|
I think Dragon magazine was a great incubator of ideas and laboratory of game concepts. In the old days of AD&D, before Unearthed Arcana was published, the resistance to new classes for PCs was legendary but Dragon found so much positive reception to some of their NPC classes (bandit and anti-paladin for example) that it allowed grognard DMs everywhere to try adding new PC classes when they appeared (cavalier and barbarian being the two big ones in AD&D, one becoming pretty iconic in the game and the second still having a pretty valuable niche as the PFRPG APG is going to show).
I think the PFRPG has not yet come anywhere close to the problem 3.5 had near the end where it was mechanically foolish to play an original base class and forego the later base classes. Each base class in the PFRPG is playable and interesting. I am especially fond of the upgraded fighter, bard and sorcerer adjustments. Each was close to a mandatory prestige class buff in order to hang in with a regular party of adventurers above 7th level.
Rogue, wizard, cleric, and paladin all got great flavor enhancements to make them much more customizable and flavoraful. While the monk, druid, and barbarian didn't change as much, they were all pretty uniquely colored anyway and I think still fit their niche.
The problems with Pathfinder, as I described earlier, are not problems that can't be house-ruled away. Ranger combat style additions are easy to house rule, for example, as is racial flavor being added back into the pot. I did want to identify the aspects of the RAW that I think could be enhanced without disrupting game balance in future works by Paizo.
The potential problems with Pathfinder are clear to see from AD&D 2.0 and 3.5: the need for new product leading to the endless creation of new base classes that parasitically consume the niche of existing classes.
I hope that problem will be solved by resisting the urge to 'base class' every conceivable character role. For that reason, until I playtested them, I was worried about the new classes in the APG. After playtesting them, I am delighted to see the Cavalier come in but I am probably going to prohibit the others. I just don't see them as 'iconic' enough in result to warrant inclusion and risk seeing my wizards and clerics and sorcerers go away. I think the others are much better done as prestige classes.
I love 3PP and have adopted wholesale the 'spell-less ranger' from Kobold Quarterly, for example. (I hate the name but love the build and wish we saw more 'variant' class options rather than whole new classes; for some reason it just seems easier to fit into the game.)
Prestige classes are still fun (especially when the DM does his job on what to allow into his game in prestige classes) and I would highly encourage more customization within the existing classes rather than the addition of new classes.
I hope to see further growth in the PFRPG go along these paths to avoid the problems late 3.5 developed while still allowing for a ton of publishing material:
racial alternate level abilities allowing a PC to do something especially 'halfling' as his halfling fighter levels up, at his choice, without leaving the fighter class
concept customization within the existing classes (like the spell-less ranger, or additional combat styles, or a druid who foregoes wild shaping to gain an enhanced or additional animal companion, or a monk who foregoes unarmed combat improvement to become more of a mystic with alternate unarmed damage options)
monstrous race inclusion into the game
Profession and Craft skills that provide synergies to other skill checks, making the herbalist into a better healer for example
Traits being included into the game as an 'always campaign specific' boon for characters and as a way for the DM and party together to make their game much more PC-anchored.
Spell component customization rules that can make spell casting more potent or impactful should the magic-user collect and cultivate the right components
Legacy weapons or rules allowing PCs to see their signature tools upgrade in potency through the application of dedicated role-playing
I hope to see minimized the following:
a) new base classes
b) new feat trees that offer real power upgrades without significant prerequisite requirements
c) gunpowder, clockworks, and other artifice of the modern world being given to PCs as an ordinary piece of equipment.
d) Gestalt mechanics allowing any one PC to operate without need of a group
Hairfoot Halflings - The key Halfling subrace in my campaign is a bit more introspective than that of Pathfinder core.
Stout Halflings - Basically Hobbits.
Tallfellow Halflings - A hybrid between Elves and Halflings.
Golden Halflings - A race derived from the Halflings from Kingdoms of Kalamaar. Instead, these Halflings are tied to my world's alternate magic system, Primordial Power.
