|
I keep reading thread after thread about "The Problems" and "Gaps" but I find that whenever I have though something overpowered, I read the rule and realized I missed a limitation, or I watch it in game and realize it doesn't actually work as well on the board as it does on the page.
And on the other side, when I thought a class to weak, I saw someone else play it using a build that made it work really well, using combination that had not occurred to me to be really powerful and effective in game.
And in the games I run, each class seems to be able to do well enough most of the time, with moments where they absolutely shine and moments where they are vulnerable.
Does anyone else fear power creep more than any perceived weaknesses in given classes?
Does anyone else just think people who complain about classes being weak haven't put in the book time to see how the class works. And does anyone else think the people who claim god builds generally have really flawed characters with huge exposed weaknesses?
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
I don't think the rules are perfect, and sometimes there are some gaps that were missed, but I also think the game plays a lot more smoothly than the number of questions and debates indicate, and that at the table if you have a GM that isn't afraid to make a call and run with it for the most part things work out alright.
I keep reading thread after thread about "The Problems" and "Gaps" but I find that whenever I have though something overpowered, I read the rule and realized I missed a limitation, or I watch it in game and realize it doesn't actually work as well on the board as it does on the page.
And on the other side, when I thought a class to weak, I saw someone else play it using a build that made it work really well, using combination that had not occurred to me to be really powerful and effective in game.
And in the games I run, each class seems to be able to do well enough most of the time, with moments where they absolutely shine and moments where they are vulnerable.
Does anyone else fear power creep more than any perceived weaknesses in given classes?
Does anyone else just think people who complain about classes being weak haven't put in the book time to see how the class works. And does anyone else think the people who claim god builds generally have really flawed characters with huge exposed weaknesses?
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
I agree with you 100%. All my campaigns have run smoothly and fine using the books as is.
|
I'm Spartacus!
Er... I mean yeah I totally agree. I dislike the emphasis on optimisation, dpr, "what's the best class" etc etc.
One of the things I hated about 3.5 was the plethora of bizarre characters people ended up playing. It got to the point that the rarest thing you saw played was a bog standard human fighter.
I like to see players play characters not mathematical exercises. The game is fine. Stop poking it with sticks.
I'm with you ciretose! Fight the power!
|
I keep reading thread after thread about "The Problems" and "Gaps" but I find that whenever I have though something overpowered, I read the rule and realized I missed a limitation, or I watch it in game and realize it doesn't actually work as well on the board as it does on the page.
And on the other side, when I thought a class to weak, I saw someone else play it using a build that made it work really well, using combination that had not occurred to me to be really powerful and effective in game.
And in the games I run, each class seems to be able to do well enough most of the time, with moments where they absolutely shine and moments where they are vulnerable.
Does anyone else fear power creep more than any perceived weaknesses in given classes?
Does anyone else just think people who complain about classes being weak haven't put in the book time to see how the class works. And does anyone else think the people who claim god builds generally have really flawed characters with huge exposed weaknesses?
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
I think the 2 main problems of the game (spells being too good or not having good defenses for it, and the way the CR system is designed) cause the game to be kinda retarded when playing the game as written.
If anything, people SHOULDN'T play the game as written. Monsters are very powerful for their CR when trying to fight them directly. But they have very weak saves against spells. So these 2 problems combined is why PF is suited massively towards casters.
|
|
I keep reading thread after thread about "The Problems" and "Gaps" but I find that whenever I have though something overpowered, I read the rule and realized I missed a limitation, or I watch it in game and realize it doesn't actually work as well on the board as it does on the page.
And on the other side, when I thought a class to weak, I saw someone else play it using a build that made it work really well, using combination that had not occurred to me to be really powerful and effective in game.
And in the games I run, each class seems to be able to do well enough most of the time, with moments where they absolutely shine and moments where they are vulnerable.
Does anyone else fear power creep more than any perceived weaknesses in given classes?
Does anyone else just think people who complain about classes being weak haven't put in the book time to see how the class works. And does anyone else think the people who claim god builds generally have really flawed characters with huge exposed weaknesses?
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
I think the 2 main problems of the game (spells being too good or not having good defenses for it, and the way the CR system is designed) cause the game to be kinda retarded when playing the game as written.
If anything, people SHOULDN'T play the game as written. Monsters are very powerful for their CR when trying to fight them directly. But they have very weak saves against spells. So these 2 problems combined is why PF is suited massively towards casters.
Name the spell and I'll show you the limitation.
