|
Actually, I would argue that perfect balance would actually DIMINISH fun. Because with perfect balance, there's essentially only one choice for character to play. You can have different flavor for that single class, but if all choices are perfectly balanced then there's no element of choice at all.
Balance is perfection, and inherently unattainable. I recall a book from my childhood pointing out that 'perfect' people are boring. They don't do anything but be perfect.
Perfect balance is Rock Paper Scissors. And it gets old fast. Because it means none of your choices are meaningful.
Just quoting myself. :)
Actually, I would argue that perfect balance would actually DIMINISH fun. Because with perfect balance, there's essentially only one choice for character to play. You can have different flavor for that single class, but if all choices are perfectly balanced then there's no element of choice at all.
I think this is more an argument of semantics than anything else. Balance in a PnP RPG doesn't mean everyone can do things comparably well, just that each class can bring a comparable amount to the table. Each class should be UNIQUE, but still contribue a comparable amount to the party.
4E tried to do this in a formulaic fashion during gameplay and that makes it (in my group's opinion, anyway) bland in the extreme. It feels like a card game or a cheap computer game rather than an RPG.
There should be a conceptual formula in the behind-the-scenes development aspect (and there usually is), but the numbers balancing shouldn't involve grinding all the abilities down to nothing so they're the same. I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of THAT.
Actually, I would argue that perfect balance would actually DIMINISH fun. Because with perfect balance, there's essentially only one choice for character to play. You can have different flavor for that single class, but if all choices are perfectly balanced then there's no element of choice at all.
Any flavour you like - as long as it's vanilla.
Actually, I would argue that perfect balance would actually DIMINISH fun. Because with perfect balance, there's essentially only one choice for character to play. You can have different flavor for that single class, but if all choices are perfectly balanced then there's no element of choice at all.
You're right, perfect balance would diminish fun. But is it too much to ask that all classes and concepts supposedly supported by a game system be reasonably within the same ballpark across all level ranges?
You're right, perfect balance would diminish fun. But is it too much to ask that all classes and concepts supposedly supported by a game system be reasonably within the same ballpark across all level ranges?
I would say myself that as long as all classes have something to contribute, things will work. I don't expect all classes to be equal (let's face it, casters by concept are going to be able to do awesomne things with spells, they always have), but I do expect them to be able to do something useful. I think that all classes in Pathfinder core can do that.
You're right, perfect balance would diminish fun. But is it too much to ask that all classes and concepts supposedly supported by a game system be reasonably within the same ballpark across all level ranges?I would say myself that as long as all classes have something to contribute, things will work. I don't expect all classes to be equal (let's face it, casters by concept are going to be able to do awesomne things with spells, they always have), but I do expect them to be able to do something useful. I think that all classes in Pathfinder core can do that.
It depends on your definition of "something to contribute". A 1st level Commoner can have "something to contribute" but that doesn't mean it's fun to play.
It depends on your definition of "something to contribute". A 1st level Commoner can have "something to contribute" but that doesn't mean it's fun to play.
You mean it's not? <grin>
I do take your point, but I find that all the classes so far have something to contribute.
It depends on your definition of "something to contribute". A 1st level Commoner can have "something to contribute" but that doesn't mean it's fun to play.
Doesn't mean it's not fun to play, either, in an absolute sense. In fact I can envision having a great time in a one-off game wherein the players are commoners, experts, etc. and their village is attacked by murderous goblins or kobolds. Usually PCs laugh mockingly as they mow down swaths of the buggers, but underpowered characters would have to come up with different tactics in order to survive. Perhaps the carpenter could rig a camouflaged pit, and the apothecary could fill it with a flammable concoction made of cooking oil, straw, and his own secret compounds. Rambling aside, limiting the characters' power provides great opportunities for roleplaying.
Zo
EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, if I ever start a new campaign I may have the PCs go through something like this as a sort of 0-level proving ground. It'd be a great way to provide the party with a back-story and motivation for adventuring together.
