|
I humbly offer the suggestion that it's a HUGE undertaking for Jason this late in the game...maybe a relatively comprehensive list of premade examples will make it a more attractive prospect to adopt at this stage of the game? An endeavor to have a comprehensive list of such save modifications ready for the spell chapter playtest would be a wonderful thing.Twenty-five days till the Magic chapter starts. And we all know that save-based spells are likely going to be the biggest issue.
It'd be a more elegant solution than merely replacing "Death" with "1d10 damage/lvl," that much we can definitely establish.
-Matt
I'm not disagreeing with you in any manner. Just suggesting that we all work on getting as much of the existing spellbook "converted" in a thread to sweeten the pot and take some of the load off Jason. The suggestion is sound - it is just a large undertaking.
Simplification is also going to make this more acceptable - I am concerned about Kirth's recounting of his own experiences with similar houserules. :)
Just suggesting that we all work on getting as much of the existing spellbook "converted" in a thread to sweeten the pot and take some of the load off Jason. The suggestion is sound - it is just a large undertaking.
Large... but warranted, and very worthy of an effort.
As this thread has established, not only are we considering messing with the mechanics of save-based effects, but we have also shown that the mechanics behind determining saving throw modifiers are inherently interconnected.
It's a big picture.
So if we were to revise the spells, another worthy effort would be to revise the spells that work to lengthen the spread of X in d20+X. The Divine Power rewrite was a great first baby step in the right direction.
So, once the spells have been revised (and other things, like fractional save progressions for multiclassing is instituted), we could then examine the system as a whole and view the new spread of X. At that point, we could make decisions regarding how save-based effects will work.
Or... we'll be able to adjust for the spread of X once we know what the new spread will be.
Again, though, we're on to something.
-Matt
This is the most interesting post I've read in weeks, and several good things will come out of it, but likewise we're opening a can of worms, and it's more than likely that very little (if anything) will make it to the book. Mostly because of the nature of the system (level progression vs point-buy) and partly because of the need of backwards compatibility.
I'll try to recap the problems listed by our posters here:
1) High level play eliminates contest altogether. (either "Can only miss on a 1" or "can only succeeed on a 20").
2) Low level play views whatever training you have as irrelevant in the face of the giant d20.
3) Character classes should all have the right to be able to stand on their own 2 feet.
4) Magic imbalances encounters.
Regarding the disparity betwen classes (bab/saves/etc), perhaps a compromise could be reached without messing with d20's level progression by both making feats more accesible (as in giving more and making requirements less strict) AND adding more diversity to feats regarding both in-combat and out-of-combat situations. Let characters buy better Dodge bouses to AC instead of forcing them to purchase Bracers of Armor, bring Power Attack back to how it was instead of forcing people to buy a +5 sword. If we handle it from the Feats angle it shouldn't hurt d20's core that much, and endgame characters would enjoy the same performance without needed half as many magic items to function. Let players decide how combat oriented or skills oriented or charisma-based their characters can be. Sure, so or so classes will always excel in one area, but the difference doesn't necessarily have to be abyssmal. Okay, I know there will always be players that would still try to overspecialize until getting +40 in something, but then that would imply neglecting so many other areas that would prove to be a fatal oversight eventually (I know I know, not gonna happen, but one can dream).
As far as current feats array go, only Fighters can afford to get enough feats to get a "full combat build/strategy", be it "handling multiple opponents" or "hitting and hitting HARD" or "stalling enemies and not dying in the process"... but then the Fighters keep lacking resources when fighting spellcasters unless they themselves are fully decked out in magical gear. Non-magical endgame combat NEEDS resources, badly.
As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, yes, magic is overpowered, all magic... mainly because it is magical and it is suposed to bend reality in impossible ways so... no matter how you look at it, spellcasters will always be overpowered on the very principle that they can cast magic. However, this doesn't mean that other character classes should be helpless before it, Conan has killed countless magic users without a single sword +1, so why shouldn't the Fighter of Barbarian be able to then? It sucks, sucks big time. Yeah, I know novel heroes don't abide by games' rules but then, if I can't eventually become a hero in a "fantasy" game then why play at all?
