|
I didn't see alternate xp rules in 3.P.0.2.
Alpha 2, page 103
Roleplaying encounters are generally equal to a challenge of the average level of the party (although particularly easy or hard roleplaying encounters might be one higher or lower).Alpha 2, page 104
Story Awards
In addition to XP awarded for defeating monsters, players should be awarded experience points whenever they complete a major storyline or complete an important accomplishment. These awards should be worth an amount of experience points equal to two encounters of a level equal to the APL. Particularly long or difficult story arcs might award even more, at the discretion of the GM.
The game is still about stabbing people (and monsters) in the face - and that's what any neutral observer would conclude from reading the rules.
That's not what a neutral observer would conclude from reading a representative selection of 3.0 and 3.5 scenarios.
There is seriously 5x as much text (at least) dedicated to monsters as anything else, and more text dedicated to combat than any other facet of general mechanics.[...]
Acting outside of combat doesn't require nearly as much codification as combat, as most of it can be handled by common sense and the players' social skills.
If the game was about social interaction, it would do more than give lip-service to the idea of mechanics about talking to people.
I don't think anyone in this thread suggested that the game was focused on social interaction. Role-playing and roll-playing are integral parts of the game and each group will strike a different balance between the two.
And casters get a social challenge bypass ability at level 1 - Charm Person. This makes social challenges a useless metric because casters are terribly overpowered at them.
1. The point is that you're pretending the game is Unreal Tournament Deathmatch, not D&D. There's more than just "how many solo combats can I win?" involved in balancing characters.
2. Really? Charm person is an auto-win in social challenges?
King: "So why should I not kill you all where you stand?"
Wizard: "Charm person!"
King's Guards: "Kill the wizard!"
<TPK>
Combat effectiveness is impossible to analyze because players can choose to commit suicide (in varying levels) or have the capability to do non-stabbing actions?
Zurai...
How would you suggest we find balance then. If you take issue with premise one?
I do tend to think that D&D is sold as a wargame that you can roleplay and not vice-versa maybe I'm mistaken about the set of of the game mechanics, but I doubt it. The rules of d&d are set up as a combat simulator not a social simiulator so its pretty hard not to consider it a Deathmatch in most cases. Further in the scenario above you're suggesting
King: blah blah....
Wizard: Still spell~charm person.
So the kings guards really don't know what the hell is going on.
The kings "MAGE" might but again we already know mages are good at doing thier job.
I Dm'd the Hook Mountain massacre using and using 3.p and the barbarian player suggested that the changes weren't good.
The short of it was while he was exited that he got new stuff, ultimately he was saying that you should still rage as per normal and get a pool of rage points for abilities cause they're pretty expensive, futher it forces the barbarian to buy con and thats limiting to the S/D/W bararians Instead of the S/D/C barbarians... I thought long about it and I think I agree. . . I love the new sorceror though grade A!
OK, for my two cp's worth...
If you want a true view of what the barbarian can do, put 4 barbarians together, and run them through the same test. See if, at the end, they are down 25% HP, out of 25% of their arrows, whatever.
Let's get one thing clear on this entire balanced issue however. The character classes are all specializations, each with its' own strengths AND weaknesses. There are times and situations where certain classes are going to suck through a pipe with how well they can meet a challenge. And hence, the need of a party with differing classes, different strengths, so that they make up for the deficiencies. Anyone who doesn't expect that to happen and just plays a strict game of mathematics is always gonna be extremely disappointed with the way numbers crunch by their itty bitty selves.
If you want to make a balanced character, you're gonna have to make one up and place it in your own world, or even present it to Paizo for consideration. I seriously doubt the game is gonna switch to a Fighter that does 7d6 at 7th level because of the sorcerer being able to do a 7d6 lightning bolt, just for 'balancing purposes'.
Now that that is said, your tests do show us where the downside of a character class is, and what we can possibly do to improve them. I like looking at these tests and see what people come up with. Of course, I possibly look at them like a scout looks at an opponent boxer, learning his moves to see where he's weak so I can exploit it. But that's just me...
|
Zurai...
How would you suggest we find balance then. If you take issue with premise one?
I do tend to think that D&D is sold as a wargame that you can roleplay and not vice-versa maybe I'm mistaken about the set of of the game mechanics, but I doubt it. The rules of d&d are set up as a combat simulator not a social simiulator so its pretty hard not to consider it a Deathmatch in most cases.
D&D is, but pathfinder is structured more 60/40 roll/role than the 80/20 that D&D is sold as.
Further in the scenario above you're suggesting
King: blah blah....
Wizard: Still spell~charm person.
So the kings guards really don't know what the hell is going on.
The kings "MAGE" might but again we already know mages are good at doing thier job.
or the king has his mage cast anti-magic aura before receiving audiences or dangerous people he is threatening to kill. or has detect magic on the guards in the room so they will see if the wizard is preparing a spell... give me a situation and I can find a spell that will counter it... that is including 90% of battles. what we're saying is that one build of any class is not a suitable test case. both for the PC and the NPC the PC is fighting.
