|
I find the Tome of 9 swords argument of 'magic' particularly empty. Magic can do anything fighting skills can do, but when fighting skills go the other way, woe is us! Banning the whole book because you don't like mystical swordsages walking on air and flitting from place to place, or making their swords burn with flame? Sorry, I have no sympathy for that point of view whatsoever. To9S allows a better chance to emulate truly heroic and powerful characters out of 'modern' fantasy, doing the unbelievable things that characters can do in a world where the impossible is possible. It sets the bar much higher.It's a really good book, adn a lot more thought went into it then went into the original core classes, which were basically just ported over from 2E...and melee was nerfed HARD in the transition.
===Aelryinth
The real problem with the Tome of Nine book is that if you are going to allow it, you pretty much have to simply throw away the melee classes, the paladin, fighter, rogue, and bard. The ranger may get some occasional use slinging an arrow, but even he's pretty much obsolete by any of these martial masters.
It's not that they're bad classes, but the imbalance that I've seen IN PLAY pretty much puts every other non spellcaster in the dustbin.
Or to put it more simply, using Tome of Blood characters with standard melee types makes as much sense as putting 4th edition and 3.x edition characters in the same gaming table.
I haven´t noticed that. I find that the ToB classes are dipped to add a couple of tricks to make melee characters more fun, but they generally aren´t pick entirely over the other classes. This is especially true for rogue characters. I have found that as a full class, they do less damage then well made fighters and barbarian at most levels...but a couple of their utility stuff is nice to have in addition to.
I take the TOB for what it is, and the classes for what they are - a supplement for those that want to use them. I regard the classes as a kind very martial gish, and nothing wrong with that.
There's more of a risk of that in an imbalanced game, as the loser classes become less desirable than the winner classes. It's also more of a risk when classes have fewer schticks/roles; when everyone does the same thing, it's harder to make warriors and paladins and death knights, etc. all desirable in the same role.That's what irritates the s~&# out of me about WoW. You have one build per class per role and if you don't use those perscribed builds, you're not gonna see endgame content.
I'd hate like hell for Pathfinder to even remotely suffer from this.
Yeah, you're right. I'm a douche.
I find the argument about invisibility to be rather hilarious.
Invisibility sucks.
Seriously. Invisibility is terrible. Look down the list of spells that end it. Almost every divination spell ever destroys invisibility, doing anything while invisible ends it, the list goes on.
The funny thing about True Seeing? It doesn't do crap to a character who's just sneaking mundanely.
Anyways, D&D is a fantasy game. A game about the fantastic. Wizards get more fantastic as they go. I see no reason that martial classes shouldn't be able to do the same. At higher levels, martial classes should absolutely be able to rip off a monsters arm and beat them with it, sunder a hill with their weapon, stride through a battlefield ignoring the arrows as they fall, or swing their weapon and kill a whole group of lesser enemies around them.
Yeah, you're right. I'm a douche....generally, when people respond with nonsensical personal abuse, it isn't directed at themselves. :S
Not at all. Imbalance can lead to the "one and only one choice" problem. It was idiotic to bring it up my concern in the first place, too, because the game is too new to have too many options vis a vis specific concepts. One should not be surprised right now if there's only one specific build for(for example) the best DPR per class.
I prefer to build my characters mechanics around personality and concepts rather than trying to max out on damage or such - of course within those bounds I try and make them as effective as I can in their role, but it isn't all about damage dealing.
Not at all. Imbalance can lead to the "one and only one choice" problem. It was idiotic to bring it up my concern in the first place, too, because the game is too new to have too many options vis a vis specific concepts. One should not be surprised right now if there's only one specific build for(for example) the best DPR per class.Yeah, you're right. I'm a douche....generally, when people respond with nonsensical personal abuse, it isn't directed at themselves. :S
You make a very good point. Pathfinder is a bit new for these discussions to be getting as snippy as they have been. The game is very new, and we all know that playerbases such as these have far too much time on their hands, and at times far too little patience. I still believe the discussions are good though, especially when the conversation is visible to the eyes that matter.
I prefer to build my characters mechanics around personality and concepts rather than trying to max out on damage or such - of course within those bounds I try and make them as effective as I can in their role, but it isn't all about damage dealing.
Oh, of course, man. And the game was DESIGNED with the idea that people are going to be making as many flavor and RP decisions as mechanical decisions with their build choices (this is a fact).
