Would you all like some cheese with that whine? :)
I tend to play the character that fits my concept. In one campaign, I play an Elven Ranger who can fight with a sword if need be. I'm not going to carry a great sword just because it gives me the most damage. He's an elf. He's going to carry a long sword and use it two-handed. He'd look stupid carrying a great sword on his back.
And I get accused by my group of being a power gamer when my Spirit Shaman is the freakin' bomb. It doesn't take a maxed out build to be good. It takes creativity. I've played just about every class that 3.5 has thrown out there. I haven't run into any class that I couldn't turn into, not only a viable character, but many times the centerpiece of the group. It's what you do with your character, not your build. People aren't going to remember the couple of extra damage you dished out each swing. It's all the other stuff you do.
This isn't intended to offend anyone in particular. Just poking fun at those that would never play anything but a two-hander, sword and board or two weapon just because they feel that it is optimal.
Was there a change to Animated Shield? In the Beta it's only a +2 bonus, and a +3 shield costs 9,000 GP, not 16,000.
15% of Character Wealth by level gets us to a +1 Animated shield (16,000) at about 12th level.
Nope, the only change was to my memory (okay, who's the bard around here?).
Adjusting - general access at 10th, at 2 lower AC, start catching up at +4 shield for 36k at 15th still, and fully caught up at about 16th with loss of potential +2 ability. Assuming no change of course.
Thanks for catching that!
At around 15th/16th level fighters types are doing about 100 - 150 damage, not including criticals against fairly hit-able opponents.
That's not that optimized, even for just core + beta.
It doesn't take a maxed out build to be good. It takes creativity. I've played just about every class that 3.5 has thrown out there. I haven't run into any class that I couldn't turn into, not only a viable character, but many times the centerpiece of the group. It's what you do with your character, not your build. People aren't going to remember the couple of extra damage you dished out each swing. It's all the other stuff you do.
What you say is entirely correct, but irrelevent to the discussion.
When you are debating game mechanics, you have to compare Mechanic X to Mechanic Y. If you apply an extra modifier, then you MUST apply it to both: Modified Mechanic X vs. Modified Mechanic Y.
It is impossible to get anywhere in discussing viability of game mechanics when you compare Modified Mechanic X vs. Unmodified Mechanic Y. That just doesn't work.
"Well, my dagger does more damage than your greatsword because I jump off of a 30' cliff and land on the orc, driving my dagger through its brain and into its belly, but all you do is stand there and hit the orc with your sword, so obviously daggers are overpowered."
Hyperbole, yes. But ultimately when you say "Its what you do that matters" you are now in the realm of bringing in modifiers to alter the mechanics, so you must bring them in on both sides.
So whatever it is that qualifies as "all the other stuff you do", you must do it with your build, then also do that stame stuff with the optimized build, and then decide if both builds are equal - because "all the other stuff you do" must be applied to both builds.
|
It doesn't take a maxed out build to be good. It takes creativity. I've played just about every class that 3.5 has thrown out there. I haven't run into any class that I couldn't turn into, not only a viable character, but many times the centerpiece of the group. It's what you do with your character, not your build. People aren't going to remember the couple of extra damage you dished out each swing. It's all the other stuff you do.
What you say is entirely correct, but irrelevent to the discussion.
When you are debating game mechanics, you have to compare Mechanic X to Mechanic Y. If you apply an extra modifier, then you MUST apply it to both: Modified Mechanic X vs. Modified Mechanic Y.
It is impossible to get anywhere in discussing viability of game mechanics when you compare Modified Mechanic X vs. Unmodified Mechanic Y. That just doesn't work.
"Well, my dagger does more damage than your greatsword because I jump off of a 30' cliff and land on the orc, driving my dagger through its brain and into its belly, but all you do is stand there and hit the orc with your sword, so obviously daggers are overpowered."
Hyperbole, yes. But ultimately when you say "Its what you do that matters" you are now in the realm of bringing in modifiers to alter the mechanics, so you must bring them in on both sides.
So whatever it is that qualifies as "all the other stuff you do", you must do it with your build, then also do that stame stuff with the optimized build, and then decide if both builds are equal - because "all the other stuff you do" must be applied to both builds.
Very true, but in some cases when the differences are in concept rather than numbers then that changes things entirely. Is it better to have 2 extra damage or 2 extra AC? Well, that depends upon the concept. When numbers get so small, and apply to different things, it isn't as easy as X must equal Y.
Is it better to have 2 extra damage or 2 extra AC? Well, that depends upon the concept.
It's apples and oranges anyway. AC as a defensive mechanic equates to attack bonus as an offensive mechanic. Damage really stands on its own, you have to compare it to other options for providing damage. The same is true of equipment versus feats. They don't really compare because you can generally have the same equipment regardless of feat selection.
This is why it hurts my head to fiddle with house rules.