Actually the first three are based on Tolkiens note's for the hobbit 'tribes': Harfoots, Stoors and Fallowhides.
|
I could see PF Power Attack being errated into allowing the selection of degrees. That would be a decent compromise between the complete freedom of 3.5 and the singular restricted PF. I think that will be my houserule for it.
Also, Diamond Mind is easy. Level check + Con modifier. Add a +3 class bonus to the roll if you don't mind the roughness of it. Call it an initiator level check.
I somehow missed the spells, and the 3d6 strength damage among other things.
Edit: I have written my share of bad encounters, and had to bail players out so not to much I can say though.
We were actually talking about the second monster, the CR 3 with 66 HPs and a 40ft movement speed, dealing minimum 10 damage per hit, with Improved Grab and a +19 Grapple check. It's a creature you can't melee with at a level where you have little other options and you can't escape because it runs faster than you. A prime example of why 3.5 Grapple was borked.
I can totally see why James would be a little irritated to have it thrown in his face again. I offer my apologies on that.
You do have a point.
Actually the first three are based on Tolkiens note's for the hobbit 'tribes': Harfoots, Stoors and Fallowhides.Hairfoot Halflings - The key Halfling subrace in my campaign is a bit more introspective than that of Pathfinder core.
Stout Halflings - Basically Hobbits.
Tallfellow Halflings - A hybrid between Elves and Halflings.
Golden Halflings - A race derived from the Halflings from Kingdoms of Kalamaar. Instead, these Halflings are tied to my world's alternate magic system, Primordial Power.
I totally gave Tolkien props in the preceeding paragraph.
Paizo -can't- rebalance your game. The reason is that "balance" has everything to do with play style. For example, assume a character who, due to feat selection and so forth, is absolutely unbeatable at sneaking around.
Well, if you've got 6 players at your table and 5 of them don't want to take any time to sneak around, then the 6th who is the sneak expert has gone from being a superstar to being er not a superstar.
I don't know if we are really talking about the same thing here, but what I meant was that I really trust Paizo more to come up with new feats, spells, etc. which are balanced against their own product, rather than allowing back 3.5 stuff which was pretty broken even back then.
I'm torn between liking and disliking the split combat feats, which greatly reduce a fighter's already limited effectiveness. I like what was done to Power Attack (as long as you can pick your penalty, which has always seemed like something that needs to show up in errata). I'm a little annoyed at the loss of Concentration, but mainly because I'm porting over Tome of Battle and can't figure out how to make Diamond Mind work. Overall: melee is still weaker than casting, bards and monks still stink, and casters can still make reality bend over backwards by mid-levels. Main complaint I've heard is that too little was changed.
Can I suggest you use Autohypnosis? That's what is generally done with the psionics that are ported in as that added several new uses for the skill - they ported the new uses of concentration to the Autohypnosis skill.
@Loopy - sorry, missed that!
And what I'm saying is that, while Paizo can come up with new feats, spells, etc., they can't balance them against their own product without making certain assumptions about how every GM is going to run their game - such assumptions which are inevitably false.
Well, they can't just throw up their hands and give up. A certain baseline HAS to be assumed. Any other course of action, as far as I can imagine, would be maddening. It's not up to Paizo to scale everything based on every possible GMing style; that's up to the GMs themselves.
All Paizo has to do is let us know what that baseline is. I know that's not spelled out verbatim in the rulebooks. I hesitate to call it a mistake but it has created a little confusion. For example, for my money, it's plainly obvious that Paizo massaged game balance to allow for style and RP choices in ability and feat selection. For others it was not so much. It took comments on these boards to settle that dispute. Now people who don't prefer that angle are free to alter their houserules to their liking based on that information.
Several posts make mention of nerfing / splitting of combat feats. I disagree. The only real "splitting" one can talk about is the combat maneuver feats - and here I applaud the decision to reduce the exploitation of mechanics. Maneuvers work sufficiently well now.
I agree that barbarian rage powers are generally a bit sub-par; they could certainly benefit from a bit of a boost.
