Oh, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying I would put a knife to my DM’s throat indicating that is what the rules say, so you must go by them. :)
I am just getting at it would be nice to have the vagueness scrubbed away as much as possible, so we can use the detailed rules if we want. It is still always the DM’s decision in the end. And if he wants to change something, that is certainly his prerogative.
But my DM goes by RAW as much as possible, and I know he appreciates when rules are clarified and more information is given. He really liked the Rules Compendium from 3.5.
Aye. It would be nice if Team Paizo would write a 'Theory of the Game', a book where in they simply ramble on about the ideas, concepts and beliefs that they hold and how they influenced their game design decisions.
A sort of 'Design Philosophy' book.
I think many people would both enjoy reading it and benefit from exploring the reasonings and personal theories regarding many aspects of the game's design.
Of course, it would need a disclaimer:
''The authors wish you a happy, long life. If you don't agree with any of the ideas, concepts and beliefs in this volume - change them. It's your game. Not to be read on oil rigs. The words in this volume are fictional - any resemblance to anyone/thing alive or dead is just a freaky coincidence. External use only. THIS VOLUME IS NOT TO BE QUOTED - EVER. ESPECIALLY NOT ON TEH INTERWEBZ."
|
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying I would put a knife to my DM’s throat indicating that is what the rules say, so you must go by them. :)
I am just getting at it would be nice to have the vagueness scrubbed away as much as possible, so we can use the detailed rules if we want. It is still always the DM’s decision in the end. And if he wants to change something, that is certainly his prerogative.
But my DM goes by RAW as much as possible, and I know he appreciates when rules are clarified and more information is given. He really liked the Rules Compendium from 3.5.
Excuse me, I quite don't get it. You are asking for a detailed ruleset, free of shadowy areas and corner cases open to personal interpretation, but you are supportive of DM "free will" in changing elements of the game, based on his preference. Different things, I know, but with a whole lot of overlapping areas.
Doesn't this sums up to "the DM shouldn't be a jerk that abuses rules at the expense of the players"?
Which is quite unrelated to the level of detail given in a rulebook, I think...
Doesn't this sums up to "the DM shouldn't be a jerk that abuses rules at the expense of the players"?
I think we can all pretty much agree to that.
Excuse me, I quite don't get it. You are asking for a detailed ruleset, free of shadowy areas and corner cases open to personal interpretation, but you are supportive of DM "free will" in changing elements of the game, based on his preference. Different things, I know, but with a whole lot of overlapping areas.Doesn't this sums up to "the DM shouldn't be a jerk that abuses rules at the expense of the players"?
Which is quite unrelated to the level of detail given in a rulebook, I think...
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Just because a DM may make a change to the rules, doesn’t mean he is being a “jerk” to his players. I am talking about a DM making a change where even though the designer may have done their best effort on a rules set, it just didn’t make a lot of sense. As I said before, no one is perfect. I am talking about instances where the DM is making a change for the better of the game.
That being said, I can only think of one thing right now where I don’t agree on what Paizo has done, therefore I have a lot of confidence and agree with the rules that are clarified (which is most of them). So what I am getting at is I wouldn’t anticipate any situations (with rule clarifications from Paizo) where our DM would need to make changes ‘for the better of the game’ with Pathfinder.
In my opinion, the DM's ability to interpret the rules as he sees fit at his own table does not remove the rules necessity to stand on their own merit, or the ability to discuss such merits or lack thereof with out DM intervention.
There is a reson we all chose to play PFRPG. It is because the rules are superior or preferable to other game systems. The core mechanics.
That is why we play it.
Not because we read them, then thought "these require the input of a DM to balance". It was because they could stand on their own merit, better than other game systems.
It is these core mechanics that are RAW. They come as they are. They should be debated as they are, on their own merit. How any individual DM may or may not houserule them away does not matter when discussion of these core rules takes place.
For example:
Is a fighter's weapon training more powerful than a barbarian's rage?
Do they balance? This is a valid question, that has nothing to do with how a DM interprets it. It is a core mechanic up for debate.
A relevant answer could be:
A fighter's weapon training bonus over his career will not match the STR bonus a barb gets from raging by the time they are 20, but the other things a fighter gets add to its effectiveness. Apples to apples I don't think those 2 abilities are balanced, but class to class overall I think it's balanced.
An irrelevant answer would be:
My DM gives fighters free feats, and decided greater rage was too powerful, so they only ever get +6 so yeah its ok.
Why is this answer irrelevant? Because it moves the discussion from core mechanics, to a specific table in a specific game.
This is my point. The above response does not further the discussion along its intended path. It is non-sequitur and becomes off topic.
I don't think I can explain my position any better than this.
In my opinion, the DM's ability to interpret the rules as he sees fit at his own table does not remove the rules necessity to stand on their own merit, or the ability to discuss such merits or lack thereof with out DM intervention.
+1.
It's a given that things will vary from DM to DM, but "Well, but a DM will probably fix that" is never a good excuse to something being broken.
The only other thing I can really add to this thread is to ask: could each person please, as a part of their case, state whether they are a player, a GM or both?
I'm not trying to prove a specific point (like "all the players are GM HATIN'") I just find myself wondering which people are holding which opinions. Indulge me, please. I don't think being a player affects the validity of the case.
The only other thing I can really add to this thread is to ask: could each person please, as a part of their case, state whether they are a player, a GM or both?
I am both.
The only other thing I can really add to this thread is to ask: could each person please, as a part of their case, state whether they are a player, a GM or both?
I'm not trying to prove a specific point (like "all the players are GM HATIN'") I just find myself wondering which people are holding which opinions. Indulge me, please.
I am both. But very heavily on the player side.
Currently I'm a player in one game and a GM in another.
My experience is that most GMs use few house rules, and even those that have a relative lot of house rules still leave 90%+ of the game as-is -- so I place a very high premium on RAW being good even if I promptly override it in places in my games.
|
|
The only other thing I can really add to this thread is to ask: could each person please, as a part of their case, state whether they are a player, a GM or both?