16 starting Strength. +5 from leveling, +5 inherent bonus, +6 enhancement bonus = 32 Strength. So a +11 modifier total, which means that you'd be getting +22 damage rather than +15. Sigh. Seven points, then. Monsters still laugh at it.
Long before you're getting inherent bonuses, Backswing gives 3x Str, so we're looking at Str 27 (+8), or +24 damage instead of +12.
But who's to say that Power Attack doesn't add triple the attack penalty to damage for 2-handed weapons now? That would skew the PA benefits ratio slightly more in favor of 1-handed weapons (2:3 instead of 1:2), but otherwise leave 2-handed weapons way ahead.
"Judging from your responses, particularly the one above, I think we're playing very different types of D&D."
Agreed. My group plays basically with only the Pathfinder beta and no splat books at all. Characters are fairly optimized, but it sounds like on a much smaller scale then you. At around 15th/16th level fighters types are doing about 100 - 150 damage, not including criticals against fairly hit-able opponents. I can say that a core Pathfinder Fighter or Paladin is very comparable to a caster of similar level, which wasn't the case in 3.5. As for how splat books affect things, I have no idea.
I would love to sit in on one of your games and learn a few tricks!
EDIT:
Oh yeah, I'm surprised there hasn't been more mention, but it looks like Power Attack in beta and final works for light weapons - at -X/+X. That seems to be a little boost for two weapon fighting.
I think its interesting how the context of the material changes the opinions of those playing with it. I can certainly see how the PFRPG would seem fantastic if you were using it by itself.
It seems to me that they got a little too ambitious in thinking they could fix deeply rooted 3.5 balance issues by only reworking the core material. They've tried to swap out the foundation of the game in hopes of stabilizing everything thats built on top of it, but all they've done is made it tilt more to one side.
Would you all like some cheese with that whine? :)
I tend to play the character that fits my concept. In one campaign, I play an Elven Ranger who can fight with a sword if need be. I'm not going to carry a great sword just because it gives me the most damage. He's an elf. He's going to carry a long sword and use it two-handed. He'd look stupid carrying a great sword on his back.
And I get accused by my group of being a power gamer when my Spirit Shaman is the freakin' bomb. It doesn't take a maxed out build to be good. It takes creativity. I've played just about every class that 3.5 has thrown out there. I haven't run into any class that I couldn't turn into, not only a viable character, but many times the centerpiece of the group. It's what you do with your character, not your build. People aren't going to remember the couple of extra damage you dished out each swing. It's all the other stuff you do.
This isn't intended to offend anyone in particular. Just poking fun at those that would never play anything but a two-hander, sword and board or two weapon just because they feel that it is optimal.
None of this has anything to do with the discussion here. The idea is to evaluate the rules of the game assuming equally creative players.
As to your "its what you do with you character, not your build" and being "the freakin' bomb" and the "centerpiece of the group," it sounds like your reign as king of the idiots has been a fruitful one. I'm not intending to offend you, just poking fun...
|
|
It seems to me that they got a little too ambitious in thinking they could fix deeply rooted 3.5 balance issues by only reworking the core material. They've tried to swap out the foundation of the game in hopes of stabilizing everything thats built on top of it, but all they've done is made it tilt more to one side.
To be honest, I don't really see why the 'tilting' that you mention is Paizo's problem. Paizo aren't responsible for all the 3.5 splatbooks and the nutty combinations that you can pull with feats and spells taken from them. All the splatbooks are optional material, that you may use in your game if you wish. Let me say that again: everything 'built on the foundation of the core rules' is optional. The core rules, however, are the game, and you can't play without them. By trying to fix core rules, Paizo are trying to improve the game for everybody. The fact that you can still break the game with splatbooks isn't their fault and isn't their problem, and I don't believe that it's relevant to balancing fighting styles. They've done their best to balance combat styles using core rules, the only rules that 100% of players use. To suggest they should balance against splatbook rules is asinine, as then the game wouldn't be balanced for players that didn't use those rules.
It seems to me that they got a little too ambitious in thinking they could fix deeply rooted 3.5 balance issues by only reworking the core material. They've tried to swap out the foundation of the game in hopes of stabilizing everything thats built on top of it, but all they've done is made it tilt more to one side.To be honest, I don't really see why the 'tilting' that you mention is Paizo's problem. Paizo aren't responsible for all the 3.5 splatbooks and the nutty combinations that you can pull with feats and spells taken from them. All the splatbooks are optional material, that you may use in your game if you wish. Let me say that again: everything 'built on the foundation of the core rules' is optional. The core rules, however, are the game, and you can't play without them. By trying to fix core rules, Paizo are trying to improve the game for everybody. The fact that you can still break the game with splatbooks isn't their fault and isn't their problem, and I don't believe that it's relevant to balancing fighting styles. They've done their best to balance combat styles using core rules, the only rules that 100% of players use. To suggest they should balance against splatbook rules is asinine, as then the game wouldn't be balanced for players that didn't use those rules.