Half of the problem with caster power is DMs not reading the spell and letting players get away with stuff.
Color Spray for example is awesome...if you can get with 15 feet of a baddie and not also include a team mate in the cone, while having the creature not make the max 16 (if you have 20 int) save and then be standing on top of your unarmored low hit point caster.
And don't tell me you have mage armor on when at first level you have a maximum of 3 1st level spells a day. If you spent 2/3 of your non cantrips in one small battle, leaving you with one more spell for the rest of the day, you are in trouble.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Probably be ipossible for any game to be perfect, since there;d be some subjective analysis. I think it blows that undead can be critted. You might disagree.
But the game is not only great as printed, but it's the best it's ever been. Hail Paizo for being the spiritual inheritors of Dungeons and Dragons, and may you prosper and build a great hobby until its enemies are lying below in a field of critical hits.
|
|
I don't think the rules are perfect, and sometimes there are some gaps that were missed, but I also think the game plays a lot more smoothly than the number of questions and debates indicate, and that at the table if you have a GM that isn't afraid to make a call and run with it for the most part things work out alright.
+1
|
|
I keep reading thread after thread about "The Problems" and "Gaps" but I find that whenever I have though something overpowered, I read the rule and realized I missed a limitation, or I watch it in game and realize it doesn't actually work as well on the board as it does on the page.
And on the other side, when I thought a class to weak, I saw someone else play it using a build that made it work really well, using combination that had not occurred to me to be really powerful and effective in game.
And in the games I run, each class seems to be able to do well enough most of the time, with moments where they absolutely shine and moments where they are vulnerable.
Does anyone else fear power creep more than any perceived weaknesses in given classes?
Does anyone else just think people who complain about classes being weak haven't put in the book time to see how the class works. And does anyone else think the people who claim god builds generally have really flawed characters with huge exposed weaknesses?
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
I think the 2 main problems of the game (spells being too good or not having good defenses for it, and the way the CR system is designed) cause the game to be kinda retarded when playing the game as written.
If anything, people SHOULDN'T play the game as written. Monsters are very powerful for their CR when trying to fight them directly. But they have very weak saves against spells. So these 2 problems combined is why PF is suited massively towards casters.
Name the spell and I'll show you the limitation.
Half of the problem with caster power is DMs not reading the spell and letting players get away with stuff.
Color Spray for example is awesome...if you can get with 15 feet of a baddie and not also include a team mate in the cone, while having the creature not make the max 16 (if you have 20 int) save and then be standing on top of your...
I'm okay with this. If they can make their DC15-17 save (depending on point buy and if I bother taking Spell Focus), then I get hit. And then I cast it again. If I die, I make another wizard. This situation is more bad luck than bad play.
At low levels, AoOs are actually powerful as well, so I position myself at the right area to funnel enemies if they really want to get to me.
Or I can stay way back and cast Daze over and over again. At level 1, that's perfectly viable.
|
|
Or I can stay way back and cast Daze over and over again. At level 1, that's perfectly viable.
Except Daze only works once on a single creature. And only on humanoids.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/daze
So if you happen to have spell focus enchantment and a 20 Int, and the creature has only a 1 will save, and it's humanoid, 75% of the time you can make it do nothing for a round. Once.
Not bad for a cantrip, hardly more useful than hitting it with a sword.
|
|
Playing by the rules, as opposed to some sort of freeform like game most people here play in is the most likely to expose problems with the game. People like me, that have always done this found the problems quickly.
Some people will try and claim things like "Color Spray might hit allies"... Well, that's only if they go charging in to hit it with a stick. I think we've established that martial characters are a liability already in optimized play.
More to the point though, the problem goes away if they aren't in a 90 degree angle in front of you. So, you go first and you Color Spray, and that's that. Or you don't go first, and people don't run in front of your [strike]automatic weapon fire[/strike] spellcasting like an idiot.
Don't you have me on ignore?
It isn't a claim. Color spray has a 15 ft cone. You need a 15 ft cone of open space to cast it without hitting your allies.
Add to that you need to be at least 10 feet away from the enemy or you will provoke an AoO.
And at first level you only know 3 1st level spells a day. 4 at 2nd. So how many times are you memorizing it?
|
|
Or I can stay way back and cast Daze over and over again. At level 1, that's perfectly viable.
Except Daze only works once on a single creature. And only on humanoids.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/daze
So if you happen to have spell focus enchantment and a 20 Int, and the creature has only a 1 will save, and it's humanoid, 75% of the time you can make it do nothing for a round. Once.