If you're optimizing, though, that's fine too, and you'll excel. If you're not the type to optimize, you won't care if the optimizer's character is better than yours or not. So it's kind of a win-win.
|
|
If you're optimizing, though, that's fine too, and you'll excel. If you're not the type to optimize, you won't care if the optimizer's character is better than yours or not. So it's kind of a win-win.
Unless your the DM. Encounters get difficult to scale when one person is optimized and doing 200 damage a round at level 8 while the other person has made a bunch of RP choices and doing 8 damage a round at level 8. I have seen both...but fortunately never in the same group. However, both players did drag down the fun in both games. One because the encounters were either no fun...or we nearly TPKed...and the other because the player was dead weight in combat and he complained incessantly about combat and how it was getting in the way of ¨roleplaying¨. Course I have seen scales inbetween. So I guess even from a player stand point, it´s not so much a win win...but it is a much bigger headache for the DM then the players.
Unless your the DM. Encounters get difficult to scale when one person is optimized and doing 200 damage a round at level 8 while the other person has made a bunch of RP choices and doing 8 damage a round at level 8. I have seen both...but fortunately never in the same group. However, both players did drag down the fun in both games. One because the encounters were either no fun...or we nearly TPKed...and the other because the player was dead weight in combat and he complained incessantly about combat and how it was getting in the way of ¨roleplaying¨. Course I have seen scales inbetween. So I guess even from a player stand point, it´s not so much a win win...but it is a much bigger headache for the DM then the players.
If you're optimizing, though, that's fine too, and you'll excel. If you're not the type to optimize, you won't care if the optimizer's character is better than yours or not. So it's kind of a win-win.
I've never seen such a huge disparity in usefulness. Just because something CAN be a certain way does not mean that you have to actively remedy against it.
|
|
Well the optimizer who was doing 200 damage a round wasn´t so much we couldn´t make characters of that level...the rest of the players really didn´t wanna. When you have an entire party of that level of optimization, it becomes a game of rocket tag...which isn´t exactly a lot of fun outside of quake.
As for the ¨roleplayer¨...he would not take any advice we would give to make his character any better.
I do admit this is more a player issue...but the rules DO allow for this disparity. Not sure if changing the rules for the few problem players is worthwhile though...just saying that it can and does happen.
In my experience, when players want to break the game, they will. You can design a system to not allow them, but that generally sucks the fun out of it for everyone else.
|
I invoke Pun-Pun the Ultimate Kobold to come and destroy all of your "optimized" characters after he gets done wiping Elminster bits off of his shoes.
Seriously, I, like most gamers, usually strike a balance between flavor choices, concepts that just strike me as neat, and some minor degree of optimization. One example would be a warlock/soulknife character I had. Hardly an optimized character, but the concept of channeling the eldrich blast through the mind blade was, to me, awesome.
Likewise, as I have pointed out before, spellcasters may be the most powerful, but when both sides of a battle have spellcasters counterspelling each other, it's the warriors that decide the fight.
People need to worry more about having fun than if their characters are the most extremely optimzed they possibly can be.
The game doesn't have to fit everyone.
If I had been in your shoes, I would have sat each player down and said "look, the way your character has been constructed, I am having trouble trying to balance the game with what the other players want. I really need <<character's name>> to be constructed, mechanically, to be more compatible with the other PCs. Specifically, I notice that <<character's name>> regularly does 200 points of damage a round whereas the rest of the PCs normally do about X points of damage a round. I'd like to work with you in rewriting this character. I think we'd both enjoy the game much better if it were rewritten - I know I would because I wouldn't have so much work trying to balance my encounters." <<player makes some response>>. "I have no desire to work so hard trying to balance these encounters. This extra effort is sucking the fun out of the game for me. If you don't wish to bring <<character's name>>'s sheet more in line with the other PCs or bring in another character, then I can no longer be your GM."
This sort of thing should only happen if it involves something that your entire gaming group can agree is exploitive. Players shouldn't be punished for doing a GOOD JOB on their character... indeed, if one player has done a better job than the others, and the others are unhappy about their performance relative to that player, then the group should be sitting down with the OTHER PLAYERS to work on how they can also improve.
The choices you make will always decide where your strengths and weaknesses lie. A level 10 commoner is always going to perform less spectacularly than a level 10 sorcerer. A level 10 evoker will almost always deal more damage than a level 10 abjurer. A level 10 fighter that has focused on two-weapon fighting will always outperform a level 10 figher that chose random skill focus feats or decided to fight using only the sap. You don't sit down with the sorcerer, evoker, or two-weapon fighter and insist they tone down their characters so they line up with their weaker counterparts! If the commoner, abjurer, or sap-warrior is unhappy, then maybe they need to rethink their concept.