It depends on your definition of "something to contribute". A 1st level Commoner can have "something to contribute" but that doesn't mean it's fun to play.Doesn't mean it's not fun to play, either, in an absolute sense. In fact I can envision having a great time in a one-off game wherein the players are commoners, experts, etc. and their village is attacked by murderous goblins or kobolds. Usually PCs laugh mockingly as they mow down swaths of the buggers, but underpowered characters would have to come up with different tactics in order to survive. Perhaps the carpenter could rig a camouflaged pit, and the alchemist could fill it with a flammable concoction made of cooking oil and straw. Rambling aside, limiting the characters' power provides great opportunities for roleplaying.
Zo
Nope, it doesn't mean that it is NOT fun to play a Commoner, either. As for the comment that it isn't meant to be played, then why would it be printed? It is most certainly meant to be played, typically by the DM.
My argument for more balance across all levels extends to the other side of the DM screen, for certain, if not especially, for in order for the game to be fun for the DM, it needs to be very well-balanced, otherwise the DM's duties become even more work.
Nope, it doesn't mean that it is NOT fun to play a Commoner, either. As for the comment that it isn't meant to be played, then why would it be printed? It is most certainly meant to be played, typically by the DM.My argument for more balance across all levels extends to the other side of the DM screen, for certain, if not especially, for in order for the game to be fun for the DM, it needs to be very well-balanced, otherwise the DM's duties become even more work.
I'm with you on that one. I can't speak to Pathfinder in this example, but in D&D 3.5 I found combats at high level (12+) to often be annoying. Monsters getting a surprise round can mean game over. Some of the Living Greyhawk mods were TPKs-in-a-bundle when run by an intelligent, impartial DM. Then again, you don't just want to let the PCs walk all over the mod. It's a lot of work as a DM to balance that knife-edge situation.
|
Just to interject on behalf (kind of) of 4e. Having now played both Pathfinder and 4e I see the games fill two different roles for me.
4e IS more balanced due to using the same mechanics and formula for working out how powerful power A vs B should be at level X. As such 4e is a great low stress game in which you don't have to invest a great deal of effort into having a really good "mechanical" character. But as such, as pointed out, each class starts to feel a little carbon-copy. But because of this 4e is my pick-up and play "D&D" of choice and I have a great deal of low stress fun with 4e.
Pathfinder on the other hand (to me) involves really having a think about my character and invest more time in it's creation - perhaps I get therefore a little more attached to said PC. Pathfinder is therefore my serious "D&D" of choice. Balanced not as much as 4e, but that doesn't hurt the game (as played) at all and perhaps isn't possible or desirable?
Both are great role-playing games.
Random musings,
S.
[Sarcasm] No. No! I refuse to put up with this sort of "follow the rainbow" consensus crap. There is room for only one game, Stefan, ONE! [/sarcasm]
I like this point. I had this problem recently with running 4e and then going over to Pathfinder. To tie this in with the thread, my group felt like as far as -overall- mechanical contribution combined with class difference and nuance Pathfinder was a far more complex and "richer" experience for a group that traditionally likes a little diversity to its mechanics. We left 4e with a bitter taste but as we have talked about it we realized that it is a good system for some laid back "grab and go" sessions.
Creative Director
|
Can we stop claiming that 4e is at all balanced? Because it's not. It's a textbook example of how nerfing or stripping out everything even remotely interesting or worldchanging leads to blandness but not balance.
I've never made any such claim. I have barely played 4E and am thus not in a position to make judgements on it one way or another, to be honest. (Been busy with Pathfinder!)
|
Can we stop claiming that 4e is at all balanced? Because it's not. It's a textbook example of how nerfing or stripping out everything even remotely interesting or worldchanging leads to blandness but not balance.
"More balanced", happy... :)
In 4e I feel at home playing the "Big Damn Hero", shiny armour and strong square jaw.
In Pathfinder I feel at home with my characters being flawed and slightly grimy. Say a Druid who is a little too close to his animal companion...
Role-playing is possible in both but for me the system conjures very different Worlds which would arise under those sets of "Laws of Nature".
Anyway before I break out into Kumbaya and hug a tree,
Cheers,
S.
I removed some edition wars baiting.
I removed some edition wars baiting.
If you say so.
Actually, now that I think about it, if I ever start a new campaign I may have the PCs go through something like this as a sort of 0-level proving ground. It'd be a great way to provide the party with a back-story and motivation for adventuring together.