There are 2 ways to handle the "magic as an absolute imbalance" issue, either nerfing magic completely so there's nothing a spellcaster can do that other classes can't as well, or giving the other classes the resources they need to be able to stand on their own without the need of magic... and plenty of posters here know already my stance regarding option #1. Still, Set's idea of increasing casting times according to a spell's effects sounds pretty good, a step in the right direction for balancing things without attempting to take the magic out of magic
I know d20 wasn't built to allow "abusive" tactics as slitting throats, mutilations and such, but why shouldn't the warriors be allowed to climb on top of the the AC 30 beast and stab it's squishy AC 10's eyes? Why do they need forcefully a Vorpal sword to behead an enemy? Would game balance explode into pieces if we allow then to hide behind a shield to block the dragon's breath? All those maneuvers could be made into (accessible) feats.
Less magic dependancy, more character customization (again I know, not gonna happen).
Any effect that called for multiple attacks or saves ground play to a halt.The current system of attacks and saves is slow enough... [snip] So as you can see, situational modifiers already slow the game down, including the process of saving throws. So any innovation with the DCs would not lead to a significant change.
With respect, Matt, the slowdown was a LOT worse than all of the situational modifiers put together ever were (like I said, I play with numbers a lot, the situational stuff -- racial mods and improved evasion and the like -- is a breeze). You see, you've got to track what happens at each "band" of results. Then you're subtracting the target from the results, and comparing that to your notes regarding the effects. And you're doing this for 4-5 people simultaneously, pretty much every time a d20 roll is called for. For the players to help with it involves giving them a lot more metagame info than you usually want to. Yeah, it could be done -- we did it for 2 years -- but trust me, it's REALLY slow compared to 3.5.
Part of the problem was that we were too ambitious, and tried to use this to eliminate secondary rolls. For example, a CL 10 fireball dealt damage strictly according to save results (not according to 10d6): make save by 20+ = no damage, 15+ = 15 hp, 10+ = 20 hp, 5+ = 25 hp, 0 = 30 hp, fail by 5 = 35 hp, etc.
|
i agree with everything you said Dogbert (i need to read the rest of the thread)
i would add that skills are as important as Feats to customize characters... skills should be given options to work in different areas adding to the combat or different scenes
Digbert descruibe the fighter climbing atop a monster, Iron Heroes years ago, prescented an option to combine suck skills with combat... adding this as a move action while asking a roll or just givign bonuses or penalties to the attack will give dynamism to the combat
or making combat characters useful OUTside combat...
i can't repeat it enough, while feats give special features to characters, skills give the soul
yeah i know a fighter or a cleric or a wizard don't need skills to function as fighters, clerics or wizards
the idea is that they are able to function as characters...
Jacobs is right in something... a player can't become Conan in a game... but not because it shouldn't... not because of the class features... its because it lacks the necesary tools to make him a heroe
depending on magic items to function... is not only cheapening magic... is cheapening heroism.
/Reading with great interest/
|
That said, one of the biggest issues is with the d20. Until middle levels, there's no modifier that you can give to a d20 that even matters.Swapping out every d20 roll with a 3d6 roll would make things a hell of a lot less 'swingy.'
But that's an idea whose time is not now.
3d6 is my favorite dice system. Also something I am thinking of changing in my game.
Honestly I have considered writing a basic 3d6 OGL version of 3.x
|
3d6 is my favorite dice system. Also something I am thinking of changing in my game.
Honestly I have considered writing a basic 3d6 OGL version of 3.x
Ironically, I read a commentary by Steffan O'Sullivan (IIRC) suggesting that GURPS really would have scaled better if it was based on 3d10, instead of 3d6. Modifiers wouldn't 'stack up' as quickly, and skills and attributes could be 'grainier,' allowing for a greater range of swing and more 'room to move' in the minor modifier area.
The large percentage leaps between 11 and 13, for instance, are pretty beefy in a 3d6 rolls, unlike the difference between 11 and 20 in a single d20 roll.
With respect, Matt, the slowdown was a LOT worse than all of the situational modifiers put together ever were...
Hmm...
Well, logically, we know that yes, comparing a save result against a range of values instead of one value would slow down play.
But is it a worthy sacrifice? You bet it is.
When it comes to attack rolls, we already have a range of possible results (the spread of d20+X) virtually being checked against a range of ACs. How? Because of 3.5 Power Attack and Combat Expertise. In this case, the large end of results, the highest attack modifiers, are converted into extra damage and/or extra AC. The players decide how large the range of AC is, as they virtually extend the range with each increment of one they choose to Power Attack or Expertise for.
So we've got a range of results checking against a range of ACs. Virtually.
