tuned.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I too view this as good news. I believe the Sorcerer's flexibility and longevity (read as spells per day) should have a substantial price else no one would play a wizard. With that said, I am certain you are on the right track with the PRPG Sorcerer and anxiously await what you develop next.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Triple-post, but I'd at least like SOME feedback on this.
makes sense, but I'd not want your firebloodline wizard to be able to energy sub these spells, it would defeat the theme to me. To use your example, if they want cone of cold, they'll have to buy it seperately.
As an aside, I find it telling that you did not answer my second question: would you even consider that their are other causes for perceived character failure other than bad character design? I do. Do you?
Honestly, I don't really care enough. But sure, there are always other possibilities.
I don't think its really the CR system. Or at least not just the CR system. You can put the classes next to each other and just compare.
When class A (say, the druid) gets nice things, and class B (say, the samurai) doesn't get nice things, the CR system isn't the issue. Its that the designer of the class over or under valued the class features they were giving out.
When the druid is fully capable of beating up the fighter and taking his lunch money while his pet wolf eats the monk and a summoned snake eats the paladin, you know something is seriously wrong with the class balance before you even get to the CR system.
And thats another reason I consider it a complete failure on the part of the designers. The class imbalance is, in several cases, glaringly obvious from level 1.
If only we could get rid of Quickened Spell. Just toss it down a well and pretend it had never existed. 90% of my group's Sorcerer vs. Wizard debates would fade away.
Well it is a huge part of power difference between the two. Extra actions are serious power currency in D&D.
|
Sudden thought:
What if bloodlines grant bonus known spells, sort of like how domain spells worked in 3.5. This adds flavor while simultaneously adding a nice mechanical advantage to up the sorcerer's repertoire without significantly increasing firepower.
I did not want to come out and say it quite yet, but this is a change I am seriously considering right now. Each bloodline would have a list of spells, and you would get to choose one every time you gain a new level of spells (4th, 6th, 8th, etc). I like that, but to give them a bit of a bit more balance, I might drop all those levels by one (that is they can choose a bonus 1st lv spell at 3rd, 2nd lv at 5th, etc).
I realize that some folks would really like to see their progression change. Right now, I am not willing to make that change. The sorcerers benefit has always been more spells, just at a slightly slower progression. You may disagree, but right now, I am sticking with this concept.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I loved the bloodline feats that appeared in a couple of issues of Dragon. I think something similar would be a great way to do Pathfinder bloodlines.
The good thing about those bloodline spells was that they were spells a sorcerer wouldn't normally feel able to spend his limited number of "spells known" slots on, thereby granting some much needed versatility.
Also, a "themed" spell selection makes for a fun character.
EDIT To that end I'd also like each bloodline to come with an additional class skill, but make it a useful one!
|
|
When class A (say, the druid) gets nice things, and class B (say, the samurai) doesn't get nice things, the CR system isn't the issue. Its that the designer of the class over or under valued the class features they were giving out.
When the druid is fully capable of beating up the fighter and taking his lunch money while his pet wolf eats the monk and a summoned snake eats the paladin, you know something is seriously wrong with the class balance before you even get to the CR system.
And thats another reason I consider it a complete failure on the part of the designers. The class imbalance is, in several cases, glaringly obvious from level 1.
I am not saying that class imbalances don't exist at various times and levels, but then again, neither were you. You previously said that the classes were badly designed because they didn't accomplish what they were supposed to in game. This is what we were discussing and I am not sure how to interpret this sudden change in your approach, but I guess I am willing to run with it.
So since you brought it up, let's discuss class vs class combat or more generally, class comparisons. Where did the designers say that all classes were created to be equal at all times? I may have missed this but I don't think it exists. And in an effort to show I am sincere in discussing this, I will put my position out first: the belief that all classes are meant to be equal at all times is a fallacy. There are at least three issues with this point of view:
(1) D&D is not a dueling game of player vs player. It is a cooperative game where the weaknesses of one class are made up for by the strengths of another. This is a general rule of thumb and may not hold true for all possible combinations or player counts (An all-rogues group for example, would be hard pressed to run AoW, even if they are a "well-designed class").
(2) The overall goal for character design was to provide a variety of character archtypes, that when played together, created 4-person groups with a reasonable chance of success and mimicked tropes found in fantasy literature over the last 30 or so years. Previously we debated the success of this goal. You felt the character design was a failure 90% of the time, I disagreed. But anyway...
(3) There is a very definite nonlinearity concerning character cooperation and power such that the whole (the party) is not only greater than the sum of its parts, it is much greater than the sum of its parts (this nonlinearity is one reason CR systems are hard to define - there is a butterfly effect to character counts and types in a group - change one small thing and everything changes).