I've had great success doing exactly that. One of my longest-running campaigns started out with a merchant's scribe, a knight's squire, a common laborer, and a noble's third-eldest son banding together as the sole survivors of a Zhentarim attack on a caravan. Good times, good times.
|
Creative Director
|
I've never made any such claim.Other people were; there were about five posts, so I didn't quote any particular one. But balancing the game doesn't necessarily mean making it less interesting, especially when you're broadening scopes to cover things that (still!) aren't well-covered in 3e.
But since you chose to quote me, I felt the need to clarify is all.
A bit like a conversational pitbull, no? Regardless of what you may or may not think is 4E's balance issues, the actual topic is Pathfinder class "balancing". Can we maybe focus on that rather than back and forth over how much someone's side-note conceptually offends someone else?
While it is absolutely true that some people will play a class based on the flavour they're after, regardless of the internal mechanics, I don't think the designers behind 3.0, 3.5, or Pathfinder ever intended for the classes to have "tiers" of in-game utility, so on some level they were *meant* to be balanced.
The question is, thus, do people feel that they are balanced IN THAT WAY.
While I like a lot of what has been done to improve classes, I think some classes are simply sub-par. 3.5 wasn't balanced well either, but all that has happened in PF is a shifting around of that imbalance, and I can't fathom why that is.
I have yet to see one of my players (with 8-10 players each week in my group we've used very base class) sitting on the sidelines saying, "I just can't be a factor here."
No rogues vs. oozes then?
I see the "I'm out of options" thing come up quite often. However, it doesn't just hit one class.
As for your final assessment, I think I'm pretty close - overall I think the balance between classes improved in Pathfinder over 3.5 (and 3.5 was improved over 3.0)
I am in the camp that thinks Barbarians could use some better rage powers, and that Monk's need some more options, but these things may come in the APG apparently.
You know, burning through that much spell levels to do that much damage in one encounter is hardly what I consider overpowered since if your playing at that level, then a well made fighter can do just as well in damage without blowing through all his resources for the day and he can do it in the next 3 encounters of the day as well. On a side note, the original arcane strike from the magazine DID have it´s use limited to once per round...but each spell level added +2 to hit and +2d6 damage per hit. I do like that version best personally.RAW, not RAI, it was made before swift actions. They forgot to note somewhere or in an errata or even FAQ that it was supposed to be a swift action. Due to it being a free action, and the damage dice being untyped they stacked. So you had duskblades getting magic items, or even feats, where they could turn into things like 12 headed where this extra damage dice applied to every attack of every head.People commonly construed the Duskblade as overpowered mostly due to the poorly written arcane strike feat.I don't really see how the arcane strike feat changes things.
On its own, its fine, when you do it via 12 heads at the same time, at the same cost as 1. That is a problem.
I am speaking from personal experience as a player.
I'm in the camp that the classes are balanced enough.
I've DM'd RotRL and the PCs hit 18th level using PF characters. We are also using PF characters in two LoF campaigns (though they are still low levels). I'm also playing PF characters in a Shackled City campaign. Those PCs are now 12th level.
We run into situations on occassion where one PC may have problems, or may nave little contribution. However, overall I don't believe anyone has said their PCs suck, and most have had several opportunities to shine.
Well, to get back to a topic a few post back:
i really don´t see how you can play a cleric here and have something usefull to do in combat and not go into melee.
I tried to play a halfling cleric with the healing and community domain, nad the first few level all i did was occasionaly heal my teammates in combat and grant em a Guidance now and then.
That i was very good at healing made the whole thing worse for me, as my party was able to handle more encounter per day, and so i had even less spells to use outside of healing.
I wouldn´t complain if i had something to do outside of combat, but with 2 skillpoints (one of these should go into knowledge religion anyway) and a somewhat lacking skill-list (imo) there isn´t much i could do.
What are your clerics doing all the time below level 8?
I really see only two ways you can play your cleric: Healbot to further the fun of your party (and if you like it, kudos to you, but nothing i like to play as i soon noticed) or melee-selfbuffer.
If you want to play the wise cleric of magic and knowledge, there is little in the class that helps you doing it.
Same goes for most ranged, sneaky or glib clerics.
|
Well, to get back to a topic a few post back:
i really don´t see how you can play a cleric here and have something usefull to do in combat and not go into melee.
I tried to play a halfling cleric with the healing and community domain, nad the first few level all i did was occasionaly heal my teammates in combat and grant em a Guidance now and then.