King's Guards: Make Spellcraft check (most likely fail), So they hear gibberish.*
Doesn't matter if they know what spell the Wizard cast, just that he cast a spell. I think it's safe to say that, in a magical society, casting unsolicited spells in the vicinity of the King would be a bad idea if you want to continue living.
The official PHB rule is that, as long as there is a component, spellcasting is unmistakable. If there is a verbal, somatic, or material component, everyone within sight/hearing knows that a spell is being cast by you. Barring Cloaked Casting or similar feats/class abilities or removing all the components with metamagics, there's no way to hide that.Also, Charm is detectable with a relatively easy Sense Motive check, and there are defined circumstance bonuses for strange actions (such as "Why shouldn't I have you killed... oh wait, how'd you like to marry my daughter instead").
Charm person is not a silver bullet to social encounters. The closest to that is actually glibness (+30 on Bluff to lie, and lies are undectable by magic), but even that isn't nearly perfect.
Combat effectiveness is impossible to analyze because players can choose to commit suicide (in varying levels) or have the capability to do non-stabbing actions?
It's not that combat effectiveness is impossible to analyze: it's that it's being used as the only measure of a character's worth.
By all means, measure how well a character class stacks up in combat. But it's ludicrous to compare a solo Druid to a solo Bard vs <random monster>, for example. The classes aren't designed to be balanced that way.
Thus, a test that draws judgements against an entire class while measuring only one facet of its performance is not really useful for determining class balance. You need to measure all facets of its performance.
How would I do it? I'd run some playtest adventures. Actual, honest-to-God, face-to-face (or PbP) games. That's the only real way to playtest a system as complex as D&D. Theorycraft works great in World of Warcraft (or Insert_Other_Computer_Game_Here) because interactions are strictly limited - and I do mean strictly. I've written interaction matrices for games before. In D&D, interactions are unlimited. Literally anything could happen. You can't reduce an unlimited game to an incredibly narrow artificial test like this and draw any meaningful conclusion about overall class balance.
I'm not saying not to provide feedback, but there's really no sense providing feedback in this manner. The "tests" just don't provide meaningful data. The playtest reports from actual groups are extremely valuable data, and when my own group starts Curse of the Crimson Throne, I'll be providing my own playtest reports. Unfortunately, that's not for several months yet; we're only on module 5 of Rise of the Runelords.
See I see a major flaw in your Barbarian....+1 chainmail...
Ok you're giving up mobility for the weakest of the medium armors.Mithril Full plate...not magical, far outclasses +1 chainmail. Still counts as medium armor.
Don't forget to mention the adamantine battleaxe. What is he fighting that he needs to spend valuable gold on the adamantine? I don't have my books on me, but I don't think any of the CR7 monsters have DR/adamatine. That's good money spent on something useless for this play test.
Yeah, adamantine weapons are just about useless to a barbarian. Barbs are the MOST able to bypass damage reductions without special materials.
Combat effectiveness should not be balanced with non-combat effectiveness. The two systems are vastly different, and one's very rough around the edges and subject to incredible variance just by personality interactions IRL, making it close to impossible to objectively quantify.
Oh, let me throw in something else. There isn't much a fighter or barbarian can do BUT fight, and yet attempts to see their performance in said goals are turning up woefully lacking much past level 5.
They can't talk nor can they fight. Sounds to me like a class that's unable to properly contribute on its own merits, existing maybe as the caster's Barbie Buff Doll as a means for validation (rather than doing the same thing to a cleric/druid cohort).
Combat effectiveness should not be balanced with non-combat effectiveness. The two systems are vastly different, and one's very rough around the edges and subject to incredible variance just by personality interactions IRL, making it close to impossible to objectively quantify.
You're right and you're wrong. You're right in your direct statement that non-combat effectiveness is impossible to objectively quantify.
You're wrong in your indirect statement that combat effectiveness is possible to objectively quantify.
There are billions of possible barbarian builds - and the differences in those builds that make them more or less combat capable are just as likely to be items, spells, or feats that would make any character more or less combat capable as they are class abilities. At that point, you have to realize that you have FAR too many variables in your experiment.
Because there is no single (or even small multiple number) way to build a barbarian, it's effectively impossible to objectively measure its effectiveness. Hell, people have made level 1 kobold commoners into over-Gods (see: Pun-Pun).
The only real way to judge how balanced classes are in an open-ended, infinitely complex system like D&D is subjectively. That's really all there is to it. And, honestly, I don't think I'm going to convince anyone of that who isn't already convinced, so I'll go ahead and bow out of this (and other, similar) thread now.
You proved my point.
give me a situation and I can find a spell that will counter it... that is including 90% of battles
Thanks for making it so easy...
You see the point is the barbarian is not able to say that where as a wizard is, thats the problem. Thats the point.