With my introduction post, I show how using the same sort of idea for saving throws would work a hell of a lot better than the current way. A range of possible saving throw results being checked against a range of save DCs. Yes, it would be slower, barring some shortcuts like writing down DCs in the statblock as, using the Finger of Death example, DC 18/24/30 instead of DC 24. Yes, it fixes the current major issues.
Unless you've got a better idea.
-Matt
|
|
Not yet, but I'm still ruminating on it, and had a busy week. I have had a dearth of ruminating time!
Reflex saves in general aren't the problem - because the classes with low reflex saves and low dex are generally heavily armored types - which generally have hit points, or the baility to gain more hit points - since failed reflex saves eat up hit points, this is a mitigating factor.
Thinking on this, and how Power Attack and Combat Expertise "patch" the BaB problem by convincing high BaB players to voluntarily lower their attack to gain something else (in this case, damage or AC), I was wondering if we could introduce some across the board mechanic that would tempt players to lower saving throws to gain some other worthwhile bonus...bringing the high saving throw characters closer in level to low saving throw characters for some benefit...and allowing high level challenges to have a good "target" DC.
Again, for Reflex, this is easy. As 90% + of reflex save spells allow saves for half damage, how about allowing high reflex saving throw characters to voluntarily lower their saving throw by (picking a number semi-at random here) 3 to gain Evasion. And allowing them to lower their saving throw by 6 to gain Improved Evasion.
The biggest problem with this is Fortitude saves and Will saves aren't nearly so unified in their effects. Mettle is nice, but many effects of Fortitude and Will saves aren't so easy to make "partial" in an across the board mechanic. The fact that many fort and will saves, if failed, lead to more immediately fatal consequenses for the group only exacerbates the problem.
Part of the problem is the number of stackable bonuses, which I would address by allowing only 2 or 3 to have full effect and the rest halved in effect (rounded down).
A second problem of high level inbalance is the nerfing of everything the Fighter has and does in d20.
1e Fighter had multiple attacks at full effect. d20 Fighter gets multiple attacks but only by using the "full attack" mechanic, and all but the first are reduced in effectiveness. Then d20 gives the exact same multiple attack ability to all other classes, only it takes them a few more levels to get there.
Restore multiple attacks at full BAB to Fighters and half the problem is solved. Allow them to divide one attack into the cascading weaker multiples in a Full Attack for consistency.
1e Fighter eventually developed the best saving throws of all classes. At the very least, give Fighters two Good saves. Allow them scaling Feats to further improve saves: bumps Poor to Good, or adds +1 per 4 levels (Inherent bonus category, subject to stacking rules above).
|
|
On the other hand, I don't see it as a problem. The second guy has some decent advantages the barbarian doesn't. Even setting aside abilities the first guy flat out doesn't have, he's a mixmaster. Against a crowd of lower-AC monsters he'll have a ball.
Similarly, and back to the OP, yes the wizard is going to have difficulty hitting the same AC the fighter will. Why does he try to do that? He's got touch attacks to work with (lots of spells), he's got save-based spells to work with (AC irrelevant), and so on.
And while he might not be able to beat the beastie with his staff (AC is too high for his BAB), the fighter's meteor swarm is more than a little lacking. And the fighter's time stop, and his fireball, and his... y'all see where I'm going with this?
To me, the differences between high level characters aren't particularly a problem. They do different things, of course they're going to be good at different things. Making it so everyone has a decent chance to beat down something the fighter can, *and* do their other nifty things as well, really takes the shine off the fighter.
About all the fighter has is the ability to beat down monsters other people can't. Don't take that away from him.
I think you may be misunderstanding our point. Obviously a wizard making a melee attack roll has more serious issues than the fact that he has an abysmal BaB versus a full BaB character. The issue isn't so much that, as it is that creating a monster that is a level appropriate challenge for a fully tricked out fighter - especially now that they get more class bonuses to attack - necessarily means that mid-level BaB characters - most of which are meant to be in physical combat - such as monks, bard and rogues cannot compete at all - or the monster is lowered in difficulty to the point where mid level BaB characters have a reasonable chance to hit, and the fighter is bored as he wastes BaB resources "overhitting" the enemy.
Of course the wizard can step in win the encounter with a couple swift and standard actions. But the point is that the basic premise of d20 - the basic mechanic - gets brittle and nearly binary in nature as you approach 20th level. If you are concentrated in an area you auto-hit / auto-save / auto-win. If you haven't concentrated in the area, you don't have a chance in hell. Unless you're a spellcaster, of course - they've always got more options unless they're dead.
