What if I took a class, and another class had a marginal advantage! That would be totally unfair!
All this is stupid! I'm going to go back to the way it was before where there was a limited selection of options that made sure no one else could be better than you! Pathfinder sucks!
</sarcasm>
There is a serious question here. 4th edition is constructed around the premise of a gameboard or battlefield that you fight your way across. Meaning that the above type of balance is relevant. Third edition is more in the classic "I'm a pulp adventurer" vein. (See Reading list)
Are their not campaign factors involved in 3rd edition games?
For example:
Finding a magic weapon that's powerful enough that you end up taking a focus in that?
Being away from a city preventing the sale or purchase of goods?
Having a variety of RP and combat encounters allowing for a variety of spotlight time?
The thing is, you're playing people, and decisions should be made as those people - only *now* with pathfinder, you can play a fighter (TWF, THF, or Sword and Board) and maintain your relevance. You can take this class or that one, or whatever sort of build you want, without there being a broken build. You can again focus on character, instead of saying, "Oh, man, it would be cool to be a fighter, but we're seventh level, and I don't want to gimp the party, so I'll play a druid"
It seems to me that the complaints are not from people who are in campaigns, who find themselves outstripped by their other party members.
Is my impression wrong?
Are people playing 3pf as a series of miniature combats?
Are their not campaign factors? character factors in your game?
Just wondering.
-Campbell
P.S. Bards are useful, TWF is fine, Clerics are plenty powerful, and Smite isn't too strong. ;-p
With my limited experience as player and GM, I have developed a preference for role-playing experiences and roll-playing experiences. I get as much enjoyment from playing a Jeweler or the owner of a potion shop or a weapon-smith as I do playing a cleric or druid. Sometimes it is more fun to haggle with the PC's when they want a particular item than to just hand it to them. So with that said, I am voting for more experiences than just going from combat to combat. Encounters in town are sometimes more important than the combats.
Just my 2 cp.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The folks you're talking about seem less interested in "acting" or "pretending" to live the life of a person in a fantasy world and more interested in assuming the role of the "most advantageous game piece." The degree to which they want this is virtually impossible to account for but has a lot to do with the game system, the wants of its players and their perception of what roleplaying is and isn't. The craving by some for a "social combat" system is as near a perfect example of this as I can think of. They'd rather have the most advantageous game piece than practice getting better at playing a role.
These players also typically believe they're entitled to "power ups" and "x amount of gold per level" when life doesn't really work like that. Nowhere is it written that life is fair, but these folks don't really want roleplaying games to be anything like life. The degree to which they want to "make believe" depends on what they want out of the game.
This is my personal take but I think systems like 4E encourage a more "game piece" attitude toward playing a role because the new conception of the roleplaying concept seems to be based in part on other forms of gaming, particularly collectible card games and computer games where you have the be "the best you can be" to "win." This is of course perfectly acceptable, but isn't what you prefer nor is it what I prefer either.
I also suspect that computer games cause a lot "game balance" misconceptions. Players sometimes expect the same performance from a hand-written rule system as they do from program code neither of which are written or tested in the same manner. Yet they perceive them as being the same to varying degrees. I think they're distant cousins. I've had friends entirely turn to computer games because they'd rather play a game piece than a fantasy person. Folk looking to build the perfect game piece rather than being an "actor" in a "play" should probably consider a more satisfying hobby because they're in for a lot of frustration of the sort you mentioned. All you and I can do is find players that enjoy the style of play we prefer.
What if I took a class, and another class had a marginal advantage! That would be totally unfair!
That is the type of player RPGs are made for.
Least common denominator, and such.
What if I took a class, and another class had a marginal advantage! That would be totally unfair!That is the type of player RPGs are made for.
Least common denominator, and such.
Could you elaborate a bit please?
Could you elaborate a bit please?What if I took a class, and another class had a marginal advantage! That would be totally unfair!That is the type of player RPGs are made for.
Least common denominator, and such.
I can try.
Most of the balance discussions revolve around "he (another character) is better than me!"
Look at the famous 3.5 CoDzilla debate. A Cleric, under the right circumstances, can be a better Fighter than a Fighter. Now, I'm not saying that is patently false. But that is more of a player problem than a system problem.
It would only create a problem if the Cleric player deliberately outshine a Fighter, just because s/he could.
Same thing with polymorph/shapechange effects, and look how many times those were reworked.
Could you elaborate a bit please?What if I took a class, and another class had a marginal advantage! That would be totally unfair!That is the type of player RPGs are made for.
Least common denominator, and such.
I can try.
Most of the balance discussions revolve around "he (another character) is better than me!"
Look at the famous 3.5 CoDzilla debate. A Cleric, under the right circumstances, can be a better Fighter than a Fighter. Now, I'm not saying that is patently false. But that is more of a player problem than a system problem.
It would only create a problem if the Cleric player deliberately outshine a Fighter, just because s/he could.
Same thing with polymorph/shapechange effects, and look how many times those were reworked.
Ah...okay.
I'm not the person for that kind of discussion...since I see both sides of the arguement, and tend to sit somewhere on the middle of that fence...thanks for clarifying tho =)
Ah yes. We will still try to break Pathfinder just for the fun of it though. No system is perfect, especially one as complicated as 3rd edition.
4th edition can still have all of the same RP elements to it. It just takes a lot more imagination since the abilities are all focused towards combat.
I'll let you know how the negative energy chenneling specialist goes. I'm not really expecting it to be terribly broken but I'm sure that the hoards of dead goblins, orcs and bug bears that I leave in my wake will disagree. :)
I'm going to suck against BBEGs though so there's still a balance there.
The folks you're talking about seem less interested in "acting" or "pretending" to live the life of a person in a fantasy world and more interested in assuming the role of the "most advantageous game piece." The degree to which they want this is virtually impossible to account for but has a lot to do with the game system, the wants of its players and their perception of what roleplaying is and isn't. The craving by some for a "social combat" system is as near a perfect example of this as I can think of. They'd rather have the most advantageous game piece than practice getting better at playing a role.
These players also typically believe they're entitled to "power ups" and "x amount of gold per level" when life doesn't really work like that. Nowhere is it written that life is fair, but these folks don't really want roleplaying games to be anything like life. The degree to which they want to "make believe" depends on what they want out of the game.
This is my personal take but I think systems like 4E encourage a more "game piece" attitude toward playing a role because the new conception of the roleplaying concept seems to be based in part on other forms of gaming, particularly collectible card games and computer games where you have the be "the best you can be" to "win." This is of course perfectly acceptable, but isn't what you prefer nor is it what I prefer either.
I also suspect that computer games cause a lot "game balance" misconceptions. Players sometimes expect the same performance from a hand-written rule system as they do from program code neither of which are written or tested in the same manner. Yet they perceive them as being the same to varying degrees. I think they're distant cousins. I've had friends entirely turn to computer games because they'd rather play a game piece than a fantasy person. Folk looking to build the perfect game piece rather than being an "actor" in a "play" should probably consider a more satisfying hobby because they're in for a lot of frustration of the sort...
hows the weather up there on the high horse? You can talk down to people who enjoy 'rollplay' if you wish, but the fact is they exist, and they will be a part of pathfinder. Roleplaying is enjoyable so is rollplay, neither is better then the other.
The level to which characters are developed versus being a game piece is up to the group and what they enjoy. I have found varying degrees of both to be quite fun. There is room in pathfinder for people who wish to optimize, as there was in 3rd edition. D&D started from the tradition of wargames. The game piece part as you call it was actually there first. The acting was an addition. So it is certainly possible to get satisfaction in such a way within tabletop gaming.