That i was very good at healing made the whole thing worse for me, as my party was able to handle more encounter per day, and so i had even less spells to use outside of healing.
I wouldn´t complain if i had something to do outside of combat, but with 2 skillpoints (one of these should go into knowledge religion anyway) and a somewhat lacking skill-list (imo) there isn´t much i could do.
What are your clerics doing all the time below level 8?
I really see only two ways you can play your cleric: Healbot to further the fun of your party (and if you like it, kudos to you, but nothing i like to play as i soon noticed) or melee-selfbuffer.
If you want to play the wise cleric of magic and knowledge, there is little in the class that helps you doing it.
Same goes for most ranged, sneaky or glib clerics.
I tend to agree. While you can do anything that a level 1 Commoner can also do, I don't think that counts.
|
|
Well, to get back to a topic a few post back:
I tried to play a halfling cleric with the healing and community domain, nad the first few level all i did was occasionaly heal my teammates in combat and grant em a Guidance now and then.
I really see only two ways you can play your cleric: Healbot to further the fun of your party (and if you like it, kudos to you, but nothing i like to play as i soon noticed) or melee-selfbuffer.
I have to agree with this. I ran into it repeatedly in 3.5 where the party expects the cleric will use all his spells to heal or buff the party. I tried to have clerics which went beyond this to melee or even blasting in combat, but it just meant more grief if someone died or was out of action for a while because I didn't have the healing spells left to take care of them.
Pathfinder provides chanelling as an additional source of healing, but a PF cleric is weaker than a 3.5 cleric, so opportunities to avoid the stereotypical walking bandaid are still worse than 3.5. I ran into this when I wanted to create an Oracle and looked at the cleric spell list. With the limited spell selection, I could easily see cure light wounds being the one which I ended up using all the time. So I created a sorcerer instead and the party has no healer. One of the 3.5 designers even said that clerics were overpowered so that people would play them.
Well, to get back to a topic a few post back:
I tried to play a halfling cleric with the healing and community domain, nad the first few level all i did was occasionaly heal my teammates in combat and grant em a Guidance now and then.
I really see only two ways you can play your cleric: Healbot to further the fun of your party (and if you like it, kudos to you, but nothing i like to play as i soon noticed) or melee-selfbuffer.
I have to agree with this. I ran into it repeatedly in 3.5 where the party expects the cleric will use all his spells to heal or buff the party. I tried to have clerics which went beyond this to melee or even blasting in combat, but it just meant more grief if someone died or was out of action for a while because I didn't have the healing spells left to take care of them.
Pathfinder provides chanelling as an additional source of healing, but a PF cleric is weaker than a 3.5 cleric, so opportunities to avoid the stereotypical walking bandaid are still worse than 3.5. I ran into this when I wanted to create an Oracle and looked at the cleric spell list. With the limited spell selection, I could easily see cure light wounds being the one which I ended up using all the time. So I created a sorcerer instead and the party has no healer. One of the 3.5 designers even said that clerics were overpowered so that people would play them.
I don't know about your groups, but my 3.5 groups almost never had a cleric. No one wanted to play them. The 2 I recall were a very effective melee self-buffer and a negative channeling undead controller using the Libre Mortis. In Pathfinder, my group has already had more memorable clerics. The thing is, they can now heal, fight, and buff (self or others), effectively. Before you got stuck doing 1. Personally, I think they simultaneously made the cleric more fun and stronger, with the exception of a couple of spells that desprately needed the nerf bat.
I really see only two ways you can play your cleric: Healbot to further the fun of your party (and if you like it, kudos to you, but nothing i like to play as i soon noticed) or melee-selfbuffer.
If you want to play the wise cleric of magic and knowledge, there is little in the class that helps you doing it.
Same goes for most ranged, sneaky or glib clerics.
Strange, I did a buffing/supporting missile-support caster with a cleric and it worked just fine.
So Cleric of Magic and Knowledge - you have a host of knowledge skills as class skills, you just need to invest in intelligence to get the skill-points.
Missile support - if you have a good dex, or if you take the Zen Archery feat, this works just fine. You can use slings and crossbows, and elf clerics (or those that dip a level or invest a feat) can use bows.
Melee support - if all else fails you still have good AC and decent weapons, making this still an option.
