If your design goal is 'desirable to play 1-20', how the heck do you measure that?
Have many players go man I can't wait till I get this fighter up to 20th.15TH level is also acceptable.
I agree with Seeker. Another sign is when the player says, "Nah, I'm not looking for a prestige class- I like how fighter's going."
D&D = game. Game = fun to play. If game = fun to play, then design goal met.
Game design is more like art than science. It is not necessary to weigh each class to optomize it for a specific function. Even if it was done, each group and each player will run it diferently.
I have a friend who won't use sneak attack when he runs a rogue, because he doesn't like backstabbing. I ran a wizard who specialized in HTH combat, and who fought on par with the party fighter.
A wise man once said "Ask not how to live- Instead proceed to do so."
Don't ask what the fighter's niche is- play and make your own niche. Roles are up to the player.
I think you're missing the point on measuring goal achievement. ...
A design goal must be 'objectively measurable', by which I mean the goal must be stated such that there are no value judgements attached to it, and a test method must exist which isn't based solely on personal opinion.
I think you're missing the point that there is no "Goal" other than fun. There is nothing in the world so highly subjective as a role-playing game.
I certainly hope there is no 'Design Statement' for Fighters. They are the most generic of the classes - and not in a bad way - in that they are simply tough. Tough to kill (hp), tough to avoid (BAB). Beyond that simple premise, a player can select their feats to do anything they want to do with a fighter. The new armor and weapon trainings focus that very slightly.
The philosophy that a class, any class, must be designed to accomplish a specific purpose is self-limiting, and artificial. Limiting creativity to find ways to accomplish new purposes, rather than some artificial list created as goals and benchmarks.
Martial classes *fight*. They are not good against specific monsters so much as All monsters. They are the backbone of the party, dishing out consistent damage against all but the strangest or most magical (i.e. high AC or high DR) creatures. And even when that fails they can be counted on to tough it out as a distraction, or bull rush, trip, etc. as needed.
I get that you want a yardstick to measure the classes by Squirrel, but as soon as you get that stick the classes will suffer for it.
Correction, they are not good at fighting *any* monsters. (At least not starting around about 7th level, and certainly not by 10th). They can be counted on to be totally ignored and to make the Wizard a martini - shaken, not stirred - at the end of combat. The damage they dish out is totally irrelevant in a game where combat lasts an average around 1.5 turns at mid-high levels. They can annoy the DM by making him roll unnecessary dice so the player can feel useful because he has a 1/20 chance... some of the time... of using a combat maneuver against a monster with strictly superior stats. (Oh wait, 3.P fixed this - now the DM doesn't need to bother to roll, the fighter can just suck on his own. yay!)
This is just SO wrong...
Seriously, the fighter is like the druid's animal companion - useful at really low levels, mildly useful at low levels, and in need of substantial magical effort to make even viable at *mid* levels. At high levels? We can use it to walk into traps for us so the rogue doesn't have to waste time rolling dice. Isn't it sad when one player's entire class is equivalent to another player's class feature? I certainly think so.
The only way to fix this is to decide what it is the fighter should be doing while CoDzilla is burning Tokyo with radioactive fire and the wizard is negotiating with reality about how the laws of physics should work today while running Tetris in the background.
Every time I hear something like that, I wonder how people play D&D, because certainly it's not the same way me and my pals have been playing for the last 20 years...
|
Melee characters have been strictly inferior to spellcasters through the life of 3ed. Spells like Divine Power and Shapechange mean that spellcasters can have full BAB, more hitpoints, better saves, deal more damage, AND can rewrite the laws of reality before calling it a day.
I agree, the new changes make fighters and barbarians good enough that I'd at least not multiclass out by level 2 (as I do now), but I'd still multiclass out. Holy Liberator 3 or Occult Slayer 5 will still be necessary to deal with their giant Achilles' heel, and the new abilities really aren't all that great -- you can spend a crazy number of rage points in order to get a trivial amount of DR for a round, for example.
I, too, would like to see a way for non-spellcasters to shine. I think the combat feats are the way to do it -- just make them available only to non-spellcasters, and toss gasoline on them to make them good enough to use in high level combats.