I'm not trying to prove a specific point (like "all the players are GM HATIN'") I just find myself wondering which people are holding which opinions. Indulge me, please. I don't think being a player affects the validity of the case.
I am both.
You just used a lot of arguments that prove my point: the game has got a standard campaign background for many important game issues and the GM has to figure out everything else. Talk about loads of bull.Anyone that have played this game since 3rd edition knows the campaign context that is behind the RAW, it used to be defined in previous DMGs.
I agree about the GM, I have never seen a game designer saying how important were skill challenges in the kind of game they had in mind, how many evil monsters they used, etc.. so there is always an unknown component in adventures that will alter the game balance even if you play what the books call a standard campaign.This is a load of bull. I have been playing since 2nd ed and converted early into 3rd. Nowhere have I seen any rules about how much downtime players should get to craft. There are some basic recommendations about the classes being designed for 4 encounters/day ranging from CR to CR+3, but even that is loose, vague, and not RAW. It is reccomendations and advice for the GM to do encounter design, not actual rules, just like wealth by level. It is entirely dependant on the GM, and, as such, when someone brings in the capabilities that rely on those factors, discussion of what GM expectations are need to be discussed.
If something is ballanced if you get 4 days of downtime between adventures but not if you get a year, that is part of the discussion of its ballance. If something is broken because the players get all the time in the world to shop at whatever metropolis they want, but fine when they don't get free access to magic items, that is something that needs to be discussed. If a class is broken because it can go nova for 1 combat/day, is it broken in the game where they spend 4, 8, or 16 encounters/day? The rules have guidelines for how to play, but, as the wealth by level thread shows, GMs ignore these guidelines all the time.
Sorry, I missread your first line and jumped on you. Not in a good mood today. I think so much of the "standard" game is up to interpretation from GM to GM that what a GM can do is an important part of ballance discussions. Even what has been published on what the game expects is entire vague.
In my opinion, the DM's ability to interpret the rules as he sees fit at his own table does not remove the rules necessity to stand on their own merit, or the ability to discuss such merits or lack thereof with out DM intervention.
There is a reson we all chose to play PFRPG. It is because the rules are superior or preferable to other game systems. The core mechanics.
That is why we play it.
Not because we read them, then thought "these require the input of a DM to balance". It was because they could stand on their own merit, better than other game systems.
It is these core mechanics that are RAW. They come as they are. They should be debated as they are, on their own merit. How any individual DM may or may not houserule them away does not matter when discussion of these core rules takes place.
For example:
Is a fighter's weapon training more powerful than a barbarian's rage?
Do they balance? This is a valid question, that has nothing to do with how a DM interprets it. It is a core mechanic up for debate.
A relevant answer could be:
A fighter's weapon training bonus over his career will not match the STR bonus a barb gets from raging by the time they are 20, but the other things a fighter gets add to its effectiveness. Apples to apples I don't think those 2 abilities are balanced, but class to class overall I think it's balanced.
An irrelevant answer would be:
My DM gives fighters free feats, and decided greater rage was too powerful, so they only ever get +6 so yeah its ok.Why is this answer irrelevant? Because it moves the discussion from core mechanics, to a specific table in a specific game.
This is my point. The above response does not further the discussion along its intended path. It is non-sequitur and becomes off topic.
I don't think I can explain my position any better than this.
^this +1
Well stated,sir.
E. Lincoln - I am... both!
In my opinion, the DM's ability to interpret the rules as he sees fit at his own table does not remove the rules necessity to stand on their own merit, or the ability to discuss such merits or lack thereof with out DM intervention.
There is a reson we all chose to play PFRPG. It is because the rules are superior or preferable to other game systems. The core mechanics.
That is why we play it.
Not because we read them, then thought "these require the input of a DM to balance". It was because they could stand on their own merit, better than other game systems.
It is these core mechanics that are RAW. They come as they are. They should be debated as they are, on their own merit. How any individual DM may or may not houserule them away does not matter when discussion of these core rules takes place.
For example:
Is a fighter's weapon training more powerful than a barbarian's rage?
Do they balance? This is a valid question, that has nothing to do with how a DM interprets it. It is a core mechanic up for debate.
A relevant answer could be:
A fighter's weapon training bonus over his career will not match the STR bonus a barb gets from raging by the time they are 20, but the other things a fighter gets add to its effectiveness. Apples to apples I don't think those 2 abilities are balanced, but class to class overall I think it's balanced.
An irrelevant answer would be:
My DM gives fighters free feats, and decided greater rage was too powerful, so they only ever get +6 so yeah its ok.Why is this answer irrelevant? Because it moves the discussion from core mechanics, to a specific table in a specific game.
This is my point. The above response does not further the discussion along its intended path. It is non-sequitur and becomes off topic.
I don't think I can explain my position any better than this.
Yes, but at the same time you can go the other way:
"Item crafting feats are broken because they allow the players to get twice the wealth they normally would"
can be responded to with:
"Yes, but the mechanics require the GM to give significant downtime. If the GM limmits the ammount of downtime in game, item crafting feats can be next to useless or anywhere in the spectrum. Thus it is highly dependant on the type and style of game."
Here, the inclusion of playstyle is relevant to game ballance because play style is incorporated into the rules. How a GM "fixes" the mechanic is important, because it is the GMs responcibility to look for things like this in his game.
Also, if your second poster went on to explain why these changes were made, it would go to show that his group did not percieve the fighter and barbarian to be ballanced against eachother. Thus, not only is he saying he feels the 2 classes are not ballanced against eachother, but he is also showing the disparity he feels is between them. He needs to bring the discussion back to the orriginal topic though, and not just leave it at that, so that the topic does not devolve into people blasting his GM for doing it wrong and destroying the orriginal topic.
|
The only other thing I can really add to this thread is to ask: could each person please, as a part of their case, state whether they are a player, a GM or both?