Grinding everyone down to the lowest common denominator is the easiest, but dumbest course of action in any game system.
Combat encounters should be balanced around the party level, even if the party is too weak for that level, or too strong for it. Typically a party of combat monsters will be lacking in other areas, so they'll face tough challenges when skills are needed, social situations, puzzles, and so forth. If the party feels things are too easy, they'll say so, at which point you up the ELs by 1. Repeat until they stop complaining that they're having too easy of a time.
I actually think that trying to get the optimizer OR the roleplayer to change their characters is a lazy DM move. Optimizers like to optimize. Roleplayers like to roleplay. They have fun doing these things. If you're specifically doing an intrigue game or specifically doing a hack-and-slash dungeonfest, it's possible one player or the other respectively is going to find their fun level decreased. As long as you told them beforehand what the campaign was going to be like, you are cleared from any kvetching aimed at you.
If it's a balanced campaign with lots going on, I really don't see why there isn't room for both optimizers and roleplayers (or optimizers who are also roleplayers).
And how the heck is anyone doing 200 damage a round before endgame anyways? Paladin?
Oh, I agree that players shouldn't be punished for doing a good job on their character. But we're not discussing a player who did a good job on their character. In fact, roleplaying hasn't been discussed at all.
What we're discussing is some player twinking their character out.
Not that there's any meaning to the word "twinking", unless you're using the old MMO term which referred to giving your lower level characters lots of gold and items so they're equipped better than any character that level would hope to be... which seems unlikely in a PnP game.
If the player is exploiting a flaw, or several flaws, in the game.. and the rest of the party is unhappy about it, then sure. My suggestion would be, however, to sit EVERYBODY down and agree to house rules regarding those flaws. If the character in question is NOT abusing some sort of flaw in the game that needs fixing, then what you have is an optimized character, and that shouldn't be an issue.
To be clear, I'm also not talking about reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. I'm talking about zeroing in on what the majority of players want to play - reducing to the mean.
That's just taking the exact same concept, stuffing it in a frilly dress and putting lipstick on it. If you reduce all the higher powered characters to "the mean" then "the mean" changes. Applying that concept to groups invariably reduces them to the lowest common denominator.
From personal experience I still don't see that as so bad as it expends a huge amount of resources and unlike other methods of getting lots of damage it is only for one round. Sure it could lead to anticlimatic final battles but so can the many other things that will likely cause instant death.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.
Please forgive me if I don't believe you actually tried this in game play. I did, and it is recorded in the recorded campaign, "Killer GM runs Age of Worms"
People need to worry more about having fun than if their characters are the most extremely optimzed they possibly can be.
Unfortunately, for some players having fun IS about making the most extremely optimized character possible. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but when you mix Optimizers and Roleplayers in the same party, it can be a struggle.
Considering the goal of backwards compatibility I am fairly impressed with how the rebalancing worked.
Casters are still extremely strong but solid adventure design can reduce some of the herp derp 15 minute adventuring day with casters going NOVA every encounter. I'd say that there are still some spells that should get hit with a nerf bat but for the most part if you stay out of the level 14+ endgame the jaw-dropping power of the casters is kept somewhat in check.
There are definitely some sub-par classes out there. Barbarian is one of the substandard classes for example. Rage Powers was an interesting idea but in practice the rage powers < bonus feats and they aren't even on all the time :| I'm toying around with just giving the Barbarian a bonus feat in place of rage powers ala rogue talents. It might be too strong but I think it would enable a greater number of build options than big guy, big sword.
Despite treantmonk's work on Monk guides, I think the consensus is that the Monk is also a sub-par class. I really haven't looked at too many hax because the class is basically absent in my campaigns but honestly I don't see any real reason why the Monk couldn't be transformed into a full BAB martial artist/mystic warrior class. The strengths it has (mobility, skills, mystic abilities, great saves) are balanced by it's relative weakness in other areas. You'd probably want to take out or downgrade some abilities to compensate for the increased BAB (I'd look at capping land speed earlier) and to discourage it becoming the dip class of choice.