I would agree with you completely except for the fact that the designers have stated explicitly that one of their goals for PFRPG is to balance core material with splat book material.
|
|
I would agree with you completely except for the fact that the designers have stated explicitly that one of their goals for PFRPG is to balance core material with splat book material.
In which case, carry on! Of course, I think that we should wait for the actual rules to be released before we start claiming any balance failure on Paizo's part.
I would agree with you completely except for the fact that the designers have stated explicitly that one of their goals for PFRPG is to balance core material with splat book material.
That has not been explicitly stated, to the best of my knowledge.
The closest I have heard is to improve the balance of power of core against new 20-level classes in splat books. Balance against classes, not balance with all the material. It *should* be compatible with most of it though.
To your original point though, that changing out the core foundation hasn't "stabilized" the balance of options when including splat - you're of course correct. Unless options are so streamlined as to be virtually identical (c.f. 4e), you won't ever stabilize things, particularly with selective inclusion of splat material by groups. Selective inclusion is near-automatic, whether by lack of funds to buy it all, or decision to exclude, or merely missing a feat reference.
So all that said... which way do you think things were tilted before, and which way do you think they are "tilted more" now? I doubt you'll find a majority to agree to any answer to those questions.
I find it quite interesting that the "things-are-now-balanced" crowd is having to argue with both the "two-weapon-fighting-rocks" and the "two-handed-fighting-rocks" crowds. Good sign of balance there :)Quite :-)
It's pretty absurd that people can debate this as if they actually had enough info to make a competent judgement.
PATIENCE: All will be revealed in August, until then, not much point in dredging over everything with a fine tooth comb.[...]
yes, a quote from thread: "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Preview Performance # 7 The Bard"
I'm not sure that Power Attack has been fully revealed yet, actually...
;-)
None of this has anything to do with the discussion here. The idea is to evaluate the rules of the game assuming equally creative players.
Yeah but it's impossible to completely balance the 3.5 mechanic. That's one of the things that makes it the great system that it is and why 4E is so horrible.
As to your "its what you do with you character, not your build" and being "the freakin' bomb" and the "centerpiece of the group," it sounds like your reign as king of the idiots has been a fruitful one. I'm not intending to offend you, just poking fun...
Don't assume that my Spirit Shaman was the most powerful character in the group and that everyone else has to be complete idiots to not be able to make better builds. Most of the group were certainly more powerful and that was exactly my point. Even with a lame duck class like the Spirit Shaman, you can still play it effectively using the limited resources given. Just because a class or build isn't as optimal as another doesn't mean that your character has to suck. It just means that you have to put in a little more effort to identify and utilize your character's strengths. I'd wager that you could be just as useful and have just as much fun playing an Expert as you could playing a Rogue even though the Rogue class trumps the Expert in every way. At least, I know I could.
Don't assume that my Spirit Shaman was the most powerful character in the group and that everyone else has to be complete idiots to not be able to make better builds. Most of the group were certainly more powerful and that was exactly my point. Even with a lame duck class like the Spirit Shaman, you can still play it effectively using the limited resources given. Just because a class or build isn't as optimal as another doesn't mean that your character has to suck. It just means that you have to put in a little more effort to identify and utilize your character's strengths. I'd wager that you could be just as useful and have just as much fun playing an Expert as you could playing a Rogue even though the Rogue class trumps the Expert in every way. At least, I know I could.
I don't know if anyone reacted to the suggestion that you can have fun or be effective with weak classes. I don't think anyone doubts that a clever and resourceful player can turn a weak class into the powerhouse of the group, espeically if the rest of the group isn't clever or resourceful.
I think the only main reaction to your original post was the perception that you were saying that a "weak character + a good player is equal to a good character class" which is so apples & oranges that it doesn't even make sense - yet it seemed that you were saying exactly that. I light of that appearance, just imagine the possibilities of a good character + a good player...
Well, some of the original arguments were balancing issues over sword and board vs. two-handed fighting vs. two-weapon fighting. I was just arguing that it was impossible to perfectly balance these or to even say they are out of balance (especially since we don't even know what the new rules are going to be). Balance between classes is also discussed a lot and that's something else that's fairly impossible to do. Characters are just too customizable in the 3.5 system.
I'm also not sure that my character would've been any better as a Druid then he was as a Spirit Shaman. Druid is obviously the more powerful and versatal of the two classes but many times, when you have a class like that, it's hard to fully utilize all of your options. Most of the time, you're going to specialize in an area or two and leave others untapped. My Spirit Shaman specialized in summoning and with the greater number of spells that he can cast in a day, did so better than any Druid could have. Most Druids are more interested in Wild Shaping and spell casting to gear their character around, for the most part, one spell. I thought of a ton of really cool things that you can do with summoned monsters that I never thought of before, mainly because I didn't have many other resources available. The only difference is that there are less ways to build a good Spirit Shaman than there are a good Druid. They don't have as much replay value but hey, some classes are going to be like that.