Bards and monks always have critics complaining - but I honestly like my two monk characters. They each play very differently and they are very meaningful to the party. Sure, the class doesn't do all that many show-stoppers as a barbarian critting for 70+ damage; but without the monk there are at least 3 major encounters vs casters that would've gone significantly more sour.
And bards can play a good game too, especially since they (like rogue's) have good out-of-combat uses too.
And finally for what it's worth, Dragon was often used to test the boundaries, to try out new things, and to present some experimental new ideas. Slaving oneself to the gods of game balance is a great way to never innovate.
This contains some rather ominous, but probably not intended, implications.
I'd much rather Paizo focus on making things interesting and creative and colorful and detailed and only aim for a ball park notion of balance.I'd much rather Paizo focus on making things interesting and creative and colorful and detailed and only aim for a ball park notion of grammar.
Creativity and balance are not mutually exclusive, or even opposed.
I never said they were. What I said is that Paizo can't achieve balance because it depends on each GM's personal game style.
Because Paizo can't achieve balance, it should focus on other stuff - providing things which are interesting and creative and colorful and detailed - and let the GM worry about balance.
There are a lot of players/DMs who have no idea of what balance is due to a lack of understanding how certain things work. I think they should go for balance with certain things in mind, like they have been doing, and if anyone deviates from that they will have to adjust for that.
An example are the guys that claim Psions can nova, but problem is that the DM bases his world around when the PC's want to rest instead of basing the PC's activities around how the world works.
Personally I find it interesting that so many people are unsupportive of the 3PP creating additional options for PF, you know given that Paizo start as a 3PP itself.I welcome the addition of some more options beyond the core rulebook with the Advanced Players Guide, but I hope Paizo keeps the number of splatbooks way down in the future and doesn't fall prey to power creep.Be careful. You'll get shanked with a shiv fashioned from the plastic case from someone's Gunslinger Girls boxed set for saying you don't allow 3.5 rulebooks in your campaign.I really prefer to let make the guys at Paizo the decisions what is balanced for their game and what is not. A lot of the old 3.5 spells and feats are severely unbalanced and I got *no* desire to have a.) re-balance all that stuff by myself and b.) then get arguments from other players to let their pet feats, PrCs and spells into the game.
If I wouldn't be willing to let Paizo do the work of balancing, I wouldn't feel it necessary to shell out the 80 bucks for the Gamemastery Guide and Advanced Players Guide later this year. I still got all my 3.5 splat books, after all.
So, from the comments that followed (and others that happened during the play-testing), I think it is pretty clear that balance is not going to be first priority 100% of the time for PF. In that case, if balance is really a big concern for you, it might actually be better to look at some of the 3PP that support PF. Some of them probably make balance a higher priority than the official PF content itself. The hard part is working your way through the rough to get to the diamonds.
If Pathfinder core is putting balance in the backseat, it's preparing itself for the same vicious circle 3.5 created.
If Pathfinder core is putting balance in the backseat, it's preparing itself for the same vicious circle 3.5 created.
It doesn't have to be in the backseat, but it definitely is not in the driving seat.
I think Dragon magazine was a great incubator of ideas and laboratory of game concepts.
+1
This is an important point. Dragon Magazine material, as useful as it can be, really isn't about adding official rules to the game. It is [was] a sharing ground for interesting and completely optional ideas from alternative intiative systems to new spells, from new monsters to new magic items. It had fanzine elements as well as game support ones.
Balance is making sure every character has a chance to shine.and let the GM worry about balance.There are quite a lot of things that DM must be worried about while running a game, and I would love not having to worry if my players are breaking the game.
That is not balance. Or at least not in the sense it is being discussed here. Some one could have the most broken arcane character manageable while some one else has a weak Ninja, but the Ninja is obviously going to be better at finding and disabling traps. Does that make the game balanced? No.
Some one could have the most broken arcane character manageable while some one else has a weak Ninja, but the Ninja is obviously going to be better at finding and disabling traps. Does that make the game balanced? No.The way I defined it is the only way that makes sense to me.