I'm not trying to prove a specific point (like "all the players are GM HATIN'") I just find myself wondering which people are holding which opinions. Indulge me, please. I don't think being a player affects the validity of the case.
Both equally.
I almost always play, but I GM from time to time.
Stuff.
Yes, but at the same time you can go the other way:
"Item crafting feats are broken because they allow the players to get twice the wealth they normally would"...
I don't see it that way. Item creation rules, RAW, require the downtime. As it is, it works. Houserules either increase or decrease the time required. This is a good example however.
The discussion behind the item creation rules being balanced by themselves is a good discussion. I think more thought should have been put into them, but not because DMs arent inclined to use the restrictions, but because it allows, if not encourages, a non-game penalty to offset an in-game benefit. In my experiences, this rarely works.This discussion can be had without invoking DM fiat, or relying on it.
Nothing really useful to add but...
This thread is great. Even though the OP is a self-confessed rant with a fair bit of finger-pointing and a terrifying lack of self-doubt the whole thread is now a really interesting discussion of play/rules/GM interaction.
You guys are awesome!
We are, aren't we? :P
I felt the OP did have a good point in there somewhere, and it was worthy of honest discussion. I'm glad this hasn't turned into name calling :)
The only other thing I can really add to this thread is to ask: could each person please, as a part of their case, state whether they are a player, a GM or both?
I'm not trying to prove a specific point (like "all the players are GM HATIN'") I just find myself wondering which people are holding which opinions. Indulge me, please. I don't think being a player affects the validity of the case.
I'm a GM. I'm pretty much always the GM. It's very, very rare that I get to be a player 'cause everyone else wants to play but not GM. I make characters and generally only get to play in online games (sadly).
I also feel I should clarify a bit further. I've been reading threads (such as the wizard vs sorcerer thread) and I keep seeing a lot of people making very good points on both sides, but then someone will inevitably jump in and spout "well the GM might never let you use your craft feats" which is completely and utterly worthless to the discussion. Is it true? Sure, the GM could do that. Is it worth anything to the conversation? No. Why is it worthless?
Because ultimately the GM can nerf or buff any class. The topic assumes an "as-is", with little GM modification. Just as easily as a GM prevents players from crafting, they can prevent players from resting, or send enemies who ignore the fire-sorcerer's fireball spells. In the same vein, the GM could make sure your fighter who's specialized in swords & sheilds finds nothing but great-axes and never has the chance to trade them in. The "GM can" is not a valid argument because it is like "if".
"If rocks rained from the sky, then umbrellas need to be stronger" is not a good argument for thickening umbrellas because rocks aren't expected to fall from the sky - rain is. So you're designing the umbrella to keep the rain off, not stop mini-comets.
I actually play a game that's fairly close to the Pathfinder Core, but I have a number of house rules (mostly involving alignment, and adjusting a few magic items), and some that favor warriors (iterative attacks cap at -5 like with creatures, so fighter-types have +20/+15/+15/+15 instead of +20/+15/+10/+5), and full-attacks are standard actions (allowing melee to move and attack). These work well for my group. I try not to change anything unless it works for our group, and I make sure to discuss it with my group.
For example, in 3.5, sorcerers had no class features and my younger brother wanted to play a sorcerer. We cooked up a dragon bloodline for the sorcerer (back before Pathfinder was even a consideration) which granted him a scaling natural armor, a breath weapon, wings, energy resistance, and a capstone which granted some nice dragon abilities. He didn't have a familiar, but by 20th level had +5 natural armor, a 10d6 breath weapon every 5 rounds, natural flight, immunity to fire (his energy type) and so forth. He was still weaker than the wizards in the party (one of the wizards was even an evocation specialist) but he had a lot of fun.
The thing is, I leave that stuff at the door when I'm discussing class balance and rules except as anecdotal commentary. I may say - off debate - "in my group it goes like this", but I'm not going to argue that sorcerers aren't weaker because of the cool bloodline powers I gave them in my games. I don't bring my house-rules for fighters into debates. I don't bring any of that stuff up 'cause "a GM can". Heck, this is "a GM DID", but it has no place here except as conversation material between people who want to hear it - not debates.
A bit more anecdotal bits, for those who care...
In my games the pace can change a bit. Sometimes the party is rushed, sometimes it's at their leisure. Players are generally expected to have some down-time between adventures, and unless there's something unusual going on (impending war, for example) then there's nothing to stop them from taking a week off to socialize with the locals and craft a few items or build a house or open a shop in a town they liked (one player had a couple of potion & alchemy shops dotting the countryside with adept followers, another had a village he built for people the party helped liberate). Sometimes doom is on the horizon, or someone is kidnapped and time is of the essence. Likewise, sometimes you find some gear that isn't to your exact tastes, but then you can always either find a use for it to trade it in.
Ultimately, the real power lies with the players who make the decisions. What many of us GMs don't want to tell you is, GMing is a privilage, and you have the right to walk if your GM isn't being fair (difficult encounters, adventures, and so forth does not mean unfair). If a GM is abusing their power, nothing says "you're being an ass" like an entire table that walks. All that GMing power means nothing if you don't have players to play in your game.
I've had a GM who were constantly nerfing warriors because he thought spellcasters were underpowered. He even rolled automatic sunder-damage if an enemy missed you due to your shield AC ("He hit your shield, it takes 7 damage"). Should I bring him into a debate about the value of sheilds or warrior vs spellcasters?
Nothing really useful to add but...
This thread is great. Even though the OP is a self-confessed rant with a fair bit of finger-pointing and a terrifying lack of self-doubt the whole thread is now a really interesting discussion of play/rules/GM interaction.
You guys are awesome!
Yay, minions! ^.^
Stuff.
Yes, but at the same time you can go the other way:
"Item crafting feats are broken because they allow the players to get twice the wealth they normally would"...
I don't see it that way. Item creation rules, RAW, require the downtime. As it is, it works. Houserules either increase or decrease the time required. This is a good example however.
