Just because you find it unbalanced, and a few other guys do, doesn't make it the popular opinion, btw.Just because you find it balanced, and a few other guys do, doesn't make it the popular opinion, btw.
And where did I even imply that this was the case? Oh, wait, you didn't think that far ahead before posting.
And back on topic, I would say that in general the APG doesn't seem very balanced.
I agree with you on principle. There's quite a few things the APG adds to the game that make it unbalanced. It even goes so far as to unbalance things that were balanced before (with only the Core Rulebook).
However, it adds some very nice content to the Pathfinder world that I wouldn't want to do without.
So my hope is that, over time, the unbalancing elements will get corrected. And, as far as I can tell, Paizo has been different from other game designers, in that they listen to the community. I think my hope is well founded.
|
Let me clear up this misunderstanding.Thank you, that explains it nicely. I had no idea that he meant to imply he's seen the thread before.
And back on topic, I would say that in general the APG doesn't seem very balanced. My pet peeve is definitely the addition of older, inferior swords, with godlike stats, and then tagging them as exotic. Falcata's didn't require special training or an exotic locale to use, nor are they super godly amazing like their crit stats imply (x3 19-20, which gives them a total of 4 "crit dots", which can double to 8 with imp crit or keen- this is the modern equivalent of the bladed gauntlet misprint in terms of average damage done, and is the mathematical equivalent of having a crit range of 17-20 base). Having this superior to an English Longsword is absurd logically- one thousand years of sword technology really did improve the situation. Having it with the "hard to use" tag is also wrong. The game doesn't make many claims that are directly applicable to the real world- adding in some and making them wrong makes it feel like a video game manual.
I love how people are fine with their character falling from 200 ft. and simply brushing off and walking away,but they call a difference between sword A and sword B a gross violation of realism.
Or being fine with the fact that you can shoot a longbow 4 times in 6 seconds. This is D&D, this game was never meant to be realistic.
I love how people are fine with their character falling from 200 ft. and simply brushing off and walking away,but they call a difference between sword A and sword B a gross violation of realism.
<insert shot of Wiley Coyote falling down a canyon> :D
Or being fine with the fact that you can shoot a longbow 4 times in 6 seconds. This is D&D, this game was never meant to be realistic.
But, but... Legolas! :(
:p
Well, to really bring us back on topic, I would say that, to sum things up, there seem to be two separate unbalancing issues with the 'human favored class options'.
1) The first issue is an unbalancing within the human options, with the spontaneous caster classes' options being much better than the options of other classes, especially the spell preparing classes' ones.
2) The second issue is an unbalancing between the different races' options, with the human spontaneous caster classes' option being far better than those of other races. This strongly skewes the choice of a character's race towards humans for any spontaneous caster class.
The only solution I see, that would address both unbalancing issues at once, would be a nerf of the spontaneous casters' 'human favored class option'.
is it worth it?It certainly seems worth it to me. I would probably select an extra hit point for the first 3 levels (rather than another 0-level spell known), but I'd go for the extra spell known the next 17 levels.I agree its useful however i disagree that you should pickup an extra 17 known spells.
the spells you choose will be your 3rd, 4th even 5th best choice for the level and keep in mind you get more known lower spells as you level which means you could end up with 7 known 1st level spells instead of 5 at higher levels
is that really worth 2HP ?
at some levels there are many really good choices at others not so much.
I'd say evalute your choices each level and unless thier is a clear I NEED THIS SPELL then take the extra HP or SP , beucase how often are you going to be using you 6th and 7th choices ?
I don't play casters all that much, but even I know, it doesn't matter so much the level of the spell, but how it is used. Each spell is useful in its own right no matter what level it is. Grease followed by prestidigitation will get you probably any object someone is holding in their hands.
|
|
Well, to really bring us back on topic, I would say that, to sum things up, there seem to be two separate unbalancing issues with the 'human favored class options'.
1) The first issue is an unbalancing within the human options, with the spontaneous caster classes' options being much better than the options of other classes, especially the spell preparing classes' ones.
2) The second issue is an unbalancing between the different races' options, with the human spontaneous caster classes' option being far better than those of other races. This strongly skewes the choice of a character's race towards humans for any spontaneous caster class.