If you are defining it some other way, tell me how you are defining it and tell me how balance (as you've defined it) matters.
I am referring to balance as game balance. As one class/feat/ability/etc is not markedly better than every other class/feat/ability/etc
I am referring to balance as game balance. As one class/feat/ability/etc is not markedly better than every other class/feat/ability/etcSome one could have the most broken arcane character manageable while some one else has a weak Ninja, but the Ninja is obviously going to be better at finding and disabling traps. Does that make the game balanced? No.The way I defined it is the only way that makes sense to me.
If you are defining it some other way, tell me how you are defining it and tell me how balance (as you've defined it) matters.
Why does it matter if a feat is markedly better than every other feat?
And how do you determine, with out knowing what kind of game the GM is going to run, whether any particular feat is markedly better?
The only problem with one feat being markedly better than another feat (if we ignore the issue of making sure every character has a chance to shine) is that it leads to less diversity amongst the characters - something which is easily solved when the GM decides "the last adventure was a hack and slash, this next adventure I think I'll make it about sneaking/court politics".
Really? Really?
This contains some rather ominous, but probably not intended, implications.
And finally for what it's worth, Dragon was often used to test the boundaries, to try out new things, and to present some experimental new ideas. Slaving oneself to the gods of game balance is a great way to never innovate.
Yeah. It made me smile with glee knowing it would make some people's heads explode.
I am referring to balance as game balance. As one class/feat/ability/etc is not markedly better than every other class/feat/ability/etc
Since D&D is a game whether you're looking at shine time or ability vs ability (class vs class, feat vs feat, etc), I'd call your idea of balance build balance. I'd call shine time something more like role balance, I suppose, though I don't think it fits a title as easily as build balance does.
An important point is that there are different forms of balance and none necessarily exist just because one of them does. A perfectly balanced build system doesn't lead inexorably to perfect role balance. Perfect role balance doesn't require perfect build balance.
Do you have anything meaningful to respond with or are you just going to repeat the same word over and over again?
I will respond when something meaningful when you bother to actually respond to my previous post.
There are a lot of players/DMs who have no idea of what balance is due to a lack of understanding how certain things work.If the players/DMs don't know what balance is, then they aren't hurting anything by not having it.
Not true. The player in the DM's game suffers, until someone convinces him or if a player that knows what he is doing enters that DM's group. Now before you say, just find another group, I can attest to the fact that finding new players/DMs is not always that easy. A good DM may also have to deal with players used to playing under a DM who had a bad version of balance.
We all suffer by not educating each other, IMHO.
I am referring to balance as game balance. As one class/feat/ability/etc is not markedly better than every other class/feat/ability/etcSince D&D is a game whether you're looking at shine time or ability vs ability (class vs class, feat vs feat, etc), I'd call your idea of balance build balance. I'd call shine time something more like role balance, I suppose, though I don't think it fits a title as easily as build balance does.
An important point is that there are different forms of balance and none necessarily exist just because one of them does. A perfectly balanced build system doesn't lead inexorably to perfect role balance. Perfect role balance doesn't require perfect build balance.
My point is that no other form of balance matters other than what you call "role balance".
Sure, if we were playing Warcraft, I'd understand how build balance is important, but we're not.
What you want is player balance. When one unbalanced built character can fill every role, what role balance is there?
and let the GM worry about balance.There are quite a lot of things that DM must be worried about while running a game, and I would love not having to worry if my players are breaking the game.Balance is making sure every character has a chance to shine.
If you aren't worried about balance, I wouldn't want to be in your game, frankly. Everything else is secondary to everyone at the table having fun.
Not true, some of us don't care about shine. We just want to contribute, and live. You dont have to shine to contribute. Support can be a thankless job. I think balance is everyone having fun, but not everyone's fun is the same.
Really? Really?
It may not be the only problem, but I'd say it's the lion's share of it. And your own example about the weak ninja and the uber-arcanist shows that point.