The martial characters (not just the "fighter") have serious issues due to the distribution of actions between martial and spellcasting characters, the laughable ease in which spellcasters ignore spell failure, and the lack of versatility that plagues all non-spellcasting (or very poor spellcasting) classes except rogues, rangers and possibly bards. None of the class abilities offered to fighters, paladins or monks solve these problems. In fact, the changes to fighter weapon training only made the issue worse - without a 3.5 style power attack, all that does is widen the gap between level appropriate challenges for the haves versus the "sorta haves" - making high level play more binary and deadly in its nature.
This thread is about some of the deep systemic problems with the d20 system itself and possible solutions that fit the design parameters of PRPG. Barring that, patches that hide the problem well enough through 20th level are the way to go - hence our suggestion that Power Attack and Combat Expertise (without even the 3.5 limitation of +5 AC) become basic combat abilities in order to encourage "voluntary" attack bonus balancing in the interest of gaining damage or higher armor class.
Many of the poster have been contributing to the martial characters' specific causes elsewhere, but this isn't really the thread to do that.
Certainly a creature that is hittable 'only by the fighter' may be hard to hit by the not-fighters. To me, this is not bad. The fighters take on the hard targets, the rogues and monks take on softer targets
Aha. Here's where you're missing something very, very important...
Who says Fighters only take on "hard" targets? Who says Monks only take on "soft" targets? The example you initially responded to compared two decently-built Fighters; are they both doomed to be hopelessly pidgeonholed into only being able to accomplish certain tasks? Can Fighter A only take on high-AC targets, while Fighter B only takes on hordes?
The game you're describing is a game where specialists rule. Stand back, everyone, for my to-hit-focused Fighter is the only one who can hit Monster A. You, Mr. Monk, you can have Monster B, as his AC is ten lower.
Similarly... in the game you're describing, only the skill specialists can make skill checks. Stand back, everyone, for my Diplomacy-focused Rogue is the only one who can make a DC 50 Diplomacy check.
And in that game, only the save specialists can make saving throws. Stand back everyone, let us hope to allow my high-Fort PC to make the save against Finger of Death, as all of you with lower Forts will surely perish.
That's all well and good; 3rd has lasted a long time with this issue.
But not supporting all values of X in d20+X sure leads to a whole lot of really nasty issues.
-Matt
Isn't it up to the DM to maintain balance of play? Knowing your players? There was WAY too much math going on up in there for any fantasy rp game!
My first rule is if you want to use splat books, you have to purchase 2, one for yourself, one for the DM (me).
My second rule is keep it simple stupid. Do you really need another splat book to define your character? This is supposed to be more Art and less Science after all. Emphasis on roleplaying, story-crafting. My players are reluctant to use extreme builds against me, because they KNOW they will see it later, made evil and coming for them.
I have yet to play or run a game where the high BAB player does all the work while the "poor" low-BABs huddle in the back waiting to be saved. Class balance is there for a reason. Grunt the Warrior will never cast spells. Does Grunt worry? Herby the Mage (who wanted to be a dentist) will never feel the satisfying crunch of muscle, bone and sinew as his sword slices into his enemy, but he WILL reduce the gesticulating LichOMage with his Disintegrate and feel very satisfied. Dexter the Rogue will never be able to remain in a stand-up fight like Grunt, but he will chuckle endlessly as he tumbles past yet another attack (he prefers not to be scarred after all), and pivots to unleash the organs of his opponent. Divvy the Cleric is content with his abilities to aid his companions, he knows he will shine when the Undead rise and so takes solace in that.
These games were never meant to be designed as solid chunks of logic! Magic doesn't function there even. Relax, breathe deeply, now exhale and create fun!
These games were never meant to be designed as solid chunks of logic! Magic doesn't function there even. Relax, breathe deeply, now exhale and create fun!
Second poster making this point, so I should probably nip this one in the bud now:
If the rules in the rulebooks (which, might I add, overwhelmingly consist of math) are unimportant, then why did I buy them?
Similarly, if a poster finds system analysis unimportant, then he probably should not post in a thread about system analysis.
-Matt
You invited me (from the other post), remember?
At least I had the courtesy to read through the lengthy treatise on math rules before responding. The rules are made of numbers, I agree. The numbers were never meant to be mathematically precise and give the same sum to each character really. The system was designed to facilitate combat resolution in a roleplaying game.