Lets correct some gross inaccuracies shall we?
Hi tough to kill, meet Will Save or Lose. Oh right, you have no answer to that.
It's called Iron Will. And the Rogue has no answer to this either until a minimum of 10th level. Even then it's "Will save twice or lose". They *shouldn't* have an easy answer to this.
Hi tough to kill, meet Melee Monster who is strictly better than you in every numerical way. And a 'level appropriate challenge' for your party. Yeah, sucks to be you.
Great to meet you, let us hack at one another while my friends cast mass "Will save or lose" spells on you and your friends. Oh you made all those saves? Let me pop a quick potion or Mobility out of combat to get a cure spell and I'll finish you off.
They Fight, they won't always be the very best at it, get used to it. Doesn't make them at all useless.
Hi tough to kill, meet Puzzle Monster that you have *no abilities* that will help you defeat it. Hope you found/packed the right gear today.
Hi, let me hack at you until I do hit, and do kill you.
Incorporeal? Just 50% miss chance? Whatever, you're probably undead with no con mod.
Swarm? Half damage from slashing and piercing? That's all you've got against my Earthbreaker?
Flying/Shapechanger? Shoot you or guard my buddy who'll blast you down. Me doing that *helps* defeat you.
Hi tough to kill, meet non-combat challenge, in which you will do nothing and cry about having no skills worth using and precious few points to put in them.
Trap, what trap? Oh those spikes through my feet in this hole? I thought that was just terrain change.
Tough to avoid.... Walk around them (outside their threat range)?
BAB, not some stupid aggro thing - hard to avoid the attacks of. Fighters *hit*, and if they hit easy, they hit even harder.
I propose a new class. It has no BAB advancement, poor saves in...
The philosophy that a class, any class, must be designed to accomplish a specific purpose is self-limiting, and artificial. Limiting creativity to find ways to accomplish new purposes, rather than some artificial list created as goals and benchmarks.
Go back to you Den if that's all you have to offer here Squirrel. Demanding that the game design match your concepts is about as useless as can be. Not fun eh?
Wow... thats really not cool, Majuba. Very acerbic.
You tell him to leave and insult him because his opinion and experience run counter to yours?
Even if he's incorrect in his analysis of the game you're making yourself the bad guy.
Its funny, are there actually any design statment for classes anywhere??
Where does this idea come from? When Will Jason appear!
Stay tuned....
|
To be honest I believe the design statement was mentioned at the very start of the Alpha phase. That and the fact that the third part of the Alpha is out tommorow I believe means Jason probably dosent have the time to answer at the moment (He did say he would have less time to answer and go through the forums till Alpha 3 rolls out)
I'm with you on this Squirrelloid.
There is nothing wrong with a clearly defined design concept.
Earlier in the thread, someone mention that games don't need one becuase all a game needs to do is achieve fun.
They're right, a game doesn't need one. But if they have one, they're much more likely to achieve that fun.
When I first saw the Alpha 1 version of the fighter, I was hopeful. I like fighters, I play fighters. But I saw the "Armor" Class feature and said to myself "Why?"
So I could use a better AC, true, but at level 12 monsters hit me with thier first iterative attack on a 4 or higher. And why do I have to pick an armor type? (sure they changed that later, thankfully) That'll just force me to figure out what kind of armor I want to wear at level 20 and pick that kind at first level. That's not good design.
Then I looked at the Weapon Mastery and thought similar things. It's great that I get a +1 to hit and damage with a longsword, but what do I do with this Vorpal Dagger I just found? If you want to add a class feature to fighter then let them use those proposed weapon grouping with all of their feats. Weapon Focus: Weapon I know is a bit more on par with a wizards Prepare Any Spell I know. Don't make fighters pick feats and class features based on their equipment. Equipment is not intrinsic to the character. Class feature should not become useless after bandits steal all of your gear (note: I feel the same way about Wizard spell books).
Now, if a fighter is supposed to be able to draw aggo, or be a speed bunp, or a protector then they should have class abilities thast do that.
Aggro Drawer: Recieve a +(level) to hit and +2x(level to damage) when you attack a foe that has attacked allies other than yourself for the last 2 rounds.