The only solution I see, that would address both unbalancing issues at once, would be a nerf of the spontaneous casters' 'human favored class option'.
1) This is balanced by the fact that spontaneous casters are weaker than prepared casters.
2) Wait, isn't the race choice skewed towards races that have the relevant ability bonus ? Why do we play Dwarven and Elven Sorcerers ?
1) This is balanced by the fact that spontaneous casters are weaker than prepared casters.
First of all, you should reformulate that to "wizards are more powerful than sorcerers (and bards)". This completely leaves out the fact that witches and alchemists are not as powerful as wizards or sorcerers and that some spontaneous casters like the oracle and the inquisitor might be more powerful than sorcerers and the non-wizard preparing classes.
And second, if there are issues with single classes not being powerful enough, they should be solved by changing those classes. And NOT by unbalancing 'favored class options', that on top only apply to one race.
2) Wait, isn't the race choice skewed towards races that have the relevant ability bonus ? Why do we play Dwarven and Elven Sorcerers ?
I don't know, but 5 races out of 7 that are equally good at being spontaneous casters seems a lot less skewed than 1 race that is better than all.
|
|
1) This is balanced by the fact that spontaneous casters are weaker than prepared casters.First of all, you should reformulate that to "wizards are more powerful than sorcerers". This completely leaves out the fact that witches and alchemists are not as powerful as wizards or sorcerers and that some spontaneous casters like the oracle and the inquisitor might be more powerful than sorcerers and the non-wizard preparing classes.
And second, if there are issues with single classes not being powerful enough, they should be solved by changing those classes. And NOT by unbalancing 'favored class options', that on top only apply to one race.
2) Wait, isn't the race choice skewed towards races that have the relevant ability bonus ? Why do we play Dwarven and Elven Sorcerers ?I don't know, but 5 races out of 7 that are equally good at being spontaneous casters seems a lot less skewed than 1 race that is better than all.
Look, I'm not going to argue with you, because as the UMD thread shows, you're not really a person who can be convinced of anything :) Even if you give a Sorcerer 20 extra spells, it still has nothing on the Wizard. Even if you give an Orcale 20 extra spells, it still has nothing on the Cleric.
So, we're left with the "humans are better sorcerers than anybody else" argument. You could say so, but there are already subpar and superpar race/class choices in the core game, so that's not changing much. A munchkin player will always pick a human sorcerer just as he won't ever pick a gnome fighter or Skill Focus (Craft: basketweaving).
A player who doesn't give a damn about the crunch will play a dwarven Sorcere regardless of whatever numbers are attached.
Look, I'm not going to argue with you, because as the UMD thread shows, you're not really a person who can be convinced of anything :) Even if you give a Sorcerer 20 extra spells, it still has nothing on the Wizard. Even if you give an Orcale 20 extra spells, it still has nothing on the Cleric.
What about the witch, alchemist and inquistor?
My point is that the 'favored class option' isn't the place to "rebalance" some of the spontaneous casters. If certain classes have problems, then they should be addressed directly.(Off-topic)EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I'm all for doing something about the power gulf between some spontaneous casters and some prepared casters. But as I said, do it directly. I think the APG has some good changes in that direction. For example the witch can't prepare spells during the day like the wizard can (which is a change to the wizard that NEVER made sense to me, balance-wise) and she is really heavily penalized for loosing her "spellbook" (since, unlike the wizard, she can't just make a copy of her familiar in case it dies).
So, we're left with the "humans are better sorcerers than anybody else" argument. You could say so, but there are already subpar and superpar race/class choices in the core game, so that's not changing much. A munchkin player will always pick a human sorcerer just as he won't ever pick a gnome fighter or Skill Focus (Craft: basketweaving).
A player who doesn't give a damn about the crunch will play a dwarven Sorcere regardless of whatever numbers are attached.
I agree that munchkins will always go for humans. But with these 'favored class options' even "normal" players will think twice about taking a different race than humans for a spontaneous caster.
OR, to put it differently, the earnest RPer gets penalized even more for taking a different race than human, compared to others in the party that optimize a bit more.
|
|
Look, I'm not going to argue with you, because as the UMD thread shows, you're not really a person who can be convinced of anything :) Even if you give a Sorcerer 20 extra spells, it still has nothing on the Wizard. Even if you give an Orcale 20 extra spells, it still has nothing on the Cleric.What about the witch, alchemist and inquistor?