Not bad for a cantrip, hardly more useful than hitting it with a sword.
So now you want to say because I am unable to cast Color Spray for some unknown reason that you came up with, I gave a viable use of my action, instead you say it's hardly more useful than hitting it with a sword.
You didn't want me to use Color Spray, so I said ok, I'll do this instead. And then you say it's not useful either, and you are suggesting that not playing a caster is better.
So if I started changing goalposts on melee, do I win a prize also?
|
|
Or I can stay way back and cast Daze over and over again. At level 1, that's perfectly viable.
Except Daze only works once on a single creature. And only on humanoids.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/daze
So if you happen to have spell focus enchantment and a 20 Int, and the creature has only a 1 will save, and it's humanoid, 75% of the time you can make it do nothing for a round. Once.
Not bad for a cantrip, hardly more useful than hitting it with a sword.
So now you want to say because I am unable to cast Color Spray for some unknown reason that you came up with, I gave a viable use of my action, instead you say it's hardly more useful than hitting it with a sword.
You didn't want me to use Color Spray, so I said ok, I'll do this instead. And then you say it's not useful either, and you are suggesting that not playing a caster is better.
So if I started changing goalposts on melee, do I win a prize also?
No, I am saying that Daze has limitations as well. And that those limitations are often overlooked when people make the "casters are overpowered" argument.
My entire argument is that spells are actually pretty well balanced in the game. Casters will shine at times, Color Spray for example is an outstanding spell when it works.
But so is rolling a critical or using cleave at 1st level.
If people play the spells as written, and not just the spells as they think they work, it isn't at all unbalanced.
In general, the game rules (playing just core book and bestiary) are fairly tight. There are some things that end up being problems with corner cases, interactions between specific class/feat/level/spell combinations, but it's not major.
Add in base books (APG for example) and you end up with some stuff that can be abused if someone is actively trying to abuse it, or if they don't read everything carefully.
Add in the old 3.5 Splatbooks, and you get a lot of things that can get broken very quickly very fast, primarily because as backward compatible as the system is, it's not 100% and can never be. All it can do is hit a good 60% compatibility. That's usually good enough, but that means the GM has to keep an eye on the 3.5 stuff.
Third party is about the same as the 3.5 stuff, it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Certain companies (Green Ronin for example) are very good at balanced additions. Other companies not so much.
The majority of the issues I see on the boards come down to either (A) Misunderstandings on how something works, (B) Houserules, (C) Mixing in 3.5 and 3rd party things, (D) Power mad character builders, (E) Power mad GMs, and probably the biggest one is (F) people arguing what they want instead of what's there.
|
|
In general, the game rules (playing just core book and bestiary) are fairly tight. There are some things that end up being problems with corner cases, interactions between specific class/feat/level/spell combinations, but it's not major.
Add in base books (APG for example) and you end up with some stuff that can be abused if someone is actively trying to abuse it, or if they don't read everything carefully.
Add in the old 3.5 Splatbooks, and you get a lot of things that can get broken very quickly very fast, primarily because as backward compatible as the system is, it's not 100% and can never be. All it can do is hit a good 60% compatibility. That's usually good enough, but that means the GM has to keep an eye on the 3.5 stuff.
Third party is about the same as the 3.5 stuff, it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Certain companies (Green Ronin for example) are very good at balanced additions. Other companies not so much.
The majority of the issues I see on the boards come down to either (A) Misunderstandings on how something works, (B) Houserules, (C) Mixing in 3.5 and 3rd party things, (D) Power mad character builders, (E) Power mad GMs, and probably the biggest one is (F) people arguing what they want instead of what's there.
I agree with the 3.5 splatbooks, I don't let anything not Pathfinder into games anymore.
I also agree about Green Ronin.
I think WoTC didn't care about balance, just pushing out product to get more money. Paizo has shown in the playtests that they would rather annoy people by nerfing things than send out an unbalanced and overpowered addition.
This is why I think Pathfinder as written works great.
|
|
Or I can stay way back and cast Daze over and over again. At level 1, that's perfectly viable.
Except Daze only works once on a single creature. And only on humanoids.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/daze
So if you happen to have spell focus enchantment and a 20 Int, and the creature has only a 1 will save, and it's humanoid, 75% of the time you can make it do nothing for a round. Once.
Not bad for a cantrip, hardly more useful than hitting it with a sword.
So now you want to say because I am unable to cast Color Spray for some unknown reason that you came up with, I gave a viable use of my action, instead you say it's hardly more useful than hitting it with a sword.