Speed Bump: Squares you threaten are treated as difficult terrain and you can make one extra AoO against an opponent who leaves atleat 2 threatened squares. Additionally, as an immediate action you can five foot adjust once until the start of your next turn.
Protector: Adjacent allies recieve a shield bonus to their AC equal to your shield bonus.
Those are class features (made them up on the fly) that work towards a purpose. Some could argue that there are feats that do that, but that's beside the point. Unless those feats were specifically fighter only.
Wow... thats really not cool, Majuba. Very acerbic.
You tell him to leave and insult him because his opinion and experience run counter to yours?
Even if he's incorrect in his analysis of the game you're making yourself the bad guy.
You're quite correct, and I regretted it after I posted and apologize. Unfortunately travel time prevented me from editing it. Rather completely obscures the points I was trying to make.
To address just one new issue, I am not trying to say that there should not be some premises kept in mind when doing design work. I feel those premises are as easily established by the last thirty years of D&D as they are for wizards and clerics.
What I am trying to say is that the martial classes should not be parceled out to niche roles, and their steady contribution in virtually all combat situations is the equal of most other types of classes unsteady contributions.
|
I look at threads like this and wonder if the OP has listened to all of Paizo's talk about backwards compatibility, feel and tradition...
We've been told often enough not to expect radical change, but people are still asking for it.
Fighters hit most things reliably, and they survive; that's useful, at least it is in every game I've ever played in.
If a party covers four niches you're eventually going to be frustrated by niche no. 5; keep the great lummock who hits things.
So, the problem that has plagued martial classes in D+D ever since they stopped being seen as expendable mooks is that there has never been a clear goal stated for what they should accomplish.
...
So, the problem for melee characters has always been 'oh, we'll hand him a sword, and we'll give him some things to do with it' but never a clear idea about what monsters he should really shine against. Even ranged martial classes or builds are in an analogous boat - feats look well and good, but no one seems to be thinking about how these are supposed to add up to beating different types of monsters that are level-appropriate challenges.
So, what monster types should the Barbarian shine against? The Fighter? The Ranger? Monk? Paladin? We know what their schtick is, what we don't know is how they're supposed to be going about it.
Hear, hear. Great post!
|
Now, if a fighter is supposed to be able to draw aggo, or be a speed bunp, or a protector then they should have class abilities thast do that.
Aggro Drawer: Recieve a +(level) to hit and +2x(level to damage) when you attack a foe that has attacked allies other than yourself for the last 2 rounds.
Speed Bump: Squares you threaten are treated as difficult terrain and you can make one extra AoO against an opponent who leaves atleat 2 threatened squares. Additionally, as an immediate action you can five foot adjust once until the start of your next...
From early on in this thread, I wasn't sure if I truly understood the specific mentality of what Squid was trying to accomplish - although I like what he said about the barbarian and a hypothetical design focus that he be the guy to break through magical barriers etc.
After your post, Tizz, I'm starting to clearly see and understand just what the mentality of this whole thread was for; and I see that merit in it. In fact, I REALLY like what you did here with these ideas.
After the Alpha 2 was released I redesigned the paladin class to something I saw the paladin's role to be - and am using that variant in my homebrew games which my players really like and a DM in my group has asked to use it as a viable character class for his campaign. (i used some of the PF designed Paladin as inspiration as well). What I now realize is that without knowing what I was doing at the time, my redesigned paladin does fit a category like what Squid is suggesting. My design focus for the paladin is all about supporting, defending and protecting his comrades while leading them (as a general would) in their fight against evil. He shines most brightly against evil fiends.
So with that in mind, I do see Squids point - although I don't think its mutually inclusive to having fun with the game, I do see the merit and can see how it could 'add' to the fun - not detract from it.
Tizz, once again, I really like your ideas - even as just off the cuff hypothetical brainstormings.