The discussion behind the item creation rules being balanced by themselves is a good discussion. I think more thought should have been put into them, but not because DMs arent inclined to use the restrictions, but because it allows, if not encourages, a non-game penalty to offset an in-game benefit. In my experiences, this rarely works.
This discussion can be had without invoking DM fiat, or relying on it.
I was talking about someone making that point and then not wanting how the GM plays into it being a part of the discussion. I have no stance on that matter personally, but feel that if how the GM runs the game is not taken into account then the results will show them to be broken (craft whatever you like, get increased wealth by level from it). In this case, no house rules are even being mentioned, just how the game is actually run and played. If you take any game I have played in in the past 6 years into question, item crafting is pretty trivial because often players have more important things to do with the the little downtime they get. Its nice to have arround, but overall it hasn't change much between the games that have had it heavily and the games where we ignored it. That is an important part of the ballance of the ability. How the GM plays changes the importance, and thus the ballance, of the ability. The ability assumes you will get downtime to use it, just like sneak attack assumes you will be able to set up flanks as a team. The game in no way mandates that the GM give it to you, just like in no way forces him to put his minions in easy positions to flank.
Similarly, spirritted charge is arguably totally overpowered. It can do massive damage, way out of line with what is normal for the level. At the same time, it is fairly trivial to counter and wont be seen in many games (difficult terrain, squeezing, no horses in dungeons), so as a once in 3 game sessions ability it may just be a cool and not that important ability for overall ballance. Depending on how you run the game, varying things entirely within raw, the ability can go from dominating every combat to completely irrelevant. Thus, the nature of the game you are playing in is very important for overall ballance. Thus, any discussions about game ballance should also include discussions about what type of game you are playing in, and what types of things the GM can alter about his game to adjust its ballance.
Yay, minions! ^.^Nothing really useful to add but...
This thread is great. Even though the OP is a self-confessed rant with a fair bit of finger-pointing and a terrifying lack of self-doubt the whole thread is now a really interesting discussion of play/rules/GM interaction.
You guys are awesome!
Well, so much for the no name calling. :)
I've been reading threads (such as the wizard vs sorcerer thread) and I keep seeing a lot of people making very good points on both sides, but then someone will inevitably jump in and spout "well the GM might never let you use your craft feats" which is completely and utterly worthless to the discussion. Is it true? Sure, the GM could do that. Is it worth anything to the conversation? No. Why is it worthless?
I hate the idea of GM fiat as a balance conversation ender as much as anyone.
However, when we're talking about common enough house rules or house situations, I think it can be useful to discuss their impact in a way that doesn't let them negate everything else.
To give a good example, Leadership is probably the most-DM/campaign-banned feat in the game. I don't think it's worthless to discuss the impact of that or how one might counterbalance it.
To give context in response to a previous poster's request, I am both a GM and a player, but probably have GMed more than I played over the last 30+ years.
I see a couple of issues here that are being confused. I agree with the OP's basic initial point that "a GM could", in and of itself, is not a very good or satisfying argument. As others have pointed out, there is nothing a GM could or could not do to alter a campaign, so it isn't necessarily instructive to bring that up.
That said, context is extremely important. Every campaign I've ever been in has been different and every DM and group have their own playstyle. Every single poster on these boards is influenced by the gaming experiences they have had, and everyone has a preferred playstyle. The problem is that many people don't recognize those influences and believe that the way their group plays or the way they personally prefer to play is the only or the best way, which leads to increasingly shrill and ridiculously absolutist posts stating opinions as incontrovertible facts that always draw reaction. While it would probably be better to ignore some of these extremists, many of us can't resist the red cape being waved in front of our face, and have to point out, repeatedly, the importance of context and individual gamestyles. This very different from GM fiat.
RAW discussions can, at their best, be fascinating intellectual exercises, and the RAW does indeed provide a bit of common ground for discussion. However, too many people extrapolate from the RAW to try and "prove" their opinions about such topics as the balance between classes and spells and feats. Such arguments usually quickly devolve into relatively silly arguments when deprived of context or when the folks arguing it fail to recognize the context they each, knowingly or unknowingly, are bringing to the table. After all, very few people out there are actually playing completely by RAW (even if they think they are), and even the RAW is subject to an awful lot of interpretation. There is also the fact that some people take guidelines like recommended WBL or recommended encounters per day and give them the same weight as rules. I don't play PF Society games, but my understanding is even they have a pretty significant degree of variance.
As for the side argument on how detailed the rules should be, put me on the side of those who prefer less detail and more GM discretion/judgment. Partially that's because I'm an egotistical old coot and trust my own/my fellow GM's judgment more than I do that of the game designers. More seriously, my experience is that the more things are defined, the more intelligent and creative players will find loopholes to exploit those rules and bend them in ways I'm certain the designers neither foresaw (since they are just smart and talented people, not living and omniscient gods) nor intended. Better to just leave a gray area for the DM to maneuver in than to leave him having to houserule away certain things his players have learned how to abuse.
I also feel I should clarify a bit further. I've been reading threads (such as the wizard vs sorcerer thread) and I keep seeing a lot of people making very good points on both sides, but then someone will inevitably jump in and spout "well the GM might never let you use your craft feats" which is completely and utterly worthless to the discussion. Is it true? Sure, the GM could do that. Is it worth anything to the conversation? No. Why is it worthless?
The thing is, in this case, its not worthless to the discussion. There is no baseline in core for the ammount of free time available to the wizard. Thus, how much the wizard can realisticly craft is totally relevant to the discussion. I am not talking about the GM intentionally hosing the wizard, but no game I have ever played in has had infinite free time. In order to judge the ballance of 2 things in a game, you need realistic assumptions about what the game will be like. Pointing out that the wizard will not be able to craft everything he wants is just placing a realistic assumption on him, just as pointing out that not every fighter will be able to charge every fight, or a rogue will not always be able to flank. More realistic is a wizard being able to craft for 5-10 days/level, in my experience, with an extended crafting period every 3-4 levels or so. This is a serious limit on what the wizard is able to craft. On the other hand, some campaigns like Kingmaker will give the players all the downtime they will ever want. If the 2 people are coming at it from different backgrounds, they will never agree on what the value of the ability is.