Sneaky & Glib clerics - funnily enough, the cleric isn't a skills monkey - no full casters are. But if you invest in the stats and dip a level or two of rogue, bard (for glib clerics) or ranger (for sneaky/archery clerics) these can work just fine.
A lot of options are open to the cleric, if you make a wise attribute selection. Like all full casters except the druid, the cleric has limited skills per level (and the druid isn't much better), so as with the fighter, if you want skills you must invest in intelligence.
Really, the cleric is what it is and what you make of it is what your imagination limits you to. It is no more limited than any other class ...
|
|
Off topic, is it possible to ignore posts from certain individuals? Because I can think of one in particular who does nothing but complain and shoot down other people, while putting himself on a high horse.
On topic, I have to agree with the sentiment that the classes are "balanced enough", with some exceptions; high-level casters, monks and barbs could use some more options being some I see as problems. That being said, its going to be impossible, not to mention boring, to perfectly balance everything. Again, this has all been stated already, but Id like to add my voice into the camp that thinks that Paizo has a sweet starting point as far as balance goes. Sure there is always room for improvement, but I see that as tweaking something that is already well made, as opposed to fixing something that is broken.
First a general statement:
We only play 15 point-buy and no cleric should have below 12 Ch and 16 We (IMO) so 12 are already spend.
> So Cleric of Magic and Knowledge - you have a host of knowledge skills as class skills, you just need to invest in intelligence to get the skill-points.
Well, but not really any skill points left to get them with. And if i spend 3 points on int, i got a str dex and ko of 10, not healthy as i have to get into melee range to heal my buddies.
> Missile support - if you have a good dex, or if you take the Zen Archery feat, this works just fine. You can use slings and crossbows, and elf clerics (or those that dip a level or invest a feat) can use bows.
No 3.5 feats for us. Also, if you go ranged, you need good dex (to hit anything with 3/4 BaB), a crapload of feats and u want Str to do any damage. Also, most of your selfbuffs are useless as they give you str-boni and you can´t have a bow with varying str boni to damage.
> Melee support - if all else fails you still have good AC and decent weapons, making this still an option.
True, but we have already 3 melee chars in a party of 5.
> Sneaky & Glib clerics - funnily enough, the cleric isn't a skills monkey - no full casters are. But if you invest in the stats and dip a level or two of rogue, bard (for glib clerics) or ranger (for sneaky/archery clerics) these can work just fine.
Hmm, i think if i want to go that route, i just go full bard.
Perform Oratory should be fun to give some rousing sermons :)
Mirror, Mirror is correct - there are plenty of ways around it by selecting race and by choice of feats, even at core only. If you want to be a cleric+, you have to sacrifice something of being super-cleric - settle for 10 Charisma and 14 Wisdom and you can expand your clerics role in the party to something that suits you more. On 15 point buy, you have sufficient to work each class at it's most essential function well, but you have to be prepared to give up some of that if you want whistles and bells, and this is true of any class, not just the cleric.
I'm in the camp that the classes are balanced enough.
I like most of them for balance against each other. The bard still feels a little weak, though. As one WotC podcast put it "The bard feels like it wandered in from another game." In the hands of a good DM and a good player, the bard can shine out of combat. In combat... meh. Not so much. Anyone else seeing this play out this way?
First a general statement:
We only play 15 point-buy and no cleric should have below 12 Ch and 16 We (IMO) so 12 are already spend.> So Cleric of Magic and Knowledge - you have a host of knowledge skills as class skills, you just need to invest in intelligence to get the skill-points.
Well, but not really any skill points left to get them with. And if i spend 3 points on int, i got a str dex and ko of 10, not healthy as i have to get into melee range to heal my buddies.
> Missile support - if you have a good dex, or if you take the Zen Archery feat, this works just fine. You can use slings and crossbows, and elf clerics (or those that dip a level or invest a feat) can use bows.
No 3.5 feats for us. Also, if you go ranged, you need good dex (to hit anything with 3/4 BaB), a crapload of feats and u want Str to do any damage. Also, most of your selfbuffs are useless as they give you str-boni and you can´t have a bow with varying str boni to damage.
> Melee support - if all else fails you still have good AC and decent weapons, making this still an option.