I was intrigued, and stirred to respond from my heart, and Free Speech being a commodity these days, I am not sorry I did. I was not attempting to prevent you from continuing, nor was I being even moderately snarky..well, until just now. I withdraw sir. Please continue with your pedantic crunching.
Second poster making this point, so I should probably nip this one in the bud now:
If the rules in the rulebooks (which, might I add, overwhelmingly consist of math) are unimportant, then why did I buy them?
Similarly, if a poster finds system analysis unimportant, then he probably should not post in a thread about system analysis.
-Matt
Matt, I know this is a system analysis thread (I even posted on the first page) and I will try respect the topic of the thread, but all RPGs are a balancing act of logical system vs. DM's judgment. One cannot exclude the other and even the most simplistic, system-light games need solid guidelines and frame rules.
But the rules cannot do it all by themselves; that is part of the true problem (to tie-in with the topic). That being said, there are design issues with 3.5, and most of the issues that I consider a problem have been addressed in this thread (to which I can only applause your many analysis), but it would be also wrong to acknowledge that in the end, the point is to create fun.
ok, time to shut up 'findel...
The issue isn't so much that, as it is that creating a monster that is a level appropriate challenge for a fully tricked out fighter - especially now that they get more class bonuses to attack - necessarily means that mid-level BaB characters - most of which are meant to be in physical combat - such as monks, bard and rogues cannot compete at all - or the monster is lowered in difficulty to the point where mid level BaB characters have a reasonable chance to hit, and the fighter is bored as he wastes BaB resources "overhitting" the enemy.
I don't believe this is necessarily the case at all, though I think it would be even less likely to be the case if the fighter types had more things to do with their BAB without having to invest in Power Attack and Combat Expertise. But even without them, the excess BAB still serves the purpose of bringing the secondary (and tertiary, etc) attacks to within good striking distance as well.
I will agree that the economy of actions issue is an interesting (and sometimes vexing) one, but I really don't see the problem with the BAB being too high compared to non-fighters.
The game you're describing is a game where specialists rule. Stand back, everyone, for my to-hit-focused Fighter is the only one who can hit Monster A. You, Mr. Monk, you can have Monster B, as his AC is ten lower.
I think I'd prefer a game where specialists did rule compared to a game where everyone's a generalist and the difficulties are always level-appropriate and nobody needs specialist help. That would be more like 4th edition.
For me, game balance comes when the party pulls together a bunch of talented characters, each one coming to the fore when the situation requires their special talents. And I like it for each situation they are facing to have its own internal logic to it, not be based merely upon some estimation about whether or not all characters will be appropriately challenged. I'll leave it up to me, as DM, to provide the right sorts of situations to provide enough spotlight to be shared, in the long run, between PCs.
It's interesting, overall. The general gist of what I'm reading seems to be:
Lower the disparity between d20+x and:
Reduce the difference in move/standard attack options.
I can get behind a little of both. There are two issues:
1. Several of the fighter feats focus on optimizing damage for that one standard action. These sorts of feats would need altered or reduced if the fighter were able to full-attack each time.
2. The d20+x disparity most often mentioned are the ones between saves, and the ones between BAB. As regards BAB:
Possibly, and yet other classes should be more effective outside of combat, or doing things other than "to hitting." The example of "using skills to avoid the fight" is very true, but that also makes an assumption that combat is the main point of DnD.
Now, is it or isn't it? And if it isn't, what can we do to make noncombat more interesting?
The two solutions offer a unique sort of balance, when taken together: one couldn't happen without the other. In a way, they preserve the warrior classes--if you assume the warrior classes are the only ones to receive the added attacks, perhaps, or simply more of them, and after raising BAB for everyone, eliminating the "touch attack." And, they preserve the other classes, by creating more evened-out fort saves, and letting them be more warrior-like in that they hit more often.
However, it's not so simple. Not only would the fighters' feats need adjusted, so would the concept of touch attacks need eliminated (because of the higher BABs all around). A myriad of other traditional, "wizard workarounds" would need eliminated or changed as well.
These "simple" changes would have far-reaching effects.
Not opposed, mind. Just noting.
Game Balance means, that every character in the party can be equally useful to help archieving the parties goals.
In practice, this means that for every campaign balance can be very different. I try to make adventures which allow every character to have important tasks, but that's very hard to do if you don't have any idea about the characters the players will play and the style of play they prefer.