For the record, my opinions have been expressed in the context of a campaign run as much by the RAW as possible. I don't think that House Rules should factor into balance discussion, that's nonsense. I void the warranty on my my computer the moment I decide to break it open with a hammer in an attempt to "fix" it.
Insofar as the rules leave specific duties up the GM, and those duties can easily and arbitrarily vary the way the game behaves, the GM is an indispensable part of any analysis.
Taking the "No Time for Item Creation" case: In several of Paizo's APs, the timeline is really short. Unless a GM takes decisive measures to inject crafting time into these campaigns (sometimes with far reaching consequences), many crafting-oriented characters end up pathetically weak. This happened in my campaign. I recognize that it was my intervention as a GM that corrected this, bringing those craft-dependent PCs up to the baseline party level. This is what the rules ask of the GM, when they define his role as arbitrator.
Varied situations are a part of the game. The whole hobby is about scenarios, and in some scenarios, PCs get what they need and in other scenarios they're on a desert island. The fact that a sorcerer might be preferable to a wizard in any campaign that maroons the players on a desert island doesn't mean the game is broken, or that one class is superior. All it means is that wizards need books and study and academic culture, and sorcerers don't!
These variables are not house rules. They're a part of the game, given to the GM to decide, much as a player gets to decide whether or not to use Power Attack this turn.
Well, so much for the no name calling. :)
Name calling? If you mean "Yay minions! ^.^", it was a Leadership joke. Sorry if it sounded offensive. =(
I've been reading threads (such as the wizard vs sorcerer thread) and I keep seeing a lot of people making very good points on both sides, but then someone will inevitably jump in and spout "well the GM might never let you use your craft feats" which is completely and utterly worthless to the discussion. Is it true? Sure, the GM could do that. Is it worth anything to the conversation? No. Why is it worthless?I hate the idea of GM fiat as a balance conversation ender as much as anyone.
However, when we're talking about common enough house rules or house situations, I think it can be useful to discuss their impact in a way that doesn't let them negate everything else.
To give a good example, Leadership is probably the most-DM/campaign-banned feat in the game. I don't think it's worthless to discuss the impact of that or how one might counterbalance it.
As noted in my original posts, if the thread calls for it (such as "How to curb leadership") then it's entirely understandable and likely the point of the thread. If the thread is "Fighters, Barbarians, and Sorcerers and their balance" it doesn't.
Similarly, spirritted charge is arguably totally overpowered. It can do massive damage, way out of line with what is normal for the level. At the same time, it is fairly trivial to counter and wont be seen in many games (difficult terrain, squeezing, no horses in dungeons), so as a once in 3 game sessions ability it may just be a cool and not that important ability for overall ballance. Depending on how you run the game, varying things entirely within raw, the ability can go from dominating every combat to completely irrelevant. Thus, the nature of the game you are playing in is very important for overall ballance. Thus, any discussions about game ballance should also include discussions about what type of game you are playing in, and what types of things the GM can alter about his game to adjust its ballance.
Spirited Charge is often best used with a small character on a medium sized mount (such as a halfling on a riding dog), since they can easily fit into dungeons that normal characters can. Difficult terrain, squeezing, and the like are all very noteworthy things that shut-down charging. You can also grab some horseshoes of the zypher, or even a phantom steed and charge over difficult terrain.
Spirited Charge is actually quite powerful, especially with a lance (a halfling on a dog with a 15 strength can inflict 3d6+9 damage with a normal lance, 3d6+12 with a +1 lance, 3d6+18 with a +1 lance and weapon specialization, etc). A 20th level halfling fighter-lancer can pop 3d6+54+15+12+15+45 or an average of 151.5 damage. A Paladin reduces the damage by -42 but then adds +60-120 against evil creatures.
I say this as a GM who had a player playing a barbarian lancer in a game once. The group went from level 1-25, and the lancer was amazingly good at 1-shotting most enemies (he lacked something against groups though).
Name calling? If you mean "Yay minions! ^.^", it was a Leadership joke. Sorry if it sounded offensive. =(
Oh, no offense taken at alI. I was just making a bad joke, referring to Kryzbyn’s post of “at least there has been no name calling." :)
RAW discussions can, at their best, be fascinating intellectual exercises, and the RAW does indeed provide a bit of common ground for discussion. However, too many people extrapolate from the RAW to try and "prove" their opinions about such topics as the balance between classes and spells and feats. Such arguments usually quickly devolve into relatively silly arguments when deprived of context or when the folks arguing it fail to recognize the context they each, knowingly or unknowingly, are bringing to the table. After all, very few people out there are actually playing completely by RAW (even if they think they are), and even the RAW is subject to an awful lot of interpretation....
Great post!!
For the record, my opinions have been expressed in the context of a campaign run as much by the RAW as possible. I don't think that House Rules should factor into balance discussion, that's nonsense. I void the warranty on my my computer the moment I decide to break it open with a hammer in an attempt to "fix" it.
Insofar as the rules leave specific duties up the GM, and those duties can easily and arbitrarily vary the way the game behaves, the GM is an indispensable part of any analysis.
Taking the "No Time for Item Creation" case: In several of Paizo's APs, the timeline is really short. Unless a GM takes decisive measures to inject crafting time into these campaigns (sometimes with far reaching consequences), many crafting-oriented characters end up pathetically weak. This happened in my campaign. I recognize that it was my intervention as a GM that corrected this, bringing those craft-dependent PCs up to the baseline party level. This is what the rules ask of the GM, when they define his role as arbitrator.
Varied situations are a part of the game. The whole hobby is about scenarios, and in some scenarios, PCs get what they need and in other scenarios they're on a desert island. The fact that a sorcerer might be preferable to a wizard in any campaign that maroons the players on a desert island doesn't mean the game is broken, or that one class is superior. All it means is that wizards need books and study and academic culture, and sorcerers don't!