Robert
Not to threadjack too badly, but thought I'd comment specifically on the barbarian as a mage-killer. I'd posit the monk already is just that. All good saves, so the wizard is least likely to affect him. SR at higher levels. High speed, so he can get to the backfield the wizard is probably hiding out in. Tumble as a class skill, so he can get by the front line without taking damage himself. Stunning fist, which on a failed fortitude save shuts the caster down (and wizards tend to have low fortitude saves). Then flurry of blows (which can also be stunning fists) to quickly remove a low AC foes hit points (and wizards tend to have low AC). Just saying.
/threadjack
If you decide that the role of the fighter, for example, is to be the offensive line (or barrier to the monsters, if you dislike football), then it actually takes LESS effort to make it backwards compatible to bring that class up to speed. Essentially, you start giving it mostly defensive and AoO class abilities to deal with the melee monsters a party will face. That can be easily grafted on to the existing fighters in your campaign.
Similarly, if you decide that the monk is the mage killer, then you start with good saves and at higher levels begin giving it SR. If the barbarian is supposed to be an all offense class, then you know not to give many "rage" options that boost defense, halving the the work for DMs to update them. And if you want the ranger to be the archery and tracking specialist, then you stop supporting the suboptimal TWF builds and streamline that class.
But when the fighter class is supposed to be all things to all people, then you start getting complex fixes that start to really hamper backwards complexity.
So, yes, the OP is correct that the designers should have very clear goals for each class.
And I'd like to remind Squirreloid and Majuba that we're all on the same side here. Wait for support from other posters before circling the wagons and going to the snark defense, please.
|
|
If you decide that the role of the fighter, for example, is to be the offensive line (or barrier to the monsters, if you dislike football), then it actually takes LESS effort to make it backwards compatible to bring that class up to speed. Essentially, you start giving it mostly defensive and AoO class abilities to deal with the melee monsters a party will face. That can be easily grafted on to the existing fighters in your campaign.
Similarly, if you decide that the monk is the mage killer, then you start with good saves and at higher levels begin giving it SR. If the barbarian is supposed to be an all offense class, then you know not to give many "rage" options that boost defense, halving the the work for DMs to update them. And if you want the ranger to be the archery and tracking specialist, then you stop supporting the suboptimal TWF builds and streamline that class.
But when the fighter class is supposed to be all things to all people, then you start getting complex fixes that start to really hamper backwards complexity.
So, yes, the OP is correct that the designers should have very clear goals for each class.
And I'd like to remind Squirreloid and Majuba that we're all on the same side here. Wait for support from other posters before circling the wagons and going to the snark defense, please.
And the problem is that at the moment that is not the case. For example, under your proposals what happens to the existing TWF Rangers? Or the Swashbuckling Fighters? Do you tell their players to go away and play the something else instead? That doesn't seem in keeping with Pathfinder's design goals.
If you're creating a new game, yes, absolutely it makes an incredible amount of sense. Now look at the fuss that 4E's generated for following just this model because it didn't fit with what people understood the Fighter to be.
The Fighter does need improvement, but there are better ways rather than trying to shoehorn everything into a narrow role, such as improving the feats for Fighters.
After your post, Tizz, I'm starting to clearly see and understand just what the mentality of this whole thread was for; and I see that merit in it. In fact, I REALLY like what you did here with these ideas.
...
So with that in mind, I do see Squids point - although I don't think its mutually inclusive to having fun with the game, I do see the merit and can see how it could 'add' to the fun - not detract from it.
Tizz, once again, I really like your ideas - even as...
Thanks for the feedback. Even more for liking my ideas :) I was hesitant to post at first as I am more of a lurker by nature and I have (in the past) borne the brunt of overly negative feedback on forums.
What I am trying to say is that the martial classes should not be parceled out to niche roles, and their steady contribution in virtually all combat situations is the equal of most other types of classes unsteady contributions.
I see your point. However, when you say that martial classes are steady contibutors in virtually all combat situations, to others, that is a niche. Differing viewpoints are not necessarily contradicting ones.
If I were wanting the fighter to fit an "all-purpose" role, then I'd want to give her class features to accomplish that. <See my previous post regarding Weapon Focus Feat applying to classes of weapons> Right now, the fighter isn't "All-Purpose" ... it's "Higgledy-Piggledy". And that's my problem with it.
|
So, now that the "Level X vs CR X" argument has not seen widespread support, the approach is to wrangle a design goal from Jason so:
Hmm, I would wager that if Jason isn't falling into the Level X vs CR X trap that he isn't going to fall for this either.