As a general guideline, every class should have a wider range of abilities and should be the best class in its main task. When the cleric is a better fighter than the fighter and the wizard a better illusionist and enchanter than the bard, something seems not quite right. But it's close to impossible to make all clases really balanced to each other. Except you say that the only task is combat and everyone is equally good at it.
...pedantic, eh?
The problem I see with all this analysis is that this game isn't a simple black-and-white logic puzzle.
The direction the thread has suddenly taken, away from systems analysis and towards questioning the relevancy of the systems analysis, can be detoured back on track with a simple expression:
The ability of the DM to create fun for his players does not excuse a poorly-written system.
Or rather... a well-written system does not require houseruling to function.
Thus, if a system has issues, fixing them is a good idea, so the system can go from being poorly-written to being well-written. A better product. A worthy expenditure of $50+ for a book, rather than $50+ for a hardcover book full of stuff that I know I'm going to have to houserule anyways. And if I'm devoting time and energy into running or playing a system, I would prefer it to, well, work.
As I've explained from Post #1, the d20 system is busted. Thus, in order to make playing with it worthwhile, it needs some fixing. And so, this thread.
So, enough with the posting about how crazy I must be! Enough with expressing the meaninglessness of systems analysis! Enough with saying that the math in unimportant! Enough with calling this thread a waste of time, and instead let the posts be meaningful!
-Matt
The ability of the DM to create fun for his players does not excuse a poorly-written system.
Or rather... a well-written system does not require houseruling to function. Thus, if a system has issues, fixing them is a good idea, so the system can go from being poorly-written to being well-written.
In a word, yes. If I followed the logic that "a good DM fixes all problems, therefore fixing game rules is stupid," I wouldn't play D&D, I'd just let someone tell me a story... oh, wait, I already read novels. When I want to actually play, on the other hand, I like for there to be challenges that don't have a pre-ordained outcomes, and that don't depend on the storyteller's whim to determine what happens. In short, I want an element of chance, and the ability to "improve" over the course of the game so that chance plays an increasingly small part in things -- but never zero. In short, I want well-written mechanical guidelines.
...pedantic, eh?
I meant that in the "b: one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge" way since somehow my personal commentary seemed to be viewed as some sort of attack on your personal character. It was certainly not meant to do that.
The direction the thread has suddenly taken, away from systems analysis and towards questioning the relevancy of the systems analysis, can be detoured back on track with a simple expression:
The ability of the DM to create fun for his players does not excuse a poorly-written system.
Or rather... a well-written system does not require houseruling to function.
Thus, if a system has issues, fixing them is a good idea, so the system can go from being poorly-written to being well-written. A better product. A worthy expenditure of $50+ for a book, rather than $50+ for a hardcover book full of stuff that I know I'm going to have to houserule anyways. And if I'm devoting time and energy into running or playing a system, I would prefer it to, well, work.
As I've explained from Post #1, the d20 system is busted. Thus, in order to make playing with it worthwhile, it needs some fixing. And so, this thread.
So, enough with the posting about how crazy I must be! Enough with expressing the meaninglessness of systems analysis! Enough with saying that the math in unimportant! Enough with calling this thread a waste of time, and instead let the posts be meaningful!
-Matt
My concern was that you seem to be stripping the rules down mathematically in a way that removes all the fun from the game, and in fact discounts it as irrelevant due to the perceived "flaws" in the system itself.
It has been my concern for a while now that people everywhere are being stripped of their imaginations by the idea that everything somehow needs to make logical sense in order to be good. That leaves out RP, Love, Friendship, Happiness...none of which are logically necessary to survival, but yet somehow, despite their chaotic nature, still seem to be sought after.I was just trying to offer a counterpoint, if you will, to a problem that is obviously vexing to some, by calling for a mental "unreality check" in hopes of inspiring you mathematically inclined people to stop for a moment and smell the unlogical sunshine. I certainly meant no offense, well, until the pedantic remark, which was only supposed to be mildly insulting as the way you were treating my innocent posting was most certainly categorically implied. I apologize for that affront sir. Carry on!
It has been my concern for a while now that people everywhere are being stripped of their imaginations by the idea that everything somehow needs to make logical sense in order to be good. That leaves out RP, Love, Friendship, Happiness...