Because of (3) and (1) the game probably cannot be balanced in such a way that:
Not everyone likes these aspects of 3.5 and wants to see "sameness of effect" across all character classes. I concede it makes the game more unpredictable and at times may allow one class (fighter at low level, wizards at high for example) to have more of the spotlight. But saying it is broken is hardly a conclusion I would draw. It can only be broken if the goal was sameness, and again, I have not seen or heard of this ever being a goal of 3.5 design.
However, sameness is a 4e goal. This is IMO, why 4e turned everyone into caster types with at-will, encounter and daily powers and everyone into self-healers. Now everyone can do about the same number of things every day, they can all do about the same types of things at the same frequency every day and they can all do about the same kind of damage with each ability. Viola, problem solved. Now every class is balanced and its all flavor text thereafter.
Oh, right the swashbuckler. I knew I was forgetting someone. That ranks a severe flogging as well. As does the soul knife. The psychic warrior almost escapes that fate, but a psion/illithid hunter makes him look like a joke.
|
|
I wouldn't say the 3.0 team failed so badly because they were inventing much of the thing in the first place. But the 3.5 team failed miserably by not fixing even near enough and introducing new problems (shapechange giving supernatural abilities for example).
Yeah shapechange has been a big problem. I hate it for the most part.
What happens is: the core preparing spellcasters are vastly better than anything else...
So you don't think they are underpowered at low levels and you don't subscribe to the 15-minute adventuring day issue?
... except the artificer (which's vastly better than them if played to near-full* RAW extent), the rogue, sorcerer, psionic classes (divine mind and soulknife excepted), binder, incarnate, totemist and UMD classes have lots of versatility when well-built and played (and suck when not), martial adepts are pretty good in combat but not very useful for other stuff (yeah, I know their skill lists are pretty decent, but being really useful tends to take special abilities), "mixed" classes such as bard and ranger are lacking in combat despite being interesting out of it (even then, not as good as the best classes), old full-BAB classes such as barbarian, fighter and paladin might contribute "well" (by which I mean "deal high damage and soak some", nothing more complex than that) only when the enemy plays on their terms, some full-BAB classes (such as CW samurai and swashbuckler) are fighters with their feats swapped for stuff worse than the good noncore feats (such as, you know, the ones in the very CW from which both mentioned classes came), and the monk and soulknife have class features for "having weapons" and not much else (pretty much only diamond soul and knife to the soul, respectively). If that doesn't show imbalance between classes, I don't know what would. And the issue's that it's not being fixed here...
I speak to class imbalances in another post above this one, so review that post for class imbalance discussions. The short version of that post is: where does it say the classes were designed balanced relative to one another? Wasn't it instead a design goal to have a group, working together in a synergistic fashion over 20 levels, overcome the challenges they faced?
From what I've seen (Can't stress this enough) the classes that most people agree about are the ToB classes (Blah blah Exalted blah blah Wuxia blah blah magic there thats out of the way), the Psionics classes (With the exception of the Divine Mind) ,Binders, Warlocks, Rogues, and the Dragonfire Adept.
Come on already, what classes are you happy with right now? Which class is designed well as it stands in the 3.5 Core? Elsewhere? Have all of these designers, across the last decade failed to produce much of anything you can use right out of the box? If not, where?
Edit: spelling, clarity
Yea yea.... but in that argument is ALSO the SORCERER typically because this same segment likes to claim that the full-casters are uber and the strict-melee's can't hack it. And yes there is some truth to that (not typically to the extent the handwringing is all about however).
If we are matching the current Alpha 2 sorcerer head to head with the Alpha 2 wizard then the sorc loses... it we are matching the sorcerer with the 3.5 psion, ToB classes, warlocks, rogues, and whatnot, then it will hold it's own if not win.
Bah, I'm enjoying my single-classed Warlock right now (although I painstakingly evaluate my invocation options -- took me the entire week between sessions last time I gained a level), although I'd agree with you on most of the others. The Truenamer isn't necessarily bad in concept, it just mostly needs someone who can add to reconsider the mechanics, when at levels 11-13 you need at least a feat to use your spells on *yourself* and beyond that you...
Concept isn't the issue. The fact that the designer wasn't even passingly familiar with basic math skills is.
Enjoyment of a class is not the same thing as saying a class is good, or balanced, or well designed. The fact is, the warlock is never doing damage thats actually level appropriate, and though he can do his invocations infinitely, with a few exceptions at 1st, 2nd, and ...5th or 6th level (whenever he can first grab fly or invisibility) he isn't doing anything level appropriate with those either.
@LL- its a symptom of the same thing: the shoddy design leads to inescapable imbalance. Its not so much a matter of pit fights. Its that the druid is literally worth two or three other characters. And party effectiveness does matter. But a party consisting of a cleric, druid and wizard is easily just as, if not more, effective than a party consisting of a knight, a dragon shaman, a swashbuckler, a bard and a shadowcaster.