But by all means, carry on.
And the problem is that at the moment that is not the case. For example, under your proposals what happens to the existing TWF Rangers? Or the Swashbuckling Fighters? Do you tell their players to go away and play the something else instead? That doesn't seem in keeping with Pathfinder's design goals.
If you're creating a new game, yes, absolutely it makes an incredible amount of sense. Now look at the fuss that 4E's generated for following just this model because it didn't fit with what people understood the Fighter to be.
The Fighter does need improvement, but there are better ways rather than trying to shoehorn everything into a narrow role, such as...
Options.
The best solution to the problem at this point is to offer options, as they have with other Pathfinder fixes: keep the familiar or get this doohickey, keep the special horsey or get a power for your sword, etc. So, for the fighter, you keep the do-anything feat build or you take the option of these class features that encourage good blocking techniques (AC, AoO, reach).
I'll admit that the TWF ranger may not be able to be saved under this "option" solution, due to the class' array of difficulties: MAD, poor AC and average hit points for a melee class, lagging BAB due to MAD and TWF, the existence of the Scout as a superior option, and poor damage dealing against non-Favored Enemies, which are dependent on DM fiat and extra options only occur every 5 levels.
So, now that the "Level X vs CR X" argument has not seen widespread support, the approach is to wrangle a design goal from Jason so:
the goal can be flogged or
the lack of a goal flogged or
the "Level X vs CR X" argument can be renewed with additional vigor? Hmm, I would wager that if Jason isn't falling into the Level X vs CR X trap that he isn't going to fall for this either.
But by all means, carry on.
Dude, do you have proof that I'm an unwitting dupe of some net conspiracy to revive your holy war with Frank?
I'm making an argument that there needs to be a viable 20 level design goal for melee builds that keeps them relevant for 20 full levels. I fail to see why adhering to that viewpoint requires your response.
And, for what it's worth, I'm glad you're back.
|
|
And the problem is that at the moment that is not the case. For example, under your proposals what happens to the existing TWF Rangers? Or the Swashbuckling Fighters? Do you tell their players to go away and play the something else instead? That doesn't seem in keeping with Pathfinder's design goals.
If you're creating a new game, yes, absolutely it makes an incredible amount of sense. Now look at the fuss that 4E's generated for following just this model because it didn't fit with what people understood the Fighter to be.
The Fighter does need improvement, but there are better ways rather than trying to shoehorn everything into a narrow role, such as...
Options.
The best solution to the problem at this point is to offer options, as they have with other Pathfinder fixes: keep the familiar or get this doohickey, keep the special horsey or get a power for your sword, etc. So, for the fighter, you keep the do-anything feat build or you take the option of these class features that encourage good blocking techniques (AC, AoO, reach).
I'll admit that the TWF ranger may not be able to be saved under this "option" solution, due to the class' array of difficulties: MAD, poor AC and average hit points for a melee class, lagging BAB due to MAD and TWF, the existence of the Scout as a superior option, and poor damage dealing against non-Favored Enemies, which are dependent on DM fiat and extra options only occur every 5 levels.
In which case, we're suggesting the same thing. You'd accomplish it by Fighter class abilities, I'd do it by improved feats, but either way it's the options to build the Fighter to be a defensive linebacker or a juggernaut or a swashbuckler, etc...
And...I really don't want to see this kind of "design statement" involved at all. I want a fighter to be a class that can represent a generic swordswinger in the stories we make together.
Okay. That's a clear design statement: the fighter should be designed to be the one generic class in the game. You're not against design goals, you're advocating a particular one.
The design goals are:
*Improve the Game
*Add Options
*Compatibility
These are listed and qualified on page 3 of the most recent version of the
Alpha document. They pertain to all content found within the document.
In terms of damage output, the 3.5 version of the Barbarian can meet and exceed the damage output of most ToB classes (specifically the Warblade). The advantage of these latter classes is utility, in the form of spell-like maneuvers. The 3.p fighter has increased specialization in weapons and armor and 33% more feats (and thus, opportunities for customization) than all other classes.