You didn't want me to use Color Spray, so I said ok, I'll do this instead. And then you say it's not useful either, and you are suggesting that not playing a caster is better.
So if I started changing goalposts on melee, do I win a prize also?
No, I am saying that Daze has limitations as well. And that those limitations are often overlooked when people make the "casters are overpowered" argument.
My entire argument is that spells are actually pretty well balanced in the game. Casters will shine at times, Color Spray for example is an outstanding spell when it works.
But so is rolling a critical or using cleave at 1st level.
If people play the spells as written, and not just the spells as they think they work, it isn't at all unbalanced.
The problem with RAW is that is favors casters. Now if nobody cares about it, sure that's fine. But if groups were really going only RAW, it will favor casters more in the end. These optimizers aren't lying for the sake of a trip. Using simple math, they've figured out that casters are more effective because there are much less defenses against it. And PF rules end up helping out more than they hinder.
There's no problem until people playing realize that casters are better when RAW is used. Or if the players don't care that ultimately, more casters make a better party than a mixed party.
|
|
The problem with RAW is that is favors casters. Now if nobody cares about it, sure that's fine. But if groups were really going only RAW, it will favor casters more in the end. These optimizers aren't lying for the sake of a trip. Using simple math, they've figured out that casters are more effective because there are much less defenses against it. And PF rules end up helping out more than they hinder.
No it doesn't.
Wizards are also more vulnerable than other classes, as people always seem to forget it also takes rounds to cast defenses. And of course you can only know so many spells per day.
Like I said, name a spell and I will show you the limitations of the spell.
The system is balanced just fine if people actual play the game as written and not as imagined.
The problem with RAW is that is favors casters. Now if nobody cares about it, sure that's fine. But if groups were really going only RAW, it will favor casters more in the end. These optimizers aren't lying for the sake of a trip. Using simple math, they've figured out that casters are more effective because there are much less defenses against it. And PF rules end up helping out more than they hinder.
No it doesn't.
Wizards are also more vulnerable than other classes, as people always seem to forget it also takes rounds to cast defenses. And of course you can only know so many spells per day.
Like I said, name a spell and I will show you the limitations of the spell.
The system is balanced just fine if people actual play the game as written and not as imagined.
I agree with this 100%. the game doesnt favor spellcasters. if spellcasters were balanced with everyone else in the game (which they are) then you would have 4e. what people are actually wanting is balance of a melee characters melee abilities and a spellcasters spells. where a spell might do 100 dmg in a round at 15th lvl, thats 1 spell for the round. a melee character can output the same damage through his 4 attacks. plus the spell caster is limited in his spells per day, where as the melee characters are limited by thier hit points only. also, spells are written like they are because they are exactly that, spells. magic wouldnt be magic and wouldnt be spectacular if it didnt stand out in someway, and if you try to minimize casters, then they are behind the curve in balance of the game.
im getting ready to run a game next week and i am only allowing PF material and PF compatible material on a case to case basis. im running the campaign world and the rules as written and so far from typing up the game and fleshing out the plot lines and such, i find the game to be pretty fair and balanced. play the game, not the idea.
The problem with RAW is that is favors casters. Now if nobody cares about it, sure that's fine. But if groups were really going only RAW, it will favor casters more in the end. These optimizers aren't lying for the sake of a trip. Using simple math, they've figured out that casters are more effective because there are much less defenses against it. And PF rules end up helping out more than they hinder.
No it doesn't.
Wizards are also more vulnerable than other classes, as people always seem to forget it also takes rounds to cast defenses. And of course you can only know so many spells per day.
Like I said, name a spell and I will show you the limitations of the spell.
The system is balanced just fine if people actual play the game as written and not as imagined.
I agree with this 100%. the game doesnt favor spellcasters. if spellcasters were balanced with everyone else in the game (which they are) then you would have 4e. what people are actually wanting is balance of a melee characters melee abilities and a spellcasters spells. where a spell might do 100 dmg in a round at 15th lvl, thats 1 spell for the round. a melee character can output the same damage through his 4 attacks. plus the spell caster is limited in his spells per day, where as the melee characters are limited by thier hit points only. also, spells are written like they are because they are exactly that, spells. magic wouldnt be magic and wouldnt be spectacular if it didnt stand out in someway, and if you try to minimize casters, then they are behind the curve in balance of the game.
im getting ready to run a game next week and i am only allowing PF material and PF compatible material on a case to case basis. im running the campaign world and the rules as written and so far from typing up the game and fleshing out the plot lines and such, i find the game to be pretty fair and balanced. play the game, not the idea.