These variables are not house rules. They're a part of the game, given to the GM to decide, much as a player gets to decide whether or not to use Power Attack this turn.
While I see how that would end up coming up in a discussion, I still don't see how it's relevant.
If the discussion is Wizards vs. Sorcerers RAW, then perhaps you'd discuss school specializations vs. bloodlines or study vs. spontaneous.Are these things balanced? RAW wise, yes.
In the book they are. As is they are (my opinion).
Sorcerers pay a cost in number of spells known and power at level to get more versatility in their actual casting.
If in the middle of this someone were to say "Yeah but if your DM shipwrecks you all of a sudden and you're a wizard and you've been shipwrecked without your book, you're screwed! Sorcerers PWN!" this response would be (hopefully) ignored. The DM could also make pigs fly out of his ass. Doesn't matter.
It is irrelevant in a class vs. class RAW discussion.
In a thread about making a character for a salvery/shipwrecked game, should I play a sorc or a wiz, then it is relevant.
|
By the same token, Kryzbyn, it is entirely reasonable for the sorcerer proponent to say "Sorcerers don't have the Achilles' Heel of a spell book. While knowing lots of spells is a powerful thing, you can't do much without them." That's the same point, only better expressed. And it is relevant to a RAW discussion because it is expressly stated that wizards need their spell books in order to memorize spells and sorcerers don't.
When people make arguments that start with "The DM could..." or "But if the DM..." then the arguments aren't usually invalid. Just worded poorly for a RAW discussion.
While I see how that would end up coming up in a discussion, I still don't see how it's relevant.
If the discussion is Wizards vs. Sorcerers RAW, then perhaps you'd discuss school specializations vs. bloodlines or study vs. spontaneous.
Are these things balanced? RAW wise, yes.
In the book they are. As is they are (my opinion).
Sorcerers pay a cost in number of spells known and power at level to get more versatility in their actual casting.
If in the middle of this someone were to say "Yeah but if your DM shipwrecks you all of a sudden and you're a wizard and you've been shipwrecked without your book, you're screwed! Sorcerers PWN!" this response would be (hopefully) ignored. The DM could also make pigs fly out of his ass. Doesn't matter.
It is irrelevant in a class vs. class RAW discussion.
In a thread about making a character for a salvery/shipwrecked game, should I play a sorc or a wiz, then it is relevant.
Because wizards get Item Crafting feats as bonus feats. This is a power that varies in strength based off of how the GM plays. You cannot have a successful discussion on how powerful this ability is without first coming to a consensus on how frequently you will be able to use it. There is a huge difference in power between free reign and strict, limmitted use, and 2 different raw campaigns can result in 2 different opinions on the matter. Even if you want to go to some baseline like Paizo published adventure paths, there is wide variation in how much free time and use this ability can potentially see. Thus, GM style affects the ballance, and it is relevant to the discussion.
The problem with "Well the GM could" is that "the GM might not."
The reason "RAW" is used is to establish a baseline for discussion. Once DM Fiat enters, there is no baseline - and there really is no baseline. It becomes two kids playing cops and robbers. "I shot you!" "Nuh uh!" "My DM fixed this class!" "Mine didn't!"
People bring up the four encounters because that's how (theoretically) the classes are built. Yes, the DM could throw that out and do his own thing, but that can have some dire consequences (psionics, 15 minute work day, etc, etc).
There's a quote out there that "2e is a different game at each table." And that's cool in theory where everyone is kitbashing their game and changing it to suit their purposes, but for those of us that played at more then one table it was the most irritating g~#+*$n thing imaginable. Imagine having to relearn the entire game every time you sat down to play it. It's one of the reasons the rules were distinctively more codified in 3e, because for a lot of us, it frankly sucked that the book was so disorganized and left so much to "Well just make it up."
If I wanted to just make it up, I bloody well wouldn't buy the game in the first place!
So that's why people talk about RAW, and why they talk about not applying DM fiat. Because DMs are all different. Player 1 asks advice for monks, and Player 2 states "Well my DM gave all monks magic laser beams so they're really powerful and you don't really need help." How does that help player one in the slightest? Player 1 talks about how he wants to play a warlock, and player 2 says "Warlocks are crazy overpowered, in my game we have thirty encounters every day, and warlocks just never run out of power." Player 1 talks about how he wants to play a psion, and player 2 states "psionics are incredibly powerful, I'd just ban them. They can spend all their powerpoints - ALL OF THEM - in the first fight and then that's it, they just won the game."
So player 1 asks "Aren't you supposed to have more around four encounters a day? Not just one? I mean, that sorta plays up to their strengths..." And player 2 responds with "Well, the GM could..."
Without a baseline, conversation goes everywhere. Everywhere other then into "being useful." A ranger is useless if the DM goes out of his way to never have his favored enemy show up, but we typically assume that isn't going to happen. Because a GM could, but the GM won't neccisarily. A rogue is fairly useless in a campaign in which all the enemies are elementals and there's no traps anywhere...but we again typically assume that isn't going to happen. An alchemist is significantly more powerful if everything you face is a swarm that's weak against fire, but that's not the norm.
Because wizards get Item Crafting feats as bonus feats. This is a power that varies in strength based off of how the GM plays. You cannot have a successful discussion on how powerful this ability is without first coming to a consensus on how frequently you will be able to use it. There is a huge difference in power between free reign and strict, limmitted use, and 2 different raw campaigns can result in 2 different opinions on the matter. Even if you want to go to some baseline like Paizo published adventure paths, there is wide variation in how much free time and use this ability can potentially see. Thus, GM style affects the ballance, and it is relevant to the discussion.While I see how that would end up coming up in a discussion, I still don't see how it's relevant.
If the discussion is Wizards vs. Sorcerers RAW, then perhaps you'd discuss school specializations vs. bloodlines or study vs. spontaneous.