The approach taken in 3.p seems to be raise the bar slightly for sub par classes, while removing or reducing CoDzilla potential (wildshape, polymorph changes, for example.) Granted, splat material can readily re-introduce CoDzilla or Wizard dominance, but with the exception of the Compatibility goal, the vast majority of splat (that which is not OGL) is outside the scope of 3.p.
|
|
I'm making an argument that there needs to be a viable 20 level design goal for melee builds that keeps them relevant for 20 full levels
Thanks for the response as it brings up something that is the crux of my point that would have been difficult to get across without your post.
Basically, this entire "design goal" issue and the earlier Level X vs CR X issue boils down to what one considers "viable" and "relevant". These terms are not agreed upon by everyone, thus even if Jason were to say that all melee classes should be "viable" 1-20 we still wouldn't be any closer to making changes in this area because we do not have an objective standard of "viable". Furthermore, if such a standard were to be set, the discussion would invariably move toward how the definition fails to meet this or that "viability standard" (most notably the Level X vs CR X standard).
I fail to see why adhering to that viewpoint requires your response.
To be clear, my initial post did not reference yours, so my post was not directed at you or your opinions.
I post on this issue when it arises for a number of reasons. First, I support a "party of 4" balance standard instead of a single character balance standard because I believe that is how the game is most often played and do not mind if one person in the group "underperforms" (however one wishes to define it) in combat. Secondly, I feel that this issue has the potential to cause a far greater change to the feel of the game than I am willing to accept, pushing it closer to the Gauntlet/4e model in terms of "all must be equal in battle" (and adding in what I would consider to be wuxia-like elements for melee classes). Lastly, I believe that if one were to use the "Level X vs CR X" standard (and I see the appeal in this approach), then the CR rankings will need to be reworked when the new/buffed melee classes are added into the mix since a CR X encounter will no longer represent the same challenge to the party of four with the uber-fighter contributing to melee in a radically increased amount.
It may occur that for a meaningful percentage of the monsters, the CR for the monsters has to be lowered by one or two points since the monsters do not live those extra few rounds to extract the requisite 20% consumption of resources on the party when uber-fighters are present. This of course will need to be determined by playtesting parties of four to reset the CR, an exhaustive approach that even the Level X vs CR X proponents believe to be a difficult and time consuming effort. I would rather see the designers focus their limited design time on other aspects of the game than in an effort to appease what appears to be a minority of people that wish to use combat parity as the sole definition of "viable" and "relevant".
^^^So you've decided to harass that minority into submission.^^^
If you really feel the way you do, and aren't just trolling up an archaic discussion that you had with a banned poster. I would love to see some of you playtest results. Aside from that though I feel like you're trying really hard to harrangle and argument out of that dude.
Cause basically you're trying to say "Stop talking about you're stupid CR playtesting" and since you're doing it in a thread that is about just that, you may have well showed up here just to antagoize. Why not just let these people phrase thier argument, and you phrase yours... in another thread perhaps?
I actually do want to know the answer to this question, because its valid, even if his response is something like oh i don't know,
Controler, striker, buffer...etc...
So I can add to my discussion with my players of, these are the major changes, this is what the classes are supposed to be doing "now".
This is why we should all purchase this product instead of 4.0
I'm making an argument that there needs to be a viable 20 level design goal for melee builds that keeps them relevant for 20 full levelsThanks for the response as it brings up something that is the crux of my point that would have been difficult to get across without your post.
My pleasure.
I fail to see why adhering to that viewpoint requires your response.To be clear, my initial post did not reference yours, so my post was not directed at you or your opinions.
Not a problem.
I post on this issue when it arises for a number of reasons. First, I support a "party of 4" balance standard instead of a single character balance standard because I believe that is how the game is most often played and do not mind if one person in the group "underperforms" (however one wishes to define it) in combat.... I would rather see the designers focus their limited design time on other aspects of the game than in an effort to appease what appears to be a minority of people that wish to use combat parity as the sole definition of "viable" and "relevant".