The game definitely favors casters. I am not saying casters rule every game session, but that is more because a lot of people don't play to win the game. If they did then it would show up more often.
Wraithstrike wrote:
The game definitely favors casters. I am not saying casters rule every game session, but that is more because a lot of people don't play to win the game. If they did then it would show up more often.
Please explain. I see these accusations all the time but never any proof.
I agree.
I think the rules (for the most part) cover everything.
The problem asserts itself when DM's take themselves out of the responsibility of having to make game world calls. You are the referee, the designers cannot possibly cover everything (though I think they did a superb job) it is your job as a DM to make sure the game stays fun.
Shouldn't be a difficult job, I quite enjoy it actually. Almost always DM these days.
Name the spell, I'll show you the limitation.
The game definitely favors casters. I am not saying casters rule every game session, but that is more because a lot of people don't play to win the game. If they did then it would show up more often.
When did I say spells don't have limitations? Spell having limitations, and all of them do, does not mean that casters can't ruin your fun if a powergamer is at your table.
Firstly- I agree.. I find the game to work well as written.
Secondly:
I think the main problem is that folks on the boards are so very quick to say "wizard can do X vs Y, Z vs A, B vs C, and so they win". Which is actually true.
But in real game play, where the PC doesn't know whats coming around the next corner.. well.. the warriors do very well.
The answer is because the warrior always knows what he's going to do. He's going to swing that sword or axe. That ranger is going to shoot his bow, the monk is going to karate kick, or whatever.. WHATEVER comes around the corner. That is what they do. They don't need to wait 8 hours and prepare to do a flying jump kick. they don't need to consult their notes for 15 minutes to prepare the perfect sword. They draw arms and get to killin.
Now it is true that wizards are indispensable to the party. They are, without a doubt, the most versatile class.. but they pay dearly for that versatility in that they have a relatively narrow number of things they can "learn' at once.. and if they have the wrong thing memorized then they do nothing. This "weakness" is hand-waived on the boards- but in actual game play it is a *hindrance*.
The fact is- in game play all the classes and roles have their chance to shine. Sometimes the wizard has "the right spell" when its needed. Sometimes they have to wait a day for the cleric to get the right prayer. Sometimes the team gets jumped and the melee chop some fire wood out of the bad guys.
The simple fact of the matter is that the wizard is at his best when he knows today what he's going to do tomorrow. And while that is a very powerful strength- he doesn't always have the luxury of knowing what is going to happen tomorrow. He has to plan as best as he can and hope for the best.
That is the *real* balance of casters vs melee. The melee are already ready. The casters have a very small chance to actually have what they need on hand as it happens.
-S
Firstly- I agree.. I find the game to work well as written.
Secondly:
I think the main problem is that folks on the boards are so very quick to say "wizard can do X vs Y, Z vs A, B vs C, and so they win". Which is actually true.But in real game play, where the PC doesn't know whats coming around the next corner.. well.. the warriors do very well.
The answer is because the warrior always knows what he's going to do. He's going to swing that sword or axe. That ranger is going to shoot his bow, the monk is going to karate kick, or whatever.. WHATEVER comes around the corner. That is what they do. They don't need to wait 8 hours and prepare to do a flying jump kick. they don't need to consult their notes for 15 minutes to prepare the perfect sword. They draw arms and get to killin.
Now it is true that wizards are indispensable to the party. They are, without a doubt, the most versatile class.. but they pay dearly for that versatility in that they have a relatively narrow number of things they can "learn' at once.. and if they have the wrong thing memorized then they do nothing. This "weakness" is hand-waived on the boards- but in actual game play it is a *hindrance*.
The fact is- in game play all the classes and roles have their chance to shine. Sometimes the wizard has "the right spell" when its needed. Sometimes they have to wait a day for the cleric to get the right prayer. Sometimes the team gets jumped and the melee chop some fire wood out of the bad guys.
The simple fact of the matter is that the wizard is at his best when he knows today what he's going to do tomorrow. And while that is a very powerful strength- he doesn't always have the luxury of knowing what is going to happen tomorrow. He has to plan as best as he can and hope for the best.
That is the *real* balance of casters vs melee. The melee are already ready. The casters have a very small chance to actually have what they need on hand as it happens.
-S
You don't need a specific spell for a specific situation most of the time. Add this to the fact that even an average player can pick useful spells means the chances of a caster having no spells that work are small. Casters can also leave slots open. Now I don't think that any class will have a spell, or the perfect spell for every situation, but they can have a useful spell most of the time.