True, but we have already 3 melee chars in a party of 5.
> Sneaky & Glib clerics - funnily enough, the cleric isn't a skills monkey - no full casters are. But if you invest in the stats and dip a level or two of rogue, bard (for glib clerics) or ranger (for sneaky/archery clerics) these can work just fine.
Hmm, i think if i want to go that route, i just go full bard.
Perform Oratory should be fun to give some rousing sermons :)
If you go human:
str 13, dex 14, con 10, int 10, Wis 16 (14+2), cha 12
feats:
1 precise + point blank shot
3 rapid shot
5 deadly aim
7 weapon focus
9 many shot
15 improved precise shot
- you still have free feats and are no more invested than most archers
-only miss out on righteous might and bulls strength for self buffing by going ranged, up until 5th lvl spells. That is not a huge loss.
-sneaky/glib - hard to do with cleric. Its not built for it, and few classes are. Go inquisitor if thats what you want in a divine caster.
I like most of them for balance against each other. The bard still feels a little weak, though. As one WotC podcast put it "The bard feels like it wandered in from another game." In the hands of a good DM and a good player, the bard can shine out of combat. In combat... meh. Not so much. Anyone else seeing this play out this way?I'm in the camp that the classes are balanced enough.
The Bard in my group is huge. If you count attacks that wouldn't have hit without the Bard as part of its damage contribution, it outshines the fighter every combat. On top of that, ours is using dazzling display and fear spells to great effect.
I think balance is as much a function of spotlight time and niche protection as mechanical balance. Spotlight time is next to impossible to dictate via the rules unless your DM is an ultra-stickler about skill usage and even then you can always get parties with uneven spotlight time.
Niche protection is a bit easier to define via the ruleset and for the most part I think Paizo has done a good job with Pathfinder. However there are definitely issues I personally would've fixed had the goal of backwards compatibility not been very high on the list of goals.
1) Personally I dislike skills being a balancing factor in class design. I'd prefer every class to have X number of skillpoints per level and to be balanced mechanically in other areas. Because the rogue has been historically speaking the "skill class" it's required to have the most number of skill points. Since it's a balancing factor other classes need to be arranged around it's baseline. While wizards can generally cope with 2 skillpoint + int I've found that fighters tend to be less than useful outside of combat. Considering that a fighter can often feel emasculated by casters in combat feeling incompetent in other areas of the game has been a major problem.
2)Some of the current base classes really don't have a great focus around them. Monk is kinda a hodge podge of melee striker, scout, mystic warrior but many of their abilities don't sync well with each other. High speed and flurry of blows is basically incompatible. The barbarian is kinda a mix of striker and tank but tends to lag behind a well made fighter in either role. Talented generalists don't really thrive in D&D as a whole.
3) Some caster strategies are still clearly sub-par. The archetypical evoker blaster mage is basically a crap build. Unfortunately many people like throwing around elemental blasts but in general it's a ticket to irrelevance. While the nerfs to SoS/SoD spells were nice I would've loved to see significant boosts to the utility of blast spells to make that a big part of wizardry/sorcery again.
4) There is still a ton of issues with system knowledge = more ultimate power. Whether it is high threat crit melee builds trumping big crit multipliers or spell selection being a critical part of caster builds there is a lot of traps in 3.x pathfinder that can lead novice players down blind alleys.
Many people still think that Pathfinder is still D&D: caster edition. In some ways I tend to agree but I think some things could've been done to change that such as making counter-magic more prevalent (maybe something that non-casters could do), possibly jettisoning quickened metamagic, making it easier to disrupt casters, etc. Any of those could reduce the relative power of casters, which might not be a bad thing.
|
|
This may seem a silly question but have many of you physically experienced a dramatically disjointed experience between classes?
I ask because I am running a group that has a bard, a monk, a cleric, a wizard, a druid, and a fighter and they seem on par in contribution and the play styles and system knowledge are varied between players.
Sure, some conversation are had about maybe why on guy shouldn't pick feat X when he want character concept Y but some people comment like they have players or friends who make characters and then just are worthless to the game. I am honestly asking, has this been observed "on the street"?
This may seem a silly question but have many of you physically experienced a dramatically disjointed experience between classes?
I ask because I am running a group that has a bard, a monk, a cleric, a wizard, a druid, and a fighter and they seem on par in contribution and the play styles and system knowledge are varied between players.