As do I. But most people regard a fighter's role as, well, fighting. I too have no problems with classes underperforming in combat, provided that they are clearly marked as such, like the Bard, and not mislabeled as combat-ready, like the Fighter and the TWF Ranger. I have never seen a fighter or a TWF ranger hold his own in even one isolated high level combat. YMMV, of course.
A bard is balanced because their incredible social skills and themed spell list allow them to dominate the RP parts of the game. They work for the players who have little interest in combat. They fill a niche. They carry their weight. And if you like playing the face, and I do, they're a blast to play, especially with the right DM.
In the case of the Fighter, nothing makes up for them lagging behind the other classes in combat. They have poor skill selection and less skills as well. Their job is to make those feats work in combat, most often melee combat.
Often, their job is to hold a single monster's attention, so that the rogue can sneak attack and the casters can take care of everything else. Meanwhile, they get beat on. It's a selfless class in a way, rather like the bard's role in combat. But they have got to be effective at blocking for the others in their party. If they are fourth biggest threat in a party of four... how are they going to fill that role, let alone be effective on their own?
So, convince me that fighters are an effective 1/4 in combat at 15th level and I'll buy your argument, Lich-loved.
Two different viewpoints likely based on two very different play styles - I'm guessing optimizers vs. storybuilders?
Nothing wrong with either as long as your whole group is consistent. But you guys are never gonna agree on this stuff. My impression based on years of looking at Paizo's offerings is that they lean towards storytelling over mechanical issues, but who knows? We'll see more on Wednesday.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Basically, optimizers would like a system that doesn't break if you breath on it hard. Storybuilders have no vested interest one way or another. So why not fix the system? Its net-positive.
If there's such a thing as "storybuilders" (as opposed to people-who-want-to-build-stories-now) they do indeed have a vested interest in game crunch.
Let's say that a game rule lets fighters fly, kind of like Jet Li in Hero. But I'm interested in playing Conan, or Fafred. Conan doesn't fly. That rule gets in the way of my story-building. It may make the fighter more "balanced" against other classes (excepting that balance is a DM issue, not a designer issue), but it certainly makes the fighter PC less like the idea I have in my head as to what a fighter is.
A rule that requires rare herbs or creature body parts to make potions is more interesting and flavorful than one which says "you want potions? Pay gold pieces and time, and voila you have your potion."
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
...the fact that the PCs go from nothing to 20th level in 2 months...
You've said that a couple of times, now. I don't know where you're getting that "fact". Is there a place in the rules that requires it? If so, I apologize for missing it. If not, then it's the DM's decision how fast to move time ahead in her campaign.
In all seriousness: the "optimizers" (you, Virgil, Frank and Le Fou when they were here) all seem to look at table-top role-playing games as if they were unmoderated video games. (Frank and K have even said as much on other messageboards.)
"Turning infinite numbers of ladders into ten-foot poles" or "satchel-charges with explosive runes" or "disrupting planetary economies with items from looted genies" or "summoning angels to make tea" or "running up 20 levels in eight weeks" are player-scams that DM's, in their wisdom, just don't allow.
And a robust game design can't make the game player-scam-proof. That's not the designer's job.
. And is the fighter flying *because he's awesome* really much different than the fighter flying because Hermes gave him winged sandals?
(blink)(blink) Yes. Of course it is. If you don't see that, I'm at a loss to explain why. Is there a really a difference between a 1st-level Ranger shooting a foeman with a bow and arrows, versus a 1st-level Ranger firing her fingers as self-propelled missiles?
I'm really not interested in telling stories about a world where normal people fire their fingers at people, or where gladiators fly around the Colloseum because they're that good. I want my fantasy a little more sword-and-sorcery, thanks.
|
|
I am curious as to whether the those complaining about the fighter have playtested one using the Alpha rules and Combat Feats. My wive's fighter is tearing things up and damage wise is outshining just about every other member of the party except perhaps my daughters wizard. She never misses and using Overhand chop and Backswing is getting very high damage in almost every round of combat.