My point is that the 'favored class option' isn't the place to "rebalance" some of the spontaneous casters. If certain classes have problems, then they should be addressed directly.(Off-topic)EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I'm all for doing something about the power gulf between some spontaneous casters and some prepared casters. But as I said, do it directly. I think the APG has some good changes in that direction. For example the witch can't prepare spells during the day like the wizard can (which is a change to the wizard that NEVER made sense to me, balance-wise) and she is really heavily penalized for loosing her "spellbook" (since, unlike the wizard, she can't just make a copy of her familiar in case it dies).
So, we're left with the "humans are better sorcerers than anybody else" argument. You could say so, but there are already subpar and superpar race/class choices in the core game, so that's not changing much. A munchkin player will always pick a human sorcerer just as he won't ever pick a gnome fighter or Skill Focus (Craft: basketweaving).
A player who doesn't give a damn about the crunch will play a dwarven Sorcere regardless of whatever numbers are attached.
I agree that munchkins will always go for humans. But with these 'favored class options' even "normal" players will think twice about taking a different race than humans for a spontaneous caster.
OR, to put it differently, the earnest RPer gets penalized even more for taking a different race than human, compared to others in the party that optimize a bit more.
The Witch is a prepared caster. All the favclass bonus does is saving her some money on spell purchase.
The Alchemist and Inquisitor are in a whole different league altogether. Casting is not their primary activity.
As long as we're not talking about munchkinism, a player might be tempted by +HP or +SP just as much as by extra spells known. Heck, there was some argument on the forum lately that the Sorcerer is stronger than Wizard because he has more skill points and UMD as a class skill.
The Witch is a prepared caster. All the favclass bonus does is saving her some money on spell purchase.
The Alchemist and Inquisitor are in a whole different league altogether. Casting is not their primary activity.
That's exactly what I'm saying. For those classes, the 'human favored class option' is worth a lot less than for the sorcerer, which makes the option for the sorcerer unbalanced.
As long as we're not talking about munchkinism, a player might be tempted by +HP or +SP just as much as by extra spells known. Heck, there was some argument on the forum lately that the Sorcerer is stronger than Wizard because he has more skill points and UMD as a class skill.
Problem is, there ALWAYS is a munchkin at every table. And this 'favored class option' makes their munchkinism even worse and obvious/annoying. And it might turn "normal" players into munchkins, at least for their racial choice.
Well, I agree that the new favoured class bonus for spontaneous human casters unfairly penalizes non-human PC's. But the solution to that isn't to nerf the human bonus, but to spread it to the other races.
The bonus itself is a very good option, but not overpowered, IMO. For all the commenters who think it unbalances the game, I have yet to see one who came back with an actual playtest report where it did so. The only person who seems to have actually tested the bonus in-game was RavingDork, who came back with a positive impression.
There's only lots of opinionating and theorycrafting from the opposing side so far. Come back with actual play experience where the bonus did something terrible to your game, then talk about nerfing.
But if you do that (spreading it to all other races), it's the same as just making the sorcerer better. And as I said this penalizes certain other spell preparing classes that aren't as powerful as the wizard or makes certain other spontaneous spell caster classes too powerful.
I think that if there is a problem with specific classes, it should be dealt with directly by changing those classes. This method is just too imprecise.
But if you do that (spreading it to all other races), it's the same as just making the sorcerer better. And as I said this penalizes certain other spell preparing classes that aren't as powerful as the wizard or makes certain other spontaneous spell caster classes too powerful.
Which would that be? The spontanous casters? Also would get the same bonus, since saying "Only Sorcerers get the human favoured class bonus" is doubly stupid. Clerics and Druids? I only say CODzilla.
|
But if you do that (spreading it to all other races), it's the same as just making the sorcerer better.
And, by golly, they need it.
I think that if there is a problem with specific classes, it should be dealt with directly by changing those classes. This method is just too imprecise.
I agree that sorcerers (of all races) need more spells known, to be a viable class.
This would be better addressed in Core, with the human favored class option then free to be something flavorful, instead of shoring up an inadequacy.