Sure, some conversation are had about maybe why on guy shouldn't pick feat X when he want character concept Y but some people comment like they have players or friends who make characters and then just are worthless to the game. I am honestly asking, has this been observed "on the street"?
I've seen it. Though more in 3.5 then in pathfinder. It however usually wasnt about the classes but the players. Some players in my group make really effective characters, some in my group make over the top silly characters that end up flopping hard. For instance one of my players once made a rogue with like 50 skill tricks who could run around the room, crawl under the table, scale a wall, brace himself in a corner on the ceiling and then attacked with a crossbow for 1d6 damage. Then the wizard cast glitterdust and ended the encounter after 3 failed monster saves. Now the rogue could have moved into flanking with the paladin, and two weapon fighting sneak attacked the crap out of the enemy, but the player instead chose a different route.
I think that is one of the biggest problems with balance when accounting for a large variety of player choices. Even if individual choices are not blatently better then eachother, combinations of choices are always likely to be. And i think your group and how they play greatly influences conceptions of class balance in terms of overall experience.
|
|
I think balance is as much a function of spotlight time and niche protection as mechanical balance. Spotlight time is next to impossible to dictate via the rules unless your DM is an ultra-stickler about skill usage and even then you can always get parties with uneven spotlight time.
Niche protection is a bit easier to define via the ruleset and for the most part I think Paizo has done a good job with Pathfinder. However there are definitely issues I personally would've fixed had the goal of backwards compatibility not been very high on the list of goals.
1) Personally I dislike skills being a balancing factor in class design. I'd prefer every class to have X number of skillpoints per level and to be balanced mechanically in other areas. Because the rogue has been historically speaking the "skill class" it's required to have the most number of skill points. Since it's a balancing factor other classes need to be arranged around it's baseline. While wizards can generally cope with 2 skillpoint + int I've found that fighters tend to be less than useful outside of combat. Considering that a fighter can often feel emasculated by casters in combat feeling incompetent in other areas of the game has been a major problem.
I agree with you here, if anything if a class is meant to have a skill emphasis maybe it should be emphasized through class bonuses to certain types of checks rather than skill points?
2)Some of the current base classes really don't have a great focus around them. Monk is kinda a hodge podge of melee striker, scout, mystic warrior but many of their abilities don't sync well with each other. High speed and flurry of blows is basically incompatible. The barbarian is kinda a mix of striker and tank but tends to lag behind a well made fighter in either role. Talented generalists don't really thrive in D&D as a whole.
I am having the opposite experience and have for years, I am either in or running very small groups or larger groups and the "switch hitters" have always seemed useful in the capacity to be inbetween roles. Is it possible that there is a balance issue that is related to scale or availability of abilities? (ie are monks only balanced in groups of 2 or 6+?)
3) Some caster strategies are still clearly sub-par. The archetypical evoker blaster mage is basically a crap build. Unfortunately many people like throwing around elemental blasts but in general it's a ticket to irrelevance. While the nerfs to SoS/SoD spells were nice I would've loved to see significant boosts to the utility of blast spells to make that a big part of wizardry/sorcery again.4) There is still a ton of issues with system knowledge = more ultimate power. Whether it is high threat crit melee builds trumping big crit multipliers or spell selection being a critical part of caster builds there is a lot of traps in 3.x pathfinder that can lead novice players down blind alleys.
I see these ideas as linked. If 4 is true ( and it is) isn't that really the thing that exposes 3 or makes it relevant? What I am getting at is this: if the game is not played "optimally" then is it more balanced? If the wizard isn't -maximizing- its effectivness by picking the "right" spells and the fighter didn't take the most horrific damage dealing path then is the experience more even? Perhaps the question becomes more like this:
If optimization is seen as the extending of the variables of the game to the highest ratio of action/effect does that mean that the experience of the game is inherently unbalanced when exercised at its extremes? Or should balance be perceived in terms of the "average" experience or choice.
Not every person picks skills and abilities in real life that mesh optimally together and neither do "heroes" in many stories (Elminster anyone?). So I guess I am wondering what aspect of balance is critical to people; should the optimized paths be balanced or the average experience? Is it possible to do both?
Just some blathering, my 2 cp. :-p