I was stunned last week when through a series of good rolls and criticals, they managed to kill Black Magga just as the monster was fleeing (the fireball overcoming SR helped), but the fighter did at least half the damage herself. (And this was after two of the five party members were confused in the first round of combat and out of it)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
First of all, Squirreloid, I wanted to compliment you on your polite and patient responses.
The DMG gives the following numbers:
Average number of encounters/day: 4
# Average encounters/level: 13 1/3
Some simple math tells us it takes 13.33*20 levels/ 4 encounters per day = 66 days to reach 20th level from 1st level, which is a little longer than 2 months.
So that timeframe is a *basic game assumption*
(grin) Okay. When you DM, you hold that down-time, item-creation time, travel-on-the-high-seas time, research-the-town time, etc. run contrary to basic game assumptions. Okay. My mileage varies. Because, and this is my big point, that's not the kind of fantasy world I want to simulate.
But let me ask you this: do all your NPCs have four level-appropriate encounters every day? Do guards in the city watch gain a level every three or four days?
Which is sort of the point of game design - achieve a robust system which performs as advertised under advertised conditions. D+D currently fails to do so.
Just so that I understand you: could you give an example of a system that succeeds?
Here's James Jacobs reply to a similar question:
To a certain extent... we're learning as we go as well how to do something like this. But the basic goal is to generate a set of RPG rules that are, in the end, relatively similar to the 3.5 rules we have now. We're not looking for wild and crazy revisions, by which I guess I mean a brand new magic system, for example, or new ability scores. In fact, I think that a fair amount of the rules we're testing out in the alpha might go "too far" afield from what we need the core game to do.
In the end... that core game, the Pathfinder RPG, needs to do what 3.5 is doing now, but with certain areas that, over the past several years of "playtesting" 3.5, most gamers have come to agree are broken, underpowered, or overpowered. The grapple rules are a favorite horse to beat there... but also, things like the bard class (which is underpowered), the fact that wizards have to spend XP and gold and time just to maintain their baseline abilities, the fact that there's no really reason to take a 20th level in rogue, and the fact that some spells (awaken, polymorph, blasphemy, etc.) could stand to be rewritten or clarified.
In the end, look at the types of adventures we've been doing in Pathfinder and the modules. THOSE are the stories we want to tell, and the 3.5 system works more or less for those stories. But it can be tinkered with and improved... more to the point, by this time next year, the 3.5 books won't be in print anymore, and since we're sticking with this edition of the rules, we had to take SOME sort of step to keep them in print. Which felt like a good time to get in there and tinker with things.
And finally, the open nature of the playtest and development is just that; open. We want our customers to have full visibility into what we're doing, so that they can not only understand WHY we're making some of the changes we're making, but perhaps more importantly, so they can catch things we miss or mess up before it all gets locked down for the final print version. Which is due for Gen Con 2009... so we've got a LOT of time to make it the best rules set we can all make it!
The thing we're NOT really interested in doing is a 100% community-driven reworking of the rules. Because the nature of something like that would more or less ensure that it would never be finished, since people would still be tinkering forever. That's part of the nature of being a gamer. Instead, we have a fairly good idea of what we want (a close to 3.5 ruleset that allows players of that game to continue using those rules if they want, but also allows new players in the future to still have rulesbooks to buy), and we're using the playtest to make sure that it's what our customers want as well.
In the end, will the Pathfinder RPG game be perfect? Maybe to some folk. Probably not to a lot. I fully expect there to be house rules for things here and there for the game in various groups... but again, that's part of the fun of the hobby.
The overall goal is, though, to make a game that WE at Paizo want to support, and make a game that you our customers want to play.
Bold emphasis is mine. Unlikely to be the sort of response you're hoping for, Squirelloid, but consistent with the Paizo culture. If you're into silver linings, it's always possible that something you suggest does strike a chord with the Paizo staff, or the boards, and gets adopted. At minimum, Pathfinder RPG will clearly be as amenable to house- or community-rules/modifications as 3.5.
Which is sort of the point of game design - achieve a robust system which performs as advertised under advertised conditions. D+D currently fails to do so.Just so that I understand you: could you give an example of a system that succeeds?
Personally, I don't think there is a game yet that can claim that. Heck, even an MMORPG can't even claim that.