Heck, there was some argument on the forum lately that the Sorcerer is stronger than Wizard because he has more skill points and UMD as a class skill.How did they come to that conclusion?
Yes, this sounds, uh, badly deduced. :D
Which would that be? The spontanous casters? Also would get the same bonus, since saying "Only Sorcerers get the human favoured class bonus" is doubly stupid. Clerics and Druids? I only say CODzilla.
What I'm talking about is the inquisitor. He's powerful enough. The 'favored class option' we're talking about is:
"Add one spell known from the [spontaneous caster] spell list. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level the [spontaneous caster] can cast."
Every spontaneous caster class (bard, inquisitor, oracle, sorcerer) except the summoner gets it.
The same option is available for 3 (alchemist, witch, wizard) of the preparing casters (cleric, druid, paladin and ranger get something else).
The confusion here shows exactly what I mean. Why fix the problems of some of the spontaneous casters with such a messy method, that is bound to disadvantage others (which it does)?
This would be better addressed in Core, with the human favored class option then free to be something flavorful, instead of shoring up an inadequacy.
Snorter says it perfectly.
Which would that be? The spontanous casters? Also would get the same bonus, since saying "Only Sorcerers get the human favoured class bonus" is doubly stupid. Clerics and Druids? I only say CODzilla.What I'm talking about is the inquisitor. He's powerful enough. The 'favored class option' we're talking about is:
"Add one spell known from the [spontaneous caster] spell list. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level the [spontaneous caster] can cast."
Every spontaneous caster class (bard, inquisitor, oracle, sorcerer) except the summoner gets it.
The same option is available for 3 (alchemist, witch, wizard) of the preparing casters (cleric, druid, paladin and ranger get something else).
The confusion here shows exactly what I mean. Why fix the problems of some of the spontaneous casters with such a messy method, that is bound to disadvantage others (which it does)?
Uh, so the Inquisitor, who gets the same bonus, is the disadvantaged in regards to the Sorcerer? I don't really follow your train of thought.
And, no, it does not disadvantage others, as far as I am concerned. The few other classes who do not get additional spells are the ones which already know all the spells from their lists.
There's only lots of opinionating and theorycrafting from the opposing side so far. Come back with actual play experience where the bonus did something terrible to your game, then talk about nerfing.
Paper tiger is papery.
Seriously, in the vast majority of my table experiences I've never seen the problems so lamented on various messageboards become real problems, and when they do they are typically waved away by a swipe of the DMs all powerful hand.
Is the bonus a powerful one? Yes, by any measure.
Is it unbalancing the game? Maybe.
Is it the end of the game if it is? Not by a long shot.
And then God decreed that spontaneous spellcasting was an evil act punishable only by death...and that a pint of human sorcerer blood could be used for any spell component! No one played a sorcerer that day...
Uh, so the Inquisitor, who gets the same bonus, is the disadvantaged in regards to the Sorcerer? I don't really follow your train of thought.
And, no, it does not disadvantage others, as far as I am concerned. The few other classes who do not get additional spells are the ones which already know all the spells from their lists.
No, the inquisitor get's even more powerful than he already is, while classes such as the alchemist and the witch get less powerful.
If you want to make the sorcerer better, then change the sorcerer and don't drag other classes into those changes by doing it through 'favored class options'. That's what I mean.
No, the inquisitor get's even more powerful than he already is, while classes such as the alchemist and the witch get less powerful.
I must have missed all the reports where Inquisitors horribly overpower everything. I actually have someone playing a level 9 Inquisitor in my campaign, and so far he is the fourth or fifth effective character... out of five.
If you want to make the sorcerer better, then change the sorcerer and don't drag other classes into those changes by doing it through 'favored class options'. That's what I mean.
Well, since the change is a Sorcerer mechanic, I would say the Sorcerer has been effectively changed. ^^ The only problem being, as I said, that it should a bonus to all races, not only humans.
Yes AND the same 'favored class option' should not have been given to almost all casters.
This option is WAY more powerful for spontaneous casters than for preparing casters. THAT is unbalanced. Face it, the witch and alchemist lose out on this (the wizard too, but one might argue that he is overpowered - this isn't a reason to punish other classes though).
|
|
Paper tiger is papery.