Now make the barbarian able to say somthing approximating that and it be valid and the concept will stick.
Besides You can actually do things like a Stilled/silent charm/eschewed charm. Thing is you actually need ANOTHER MAGE to deal with it. Other than that Charm "Bones" social scenarios.
Whats worse is a barbarian really can't even beat up the best of the bruisers in existance he's somewhere round half way. I belive the rage powers can be fixed to work around it but with a slight re-write I'll need another day of testing or two to figure out how to make a barbarian that can deal but basically it could use rage powers to actally answer a lot of questions.
Oh. . . And I like the 4 barbraians scenario test. Are you going to run it?
|
You proved my point.
give me a situation and I can find a spell that will counter it... that is including 90% of battlesThanks for making it so easy...
You see the point is the barbarian is not able to say that where as a wizard is, thats the problem. Thats the point.
Now make the barbarian able to say somthing approximating that and it be valid and the concept will stick.
Besides You can actually do things like a Stilled/silent charm/eschewed charm. Thing is you actually need ANOTHER MAGE to deal with it. Other than that Charm "Bones" social scenarios.
Whats worse is a barbarian really can't even beat up the best of the bruisers in existance he's somewhere round half way. I belive the rage powers can be fixed to work around it but with a slight re-write I'll need another day of testing or two to figure out how to make a barbarian that can deal but basically it could use rage powers to actally answer a lot of questions.Oh. . . And I like the 4 barbraians scenario test. Are you going to run it?
Barbarians hate and fear wizards for a reason. Remember the Barbarian from 1e UA hated all magic. If you want to make a Wizard killer, take Monkey grip and Throw anything. Then start chucking your Large Battleaxes.
Perhaps Barbarians need a Rage ability that gives them Spell Resistance!!! oooo I like that... JASON READ THIS POST!!! ADD IT!!! hehe
1 The post about a rage power that gives spell resistance is good but a smart wizard knows about spell resistance and will just acid fog you or something... really spell resistance isn't a bad a deteriment to "good" wizards as advertised
I have a few barbarian suggestions...
Over on the charops boards I write the consolidated Barbarians handbook along with zendu...
This probbably goes in a different thread but... basically,
1. the barbarians shuold not have to pay to maintain thier rage. Use the origianal rage and add rage points...
So you can then have a rage power like
Extend rage: 2 rp your rage lasts an additional round you may use this anytime your rage would end.
but thats just part of the problem.
A couple more.
Ignorance: “He is a barbarian, and thus thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature”
12 RP, Barbarian may ignore any spell effects ongoing or cast at him until the start of his next turn, *he recieves a will save to treat any summoned or gated creature and its effects as thought they were summoned by the shadow conjuration spell
(Unlike spell resitance this or a similar wording would actually DO something about forcecage and the likes)
Alternatively and proabbably more palettable to some would be use this ability to treat any spell effect you encounter as "Will negates" but only for the barbarian.
Beligerance:
"Why do you still stand! Kneel, kneel before your king!" Aeon glanced down at his party kneeling at his side, Pssting him or tugging at his pant leg. He the leveled a steely eyed glance around the audience chamber, leveled staring hard at the king. "Kneel in the prescence of lowlanders? and spit in the direction of the High Protector who had been shouting orders at him. "No."
6 rage points
(ex) All opponents with an intelligence score within a 30 foot radius must make a will save or are forced spend thier next action attacking the barbarian.(this may be with spells or whatever attack is standard for that opponent) You may spend 3 rp points each round to extend this ability for another round. The opponents are allowed a new saving throw each round to end this effect.
So... you don't like my suggetions... you're right I don't have an answer as to chracter role at high levels. I based beligerance on the idea of them being able to actually gain attention that the front line fighter is actually "NOT" being avoided. Or some such drivel...
???
In referenece to what i suggested?
I got the Ignorance and beligerance from thinking abotu Robert e. Howards works. I didnt' intend to add to the metagame of the argument.
However, if were breaking down the rubric of what a fighter supposed to be doing then someones gotta answer that before one can make real assessment of the contribution to the team.
If its about solo analysis (which I do think works you just don't include belligeranc as a rage power) Ignorance(ignore spell effects) should be clarified basically its reall immunity to magic which to this day in D&D no 1-20 opponent or player has.
Herald back to the forsaker idea a bit but basically Kull and Conan and anyother barbarian I can thinking of from a literary stand point wasn't cool with being magiced. Basically, my suggesition is to find way to allow the barbarian to do what he wants(should want at least) to do, Fight.
M...
Sadly ... off to work later... I agree with Sqlord about the in effectivness of the Brb as it stands I just figured at a certain point we should analyze and propose to the makers a list of fixes
My wording my not have been the best but...
please give it another look.
Thank you.
M_v
(Crap! I thought your post said I dont' think its a step in the right direction! Stupid me. thanks SQ.) M.