I'd probably also revise some of the current abilities. Ranger's Hunter Bond currently is basically animal companion as the only viable option. The buff to others simply isn't worthwhile as an action. If the boost was activated with a free action, "Hit it there!", it might be worthwhile but as a whole it's pretty meh. I also think that a non-casting ranger option should be included. I'd also be tempted to buff the ranger by moving Hunter's Bond to a 1st level ability. That way the Ranger can be full time pet class from the get go. Sometimes people don't want to have to be a spellcaster in order to get a pet.
I also dislike the limited out of combat utility of several classes. The lack of skill points mean that fighters and clerics are generally going to be using untrained skill checks in the majority of situations. The fighter isn't even good at identifying the weaknesses of foes because he really can't afford to invest in knowledge skills. However if you bump up skill points for unskilled classes you probably need to compensate the skill classes a little.
Other problems are the linear vs quadratic progression. The wizard is a god at 20 but is pretty much dead weight in a low level situation. The fighter rocks at 1st level (relatively) but slowly loses ground until he gets rocked by endgame caster. Pathfinder reduces the hero-to-zero effect by increases wizard survivability at lower levels and making the fighter stronger at higher levels but a high-level wizard can definitely punk a high-level fighter. I'm not sure that the problem can be entirely fixed unless you go down the 4e route.
Considering the goal of backwards compatibility I am fairly impressed with how the rebalancing worked.
I'm with you there.
Other problems are the linear vs quadratic progression. The wizard is a god at 20 but is pretty much dead weight in a low level situation. The fighter rocks at 1st level (relatively) but slowly loses ground until he gets rocked by endgame caster. Pathfinder reduces the hero-to-zero effect by increases wizard survivability at lower levels and making the fighter stronger at higher levels but a high-level wizard can definitely punk a high-level fighter.
Well, wizards a better at level 1 in Pathfinder than 3.5, and fighters at level 20. But to me, that's not so important as the characters continuing to have a role to play. The fighter goes from being party heavy-hitter to guarding the mages, but he's still doing something important. Even if he isn't doing the lion's share of the damage, very often he's moving in to deliver the coup-de-grace, finishing off partly downed foes while the caster directs spells at the next target.
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.
Balance doesn't make a game less interesting but it can change the scope of the game. The most balanced games I've played are highly strategic and extremely balanced. Take a game like Star Fleet Battles. That is very balanced not perfect but close. I'd say Chess is the most balance game I've played.
On the opposite spectrum some games like Talisman while fun it can stick you with a character that just plain sucks.
When it comes to role playing games I don't want balanced to be the big factor. Sometimes I want to play the character that sucks like in Talisman only in the RPG world the game can be about that characters flaws not about what they are lacking to be on par with other characters. Maybe this comes from playing WOD games and playing flawed characters who suck for reason.
Chess? Balanced? Queens are WAY overpowered; seriously, who would play a bishop? Like, I've seen ok bishop/knight hybrids, but they're just not as good as the queen.
I got stuck playing a pawn once. Had a great time RPing, but when it came down to it I just sucked at combat. I was the first one dead
I was never overly concerned about DPS issues (although as stated this is an issue by itself). The main concern as a DM are powers or abilities that make the party untouchable or having an easy escape, or can bypass entire encounters, unless you make the area a dead magic zone or heavily warded.
The other concern is abilties or powers that make a single class a loner, or always splitting from the party, which creates a headache for the DM to keep the other players interested.
Chess? Balanced? Queens are WAY overpowered; seriously, who would play a bishop? Like, I've seen ok bishop/knight hybrids, but they're just not as good as the queen.I got stuck playing a pawn once. Had a great time RPing, but when it came down to it I just sucked at combat. I was the first one dead
Try RPing as the chessboard next time. That is a lot more exciting.
Other problems are the linear vs quadratic progression. The wizard is a god at 20 but is pretty much dead weight in a low level situation. The fighter rocks at 1st level (relatively) but slowly loses ground until he gets rocked by endgame caster. Pathfinder reduces the hero-to-zero effect by increases wizard survivability at lower levels and making the fighter stronger at higher levels
This is a pretty good start for examining the root of the problem, which in my opinion is how power levels of classes scale in relation to the economy of actions. Actions are the basic currency through which effects are "purchased" in a combat round. This becomes a problem when you consider that a first level spell has the same cost as a ninth level spell.