Seriously, in the vast majority of my table experiences I've never seen the problems so lamented on various messageboards become real problems.
Unsurprising, in this case, if no-one can be tempted to play a sorcerer in the first place. Even with the promise of an extra spell per level, no-one I know will touch it.
I, too, dislike the 'racial favored class' options entirely. Most of them have a great deal of overlap and many seem arbitrary.
I liked that they had separated favored class from race in the core book, and would have liked it if they had stuck to their guns in the APG.
A list of favored class options by class would have been awesome, but by race makes them just backpedaling on directions that they had previously gone in...
-James
+1
I agree, it's just too messy as it is.
I also think your idea is good. If one wants to give classes racial flavors, then one should be stringent and do it at the level of the classes.
This would also insure that the options are more balanced. The simple reason for this, is that the balance between classes depends on A LOT more factors than the balance between races.
Actually, for the most part I think the racial feats are quite well done. The only ones I disagree with are the Well Prepared feat (why can only Halflings be well prepared?) and the Racial Heritage feat (why can only humans have different-race ancestors? Is it not possible for a half elf to have a child with a full elf, and that 3/4 elf to have a child with a full elf, etc, so that at some point there's a 99% elf with a human great-great-etc grandparent?). The rest, as I recall, all boost racial features, which is cool.
Oh, wait, you didn't think that far ahead before posting.
What's with the ad hominem attack? Please at least try to keep this discussion on topic.
Oh, wait, you didn't think that far ahead before posting.What's with the ad hominem attack? Please at least try to keep this discussion on topic.
Oh, please. First you interjected yourself into my response which was for FiddlersGreen, with a "counterargument" which made absolutely no sense, now you think that me pointing that out is an ad hominem. What-evah.
...being unsure about what constitutes an ad hominem attack
There's indeed a difference between an ad hominem attack and pointing something out. A statement such as 'you didn't think...' is of the first kind. Something like 'I don't think this makes sense, because...' is of the second kind. I can explain it in more detail if you want me to.
I hope this clears up the confusion and allows us to get back to discussing the thread topic.
Yes, because accusing someone of not thinking is totally not an insult.
Okay, you explain to me how what he actually wrote makes any sense whatsoever, if he actually thought about it before posting. C'mon, do it.
What, you mean turning your argument around? If your own argument doesn't make sense to you, I can't help you. :)
Okay, you explain to me how what he actually wrote makes any sense whatsoever, if he actually thought about it before posting. C'mon, do it.
Okay, so you can't make a coherent case for it, either. Allrighty.
|
Okay, so you can't make a coherent case for it, either. Allrighty.What, you mean turning your argument around? If your own argument doesn't make sense to you, I can't help you. :)
Okay, you explain to me how what he actually wrote makes any sense whatsoever, if he actually thought about it before posting. C'mon, do it.
Your condescension doesn't motivate any interest in me to discuss it with you, the same as the first statement I responded to.
|
|
Did they finally get over the CGL/Shadowrun whatever then?
But I see it's the Sensitive Week of Hurt Feeling and Sympathy for Ad Hominem Victims over at The Den. :-)
A thread about how Frank T. was personally involved in something that's not virtual ? Please. It's going to be on for the next 50 years.
Yes, because accusing someone of not thinking is totally not an insult.Actually, not.
Saying that someone didn't use his brain correctly is different from saying that he hasn't got one.
But I see it's the Sensitive Week of Hurt Feeling and Sympathy for Ad Hominem Victims over at The Den. :-)
Hey, I resent being lumped into that category. :p I never post anything bad about Pathfinder the few times I do something over there. My long-held resentments are over NWoD and the direction BattleTech took after the Great Refusal. :D
Yes, because accusing someone of not thinking is totally not an insult.Actually, not.
Actually, it is.
Saying that someone didn't use his brain correctly is different from saying that he hasn't got one.
There's a difference, so what, both are an insult.
But I see it's the Sensitive Week of Hurt Feeling and Sympathy for Ad Hominem Victims over at The Den. :-)
Haha. Great fun!
I know, using an insult to defend another insult is a bangup job!
Indeed. One could almost think that insults are even better liked here than at the den.