At the risk of flying totally off-topic, I disagree that these things are inherently illogical; love and friendship can be essential survival tools, evolutionary mechanisms for providing trustworthy allies (when used appropriately). RPGs are a means of establishing and vetting friendships, and provide practice in teamwork. Happiness itself provides a balanced mind-set for coping with adversity.
Nor does logic seem to necessarily deprive one of imagination: Stephen Hawking, for example, is at once brilliantly imaginative and coldly logical.
Indeed, I am often concerned that many people now say "I'm creative" as an excuse to be lazy, self-destructive, and a drain on those around them... as if those things are essential to creativity.
Godsdog, please understand that none of this is directed personally at you in any way; I'm just pointing out where I disagree with your assertions. The tone of your discourse has been friendly and without insult, so far as I can tell.
|
|
My concern was that you seem to be stripping the rules down mathematically in a way that removes all the fun from the game, and in fact discounts it as irrelevant due to the perceived "flaws" in the system itself.
Playing the game - using the product - should never require the expertise required to create the product - design the game.
There is value in playing the game and presenting what is and is not fun, what is and is not successful in game, what is and is not appreciated/used in actual gaming circumstances.
There are also threads that discuss this.
This thread is a systemic analysis thread. It necessarily contains a lot of math - just like a proposed car "blueprint" includes a lot of technical information that I, as a mere driver, don't want to and shouldn't need to know.
We're poking around under the hood, ripping out parts and examining them, trying to fit different parts in and looking at the model thus produced to see if it's better or worse - from a theoretical AND gameplay perspective.
If you don't want to poke around under the hood at the mathematical guts of the system, that's fine. Those of us that do enjoy / have concerns about such things are not:
- Interfering with your ability to discuss less esoteric or theoretical aspects of the game
- Seeking to remove storytelling or game playing expertise from the system
- Robbing you of your ability to imagine or roleplay
- Incapable of storytelling, imagination, or roleplaying ourselves
I am sick of the accusation that a concern over system longevity into high level play is somehow out of bounds because "good players ignore the rules system when it stops working". Well, yeah, we know that. We'd like to remove or limit the scope of the problem, however - as much as possible under very real design goal limits, budget limits, and time limits.
With regard to the problem of specialization: Specialization isn't bad - everyone should have something they're good at, and something they're not. But if I must have a specific party configuration or a member of a certain class in the party simply to have a HOPE of suviving a level appropriate encounter...there's a problem with the system.
Skills are rarely an issue because one member of the party good at it is usually sufficient. But mid-range BaB characters without significant spellcasting or character with low saves are pretty screwed at high level if melee challenges they're supposed to meet are unhittable or saves they're expetected to make are unmakable. If the challenges are lowered to their level, the poor fighter has this huge resource - BaB - that he's now unable to utilize effectively - because all good options with regard to converting to another commodity he gains from have been removed from the game.
Specialists should be better at somethings than another. But I shouldn't be required to have a cleric in my party to run a game at higher than 10th level. I shouldn't be restrained in groups from playing a fighter in a high level campaign because it's nearly impossible to make myself relevent past level 8. In 3.5 this was true except for very specific builds that required significant system expertise, and it appears PRPG makes it even harder.
You can keep saying that the issue can be solved by creative DMing. You're correct. But it's a weakness of the system that high level play has to be addressed so assiduously by players and DMs to avoid binary "You will win/You will lose" situations. To insist that it's stupid we examine the problem and seek usable solutions or patches for the issue is counterproductive, in my opinion.
You can keep on doing it, it's a free country (well, unless Paizo says to stop. It's a free country, but it's their messageboard). But I'd rather do everything in my power to contribute to improving the system.
Kirth - non taken sir. I used to be a hippy, until I met some more of them and realized precisely the point you made. =)
I have never claimed this is a stupid topic, or useless. I was just trying to spread a little fun in a drearyish topic. Flu + Insomnia + boredom I suppose. (See how I brought that back to math!)
Jess -- sent you an email -- let me know if it fails to arrive (due to a hyperactive spam filter or whatever) or if the attachments won't open. Thanks!
Specialists should be better at somethings than another. But I shouldn't be required to have a cleric in my party to run a game at higher than 10th level. I shouldn't be restrained in groups from playing a fighter in a high level campaign because it's nearly impossible to make myself relevent past level 8. In 3.5 this was true except for very specific builds that required significant system expertise, and it appears PRPG makes it even harder.
The problem some of us have is that we're not necessarily convinced that any of this must be true. I've been running SCAP for a party with no cleric (though they do have a druid, a dragon shaman, and a paladin). And healing has never been a problem.