Strategies that are overly dominant should usually be avoided in game design. In particular, no strategy should come without significant trade-offs. But there's nothing wrong with a strategy being the best in certain circumstances. How often those circumstances come up will have a lot of power to determine whether or not a particular build strategy is really dominant in play. And that's why balance cannot be perfectly addressed at the game system level and the individual DM always plays an important role.
Not true, some of us don't care about shine. We just want to contribute, and live. You dont have to shine to contribute. Support can be a thankless job. I think balance is everyone having fun, but not everyone's fun is the same.
If that's really true, then we can move even farther from build balance. If we define "shining" as the player feeling that they've done their job effectively, had fun doing so, and not felt slighted at the table, then they don't have to have the power to save everybody's bacon or be the center of attention. All a class needs to be able to do is contribute, not dominate or even be equal.
There are a lot of players/DMs who have no idea of what balance is due to a lack of understanding how certain things work.If the players/DMs don't know what balance is, then they aren't hurting anything by not having it.
Not true. The player in the DM's game suffers, until someone convinces him or if a player that knows what he is doing enters that DM's group. Now before you say, just find another group, I can attest to the fact that finding new players/DMs is not always that easy. A good DM may also have to deal with players used to playing under a DM who had a bad version of balance.
We all suffer by not educating each other, IMHO.I know finding a good DM isn't easy. I moved to DC awhile back and all I've found, so far, are the kind of players we all know and fear.
However, I keep going back to a simple irrefutable fact. "Balance" is determined by GM style, not game mechanics. So, ultimately, if a GM doesn't know how to balance a game (more likely, he thinks he does know how, but thinks his game is balanced already), there's nothing you can do about it other than a little social persuasion.
So what your saying is an "improvement" of the fighter class and any "nerfing" of the wizard class wasn't done for "balance" issues, because mechanics do not effect "balance". So then we can't say that PF made any improvements in game "balance" in your opinion? Interesting.
Really? Really?I am referring to balance as game balance. As one class/feat/ability/etc is not markedly better than every other class/feat/ability/etcSome one could have the most broken arcane character manageable while some one else has a weak Ninja, but the Ninja is obviously going to be better at finding and disabling traps. Does that make the game balanced? No.The way I defined it is the only way that makes sense to me.
If you are defining it some other way, tell me how you are defining it and tell me how balance (as you've defined it) matters.
Why does it matter if a feat is markedly better than every other feat?
And how do you determine, with out knowing what kind of game the GM is going to run, whether any particular feat is markedly better?
The only problem with one feat being markedly better than another feat (if we ignore the issue of making sure every character has a chance to shine) is that it leads to less diversity amongst the characters - something which is easily solved when the GM decides "the last adventure was a hack and slash, this next adventure I think I'll make it about sneaking/court politics".
+1......wow...just....just, wow
There are a lot of players/DMs who have no idea of what balance is due to a lack of understanding how certain things work.If the players/DMs don't know what balance is, then they aren't hurting anything by not having it.
Not true. The player in the DM's game suffers, until someone convinces him or if a player that knows what he is doing enters that DM's group. Now before you say, just find another group, I can attest to the fact that finding new players/DMs is not always that easy. A good DM may also have to deal with players used to playing under a DM who had a bad version of balance.
We all suffer by not educating each other, IMHO.I know finding a good DM isn't easy. I moved to DC awhile back and all I've found, so far, are the kind of players we all know and fear.
However, I keep going back to a simple irrefutable fact. "Balance" is determined by GM style, not game mechanics. So, ultimately, if a GM doesn't know how to balance a game (more likely, he thinks he does know how, but thinks his game is balanced already), there's nothing you can do about it other than a little social persuasion.
It is actually a combination of the two. Most things work well as written under most DM's even if they don't run the same game, so the mechanic is very important. Only when DM's, dont know what they are doing, as in misread or alter rules, mistakenly or not, does balance normally become an issue. I used to ignore a lot of things, but once I started to things by the book the gameplay improved. If the mechanics were messed up, it would not have matter if I had never improved as a DM or not. It is easier to learn from DM'ing errors than go along and fix every broken mechanic that exist.