The high-level gap between casters and non-casters becomes especially wide when you consider that one full attack has the equivalent cost of a ninth level spell PLUS a move action as well. We could gain a great deal of ground in the direction of a more balanced game if designers would keep this in mind as they create high-level game mechanics.
|
I have noticed that we seem to equate balance to "doing equal damage". For me the other bits (i.e. not combat) is just as, if not more, important. From this perspective fighters are the most shockly bad class possible. Low skills/level and no other abilities other than "I hit things". If the game you are playing focuses to the exclusion of nearly everything else then DPR I can see as being the driver for trying to balance classes. However, if combat is just another part (equal) of the game being played then balance comes from the whole game. Fighters may "win" in combat, but another class may "win" in NPC interactions. I've had numerous game sessions where not a single combat dice was rolled - fat lot of use 200 DPR is in those sessions. Then again I've had sessions where combat was all the we did. Why is it we only focus on the later for determining if the classes are balanced?
S.
I have noticed that we seem to equate balance to "doing equal damage". For me the other bits (i.e. not combat) is just as, if not more, important. From this perspective fighters are the most shockly bad class possible. Low skills/level and no other abilities other than "I hit things". If the game you are playing focuses to the exclusion of nearly everything else then DPR I can see as being the driver for trying to balance classes. However, if combat is just another part (equal) of the game being played then balance comes from the whole game. Fighters may "win" in combat, but another class may "win" in NPC interactions. I've had numerous game sessions where not a single combat dice was rolled - fat lot of use 200 DPR is in those sessions. Then again I've had sessions where combat was all the we did. Why is it we only focus on the later for determining if the classes are balanced?
S.
Not everyone does. Personally, I think the Bard is one of the most powerful classes. Fighter has his schtic, be the best physical combatant in the game. He accomplishes this goal, but sacrifices out of combat utility for it. Even then, he can fulfil many non-combat roles with the right skill selection.
In my experience, when players want to break the game, they will. You can design a system to not allow them, but that generally sucks the fun out of it for everyone else.
This is the greatest piece of wisdom I've seen in this entire thread.
I have noticed that we seem to equate balance to "doing equal damage". For me the other bits (i.e. not combat) is just as, if not more, important. From this perspective fighters are the most shockly bad class possible. Low skills/level and no other abilities other than "I hit things". If the game you are playing focuses to the exclusion of nearly everything else then DPR I can see as being the driver for trying to balance classes. However, if combat is just another part (equal) of the game being played then balance comes from the whole game. Fighters may "win" in combat, but another class may "win" in NPC interactions. I've had numerous game sessions where not a single combat dice was rolled - fat lot of use 200 DPR is in those sessions. Then again I've had sessions where combat was all the we did. Why is it we only focus on the later for determining if the classes are balanced?
S.
Take your Pathfinder RPG rulebook and remove all of the pages that contain rules for the combat parts. How much do you have left?
I thought so.
You cannot balance the roleplaying parts of the game, and frankly there is no need to do so, as the rules don't tell you how to roleplay your character. The rules do however tell you what your character can accomplish in combat. (FYI when I mention combat I am not specifically referring to damage, there are lots of things to do in combat that aren't damage at all.) As far as out of combat skills/spells/neato class features that aren't roleplaying, those should be fairly balanced between the classes as well, in my opinion; but in short, THAT is why we (mostly) focus on combat when we discuss balance - because combat makes of the vast majority of the rules.
P.S. The Fighter does not often "win" in combat, especially if the combat is taking place in the higher level ranges.
It's important to know that combat != doing damage.
Sleep is a killer and does no damage at all.
Take your Pathfinder RPG rulebook and remove all of the pages that contain rules for the combat parts. How much do you have left?
I thought so.
You thought what?
If we take out the parts which are strictly combat (armor, weapons, some spells, some feats), what you've got left is the majority of the book.
The point stands. How many of the rules in the book are rules for roleplaying?
|
D&D is a combat-oriented game. The majority of rules subsytems, spells, feats and items are related to Hurting Others or Not Getting Hurt Yourself.
And incidentally, the minority of non-combat systems in 3.5 is what makes it a role-playing game, and not some tactical boardgame abomination. Still, D&D is a combat-heavy game. As opposed to, say, Call of Cthulhu.
|
|
You might describe the crescent arc in which you swing your curved elven blade all day long, but in the end you roll to hit, add all modifiers from spells, items, feats and circumstances, compare that to the opponent's AC modified by spells, items, feats and circumstances and in case of a hit you apply damage modified by spells, items, feats and circumstances. And all the mechanic subsytems that lead to that take up a big chunk of the book.
Also, look at the feat list, and make a tally of how many of them are combat-related and how many are non-combat related.