I've been running a campaign based on classic modules and the fighter in that game, at 13th level, has been quite relevant even with a sorcerer, mystic theurge, cleric, and meleeing druid. I will agree that the monk hasn't been particularly effective as a melee combatant, but I've seen demonstrations of the Pathfinder monk that fix a lot of the worst trouble.There are elements of the game that don't work for everyone, but can we classify them as broken if they aren't broken for everyone as well?
|
|
The problem some of us have is that we're not necessarily convinced that any of this must be true. I've been running SCAP for a party with no cleric (though they do have a druid, a dragon shaman, and a paladin). And healing has never been a problem.
I've been running a campaign based on classic modules and the fighter in that game, at 13th level, has been quite relevant even with a sorcerer, mystic theurge, cleric, and meleeing druid. I will agree that the monk hasn't been particularly effective as a melee combatant, but I've seen demonstrations of the Pathfinder monk that fix a lot of the worst trouble.There are elements of the game that don't work for everyone, but can we classify them as broken if they aren't broken for everyone as well?
Nothing will be broken for everyone. But every single high level campaign I've participated in, heard about, or watched has suffered significantly at high level because of the systemic weaknesses described here and the problems with monster design. Fighters are sold as "simple" characters - but building them to be relevent at high levels requires expertise with the system. Every DM I've talked to who has run a high level campaign has had to do an incredible amount of work to make the game playable and enjoyable at that level - not always with success. And usually by a wholesale ignoring of the rules at that point for story. Monsters have an infinity of hit points until the DM decides the fight's been interesting enough. He has to tweak monster abilities and the DCs of their abilities to allow certain characters a certain amount of chance to live. Or he can safely ignore characters unable to affect the outcome of the fight - thus allowing them to live.
There's a point at which the game goes from a game of advantage vs. disadvantage to a violent seesaw between trivial victory or overwhelming defeat - or a handwaved game divorced from the rules, a strategy necessitated by the breakdown of the system at high level.
These games can be fun. I've had one DM that managed to pull it off - and pull it off very well. I've had five others - some good DMs at lower levels, some not - that couldn't manage the game past 12th level - simply due to the problems with the system.
In 3.5 Power attack really fixed the problem with BaB. I didn't see the see saw with attack because most monsters meant to be meleeable ( a vanishing breed at high level, admitedly) at high level met the medium BaB level - and the fighters leveraged their higher BaB for greater damage. The removal of that tool from the fighter's arsenal means their greater attack bonus is wasted on enemies not worthy of their attack bonus - or the monsters are changed to have ACs relevent for their attack and renders non casters without full BaB and the ability to concentrate almost solely on strength at a severe disadvantage.
I did see the problem with saves - classes without spells and with poor saves (rogues, fighters) suffered especially badly here - in 3.5 high level games, though.
Maybe you are one of those excellent DMs that has a good strategy for making high level play enjoyable. If so, congratulations! Share your knowledge! If you've run high level 3.5 or PRPG campaigns, share you experiences. Maybe my campaigns differed enough from yours that you see different systemic problems.
But this thread contains what I've seen, and my thoughts and analyses on what seems to be behind it - in response to another person posting their similar observations and analyses. I won't neglect to share it just because it might not jive with someone else's experience.
|
|
There are other problems with the system. Martial character limited by real world thinking as spellcasters get exponentially morepowerful is one problem. Economy of actions of spellcasters is another. The versatility of spellcasters vs nonspellcasters is a third. These are serious problems that PRPG is choosing to address via incremental spell patches rather than systemic fixes. Most of the fixes probably aren't backwards compatible enough for PRPG to adopt.
and maybe this systemic problem - the binary "you win/you lose" nature of vastly different {X} in life and death situations - isn't fixable without too many changes as well. I suspect that's the case. But I think some patches, such as a 3.5-like POwer attack option for martial characters via a feat or as a basic combat option, are enough to last through 20th level play. Other options like additional dice rolls through Slippery Mind or Luck feats are another fix - that I think could be introduced at high level to stop the "Oh, your character just died according to the rules and there's nothing you could ever do to stop it except play a spellcaster instead," thing.
The last thing the fighter needed to be relevent in high level play was more attack bonus - he needs versatility, the ability to interrupt spellcasting, and he needs the artificial limits placed on him by designers comparing him to mundane humans removed.