Are these things balanced? RAW wise, yes.
In the book they are. As is they are (my opinion).
Sorcerers pay a cost in number of spells known and power at level to get more versatility in their actual casting.
If in the middle of this someone were to say "Yeah but if your DM shipwrecks you all of a sudden and you're a wizard and you've been shipwrecked without your book, you're screwed! Sorcerers PWN!" this response would be (hopefully) ignored. The DM could also make pigs fly out of his ass. Doesn't matter.
It is irrelevant in a class vs. class RAW discussion.
In a thread about making a character for a salvery/shipwrecked game, should I play a sorc or a wiz, then it is relevant.
Yes, you can have a discussion about crafting without taking the DM into consideration.
In the book, crafting is x. You get x item in y amount of time. They have x requirements. Is this reasonable? Is it worth making it a class feature? Are the costs over the top or reasonable?This is a RAW discussion. Rules as written, not rules as played at my buddies house. This type of thing should not be used as a legitimate argument in a class vs. class discussion, unless its prefaced within the boundaries of your buddy's game. Do you see the difference?
A) Wizard vs. Sorcerer RAW.
B) Wizard vs. Sorcerer in my buddy's game.
If the discussion is prefaced as A, then "my DM does..." is not a relevant response. If it's prefaced as B, then it is not only relevant, but an integral part of the discussion.
Even if you want to go to some baseline like Paizo published adventure paths, there is wide variation in how much free time and use this ability can potentially see. Thus, GM style affects the ballance, and it is relevant to the discussion.
Player choice has a lot to do with it. As noted previously, if players aren't particularly pressed for time, they can just choose to take a break. Looking in my CotCT book, I cannot help but to notice the adventure path actually feels a bit awkward if you try to rush through, and all the encounters and adventures are set up so that they can happen as it goes. Many of the encounters assume the players are wandering the streets of Korvosa for their own not-immediate-plot related reasons.
So, barring specific types of scenarios where resting, working, and so forth are out of the question, players can choose to take a break. The Red Hand of Doom adventure path (by WotC actually, and the closest thing to a paizo-quality adventure they've produced) actually notes there is a specific time-line and tells you to make special considerations for characters because they won't have time to craft their own items. Even with the constant moving around, my group still found time to craft or buy a number of items at different sized population centers.
Also, given the nature of RPGs, asking your allies to take a break while you craft some magic items isn't a big deal. It's obvious that the game expects downtime, since it includes so many rules which rely on it. Likewise, Paizo was nice enough to make crafting on the go more convenient. Scrolls, potions, and similar are exceptionally fast to craft. Many GMs and players also enjoy a sandbox style game where the story goes where the players take it, which is also very craft-friendly.
The only point I was trying to make was the GM is a wild card to make any situation you present seem credible, but it's not. While it's easy to say "some GMs won't present adventures where you have time to craft", it's just as easy to say "some GMs will use monsters immune to your limited spell selection", but ultimately the classes are assumed to use the abilities they have.
So, debates should probably be assumed that you can use what you got (and no, I'm not talking about rule loopholes). Everything can change from table to table, but the starting point assumes you will use your feats and class abilities, so trying to use the GM as an excuse to ignore these things in a discussion about relative power or similar topics is pointless and shows you've already lost.
*brilliance*
Pretty much every Professor Cirno said, is what I was trying to say, only he said he better.
Also, Professor, this looks like a good time to note I always enjoy reading your posts on here. ^.^
Also, given the nature of RPGs, asking your allies to take a break while you craft some magic items isn't a big deal. It's obvious that the game expects downtime, since it includes so many rules which rely on it. Likewise, Paizo was nice enough to make crafting on the go more convenient. Scrolls, potions, and similar are exceptionally fast to craft. Many GMs and players also enjoy a sandbox style game where the story goes where the players take it, which is also very craft-friendly.
We found time to do crafting and whatnot in Second Darkness, it wasn't even difficult to fit that stuff in.
I, too, think Cirno stated the case for RAW quite eloquently. RAW represents a basic expectation, that all players have a right to, when they sit down at any given table.
Yes, you can have a discussion about crafting without taking the DM into consideration.
In the book, crafting is x. You get x item in y amount of time. They have x requirements. Is this reasonable? Is it worth making it a class feature? Are the costs over the top or reasonable?
This is a RAW discussion. Rules as written, not rules as played at my buddies house. This type of thing should not be used as a legitimate argument in a class vs. class discussion, unless its prefaced within the boundaries of your buddy's game. Do you see the difference?
A) Wizard vs. Sorcerer RAW.
B) Wizard vs. Sorcerer in my buddy's game.
If the discussion is prefaced as A, then "my DM does..." is not a relevant response. If it's prefaced as B, then it is not only relevant, but an integral part of the discussion.
Yes, but the power of the ability is dirrectly related to how much free time, which is controlled by the GM. Therefore, as soon as you ask "Is this reasonable?" and "Is this worth a class feature?" you need to ask "how much use will this see?", because the first two cannot be answered without the 3rd. To answer that question, you need to come to a reasonable understanding of how much downtime is in a normal game and what the reasonable variation is in that number, and this is entirely controlled by the GM. Infinite and 0 are likely outliers, so niether should be used as the baseline. It is fairly safe to assume though that there will be some limit, or that the GM and players will know what they are getting into before they design their characters.
Ashiel, thank you for proving my point. Both CotCT and RHoD are valid campaigns, but will see totally different power levels from crafting. The game expects some downtime, but the ammount of downtime available is left up to the GM to determine. I agree with you that bringing the GM as a end all of a discussion is wrong, but when disussing things like this you need to come to a consistent understanding of what the GM is expected to give you. Sometimes this is spelled out in the book (or previous books), like the 4 combats per day expectation which will show significant disparity between casters and non-casters. Other times you will get into a discussion like item crafting and 2 people will have radically different ideas about how much free time players will get, and therefore will be coming to completely different conclusions about how powerful the ability is. And you know what: they are both right but are arguing from perspectives relying on different GMs to support and never came to a consensus. Often, bringing them to the same understanding of how the other GM plays will eliminate the conflict.
Yes, you can have a discussion about crafting without taking the DM into consideration.
In the book, crafting is x. You get x item in y amount of time. They have x requirements. Is this reasonable? Is it worth making it a class feature? Are the costs over the top or reasonable?
This is a RAW discussion. Rules as written, not rules as played at my buddies...
The problem with this is that RAW is only about the dry, completely devoid of context rules. It is a sterile laboratory environment that does not exist in the real world (if such a term has any meaning at all in a discussion of fantasy RPGs:)). Interesting for academic discussions, but largely irrelevant unless you can reproduce the same results in naturally occurring environments (actual campaigns). (Aside: let's not carry the scientific analogy too far. I do recognize the value of pure laboratory research.)
There is no such thing as a standard RAW campaign that everyone will agree on. The encounters per day guideline is an excellent example. It is a guideline, not a rule. I can't even imagine a campaign in which there are exactly four encounters every single adventuring day. But people toss it out like it is a rule that GMs have to follow. Every campaign is different, and looking at a wide variety of people's actual experiences is very educational, if you are open to the idea that other people's experiences and opinions may differ from your own and still hold validity.
To me it is actually far more relevant to hear how things are happening in people's actual living, breathing campaigns than in some hypothetical "RAW" world. Sure, it's subjective as hell, but it's real, not hypothetical.
Yes, but the power of the ability is dirrectly related to how much free time, which is controlled by the GM. Therefore, as soon as you ask "Is this reasonable?" and "Is this worth a class feature?" you need to ask "how much use will this see?", because the first two cannot be answered without the 3rd. To answer that question, you need to come to a reasonable understanding of how much downtime is in a normal game and what the reasonable variation is in that number, and this is entirely controlled by the GM. Infinite and 0 are likely outliers, so niether should be used as the baseline. It is fairly safe to assume though that there will be some limit, or that the GM and players will know what they are getting into before they design their characters.
No, you don't. If the RAW says it takes 75 days to make a 75k item, it doesn't matter if the DM will give you the time. It is what it is.
Now, if the question is "Is it a good idea to play a crafter with my current DM" then yes, that info is handy.Cirno nailed it. We use RAW to discuss balance and such because it provides the common denominator for the discussion.
There is no such thing as a standard RAW campaign that everyone will agree on. The encounters per day guideline is an excellent example. It is a guideline, not a rule. I can't even imagine a campaign in which there are exactly four encounters every single adventuring day. But people toss it out like it is a rule that GMs have to follow.
When my group started play, we elected to Round-Robin DM. One player mentioned that he had a .pdf full of useful House Rules that we might like to peruse. He was flatly told no. We all agreed right there, playing a Beta rules set, it would be best to go by the RAW.
When the beta ended, and the rules were set, we continued with the RAW. I don't think we're special or atypical.
Note: I'd say we're 99% RAW, we just don't have a laundry list of House Rules.
|
|
No, you don't. If the RAW says it takes 75 days to make a 75k item, it doesn't matter if the DM will give you the time. It is what it is.
Then the natural, logical question is this: Is it reasonable to assume I will have 75 days to make what I want? Or is it more reasonable to assume that I will not have time to use the item creation feats to their fullest extent?
RAW dictates how long it takes to make an item. In this case, 75 days. It never dictates whether a character will have that time available. The use of the feat is therefore somewhat DM-dependent.
Now it's unreasonable to claim that no DM will let you use your crafting feats. But it's equally unreasonable to assume that a PC will have as much crafting time as they want, whenever they want it.
No, you don't. If the RAW says it takes 75 days to make a 75k item, it doesn't matter if the DM will give you the time. It is what it is.Then the natural, logical question is this: Is it reasonable to assume I will have 75 days to make what I want? Or is it more reasonable to assume that I will not have time to use the item creation feats to their fullest extent?
RAW dictates how long it takes to make an item. In this case, 75 days. It never dictates whether a character will have that time available. The use of the feat is therefore somewhat DM-dependent.
Now it's unreasonable to claim that no DM will let you use your crafting feats. But it's equally unreasonable to assume that a PC will have as much crafting time as they want, whenever they want it.
If I were that player, after reading the item creation rules, I'd talk to the DM.
I believe that the point, though. The rule provide a baseline...
No, you don't. If the RAW says it takes 75 days to make a 75k item, it doesn't matter if the DM will give you the time. It is what it is.Then the natural, logical question is this: Is it reasonable to assume I will have 75 days to make what I want? Or is it more reasonable to assume that I will not have time to use the item creation feats to their fullest extent?
RAW dictates how long it takes to make an item. In this case, 75 days. It never dictates whether a character will have that time available. The use of the feat is therefore somewhat DM-dependent.
Now it's unreasonable to claim that no DM will let you use your crafting feats. But it's equally unreasonable to assume that a PC will have as much crafting time as they want, whenever they want it.
You are clearly not understanding my point, and for that I apologize.
If you and I were discussing the rules for crafting magic items, say over a couple beers, right after the book came out, just talking about the changes in RAW from 3.5, we could discuss the pros and cons freely without speculating about if any given DM would or would not grant or modify the time frame given in the book. We'd be talking about the rules themselves. In that kind of discussion, about the rules themsleves and their merit as is, there is no need for DM intervention.We should be able to have the same discussion here on the boards with several other people, without a "well my DM would/would not allow..." having any bearing on the discussion. It simply does not matter.
Same with character balance, even in relation to the crafting rules as wizards get them as kind of a class feature. At face value, it's a nice class feature, and doesn't make them anymore powerful than a sorcerer that doesn't get them for free. I don't need to know if my DM would extend or reduce the time frame. He's not editing the rules. He is not changing RAW. RAW to me = at face value. WYSIWYG. As written, are these good rules?