PS:When I said casters earlier I did not just mean wizards.
Firstly- I agree.. I find the game to work well as written.
Secondly:
I think the main problem is that folks on the boards are so very quick to say "wizard can do X vs Y, Z vs A, B vs C, and so they win". Which is actually true.But in real game play, where the PC doesn't know whats coming around the next corner.. well.. the warriors do very well.
The answer is because the warrior always knows what he's going to do. He's going to swing that sword or axe. That ranger is going to shoot his bow, the monk is going to karate kick, or whatever.. WHATEVER comes around the corner. That is what they do. They don't need to wait 8 hours and prepare to do a flying jump kick. they don't need to consult their notes for 15 minutes to prepare the perfect sword. They draw arms and get to killin.
Now it is true that wizards are indispensable to the party. They are, without a doubt, the most versatile class.. but they pay dearly for that versatility in that they have a relatively narrow number of things they can "learn' at once.. and if they have the wrong thing memorized then they do nothing. This "weakness" is hand-waived on the boards- but in actual game play it is a *hindrance*.
The fact is- in game play all the classes and roles have their chance to shine. Sometimes the wizard has "the right spell" when its needed. Sometimes they have to wait a day for the cleric to get the right prayer. Sometimes the team gets jumped and the melee chop some fire wood out of the bad guys.
The simple fact of the matter is that the wizard is at his best when he knows today what he's going to do tomorrow. And while that is a very powerful strength- he doesn't always have the luxury of knowing what is going to happen tomorrow. He has to plan as best as he can and hope for the best.
That is the *real* balance of casters vs melee. The melee are already ready. The casters have a very small chance to actually have what they need on hand as it happens.
-S
This is why i play Sorcerers ;)
In games that we play, we usually have 1 combat a night, and that usually happens 1 day in game, so a caster can get an advantage there because he can blow all his spells at once, and not have to worrying about saving any for later cause he's gonna rest. But when i run my game, there is a mass combat section. And this mass combat is going to last 3 gaming sessions (not 3 day) and everything that happens in those 3 sessions will happen in the course of 1 day in game. player blows all his spells in the first session, thats his fault. where the fighters and melee characters can go on without having to worrying about the right time to cast a spell or how many to cast per night, etc. None of the abilities i see when looking at the wizard or sorcerer are so broken that they shadow other classes.
|
|
When did I say spells don't have limitations? Spell having limitations, and all of them do, does not mean that casters can't ruin your fun if a powergamer is at your table.Name the spell, I'll show you the limitation.
The game definitely favors casters. I am not saying casters rule every game session, but that is more because a lot of people don't play to win the game. If they did then it would show up more often.
Actually it does. That is what a limitation is.
Power gamers can't power game unless the rules or DM allow them.
I'm saying it isn't the rules. Casters can do awesome things. So can all the other classes.
That is the *real* balance of casters vs melee. The melee are already ready. The casters have a very small chance to actually have what they need on hand as it happens.
-S
+1
although I do not think a fighter, monk, and ranger have to be as simple as you say. They just typically are played by novice players who only do that.
I will admit a clever Wizard is an awesome sight. A tactful fighter is impressive. A crafty rogue... (my personal fav) forget about it.
IMO :)
Probably be ipossible for any game to be perfect, since there;d be some subjective analysis. I think it blows that undead can be critted. You might disagree.
But the game is not only great as printed, but it's the best it's ever been. Hail Paizo for being the spiritual inheritors of Dungeons and Dragons, and may you prosper and build a great hobby until its enemies are lying below in a field of critical hits.
If anything Paizo did was a "critical hit" (best pun ever) it was the APG.
sorry, had to say it.
stuff about silly casters going nova
Wasting spells gets you in trouble in my games also, but that is not a caster weakness. It is a player weakness.
|
|
Wraithstrike wrote:
The game definitely favors casters. I am not saying casters rule every game session, but that is more because a lot of people don't play to win the game. If they did then it would show up more often.
Please explain. I see these accusations all the time but never any proof.
There's plenty of proof. The problems are 2 fold.
1, it takes a lot of posting obviously, and nobody wants to do it over and over and over again.
2, people have this idea of how the game is. And when things are not that, those people get defensive, and start ignoring facts.
I can explain the smaller things, but I don't know the higher arguments.
Example, saves don't scale with spells. Color Spray is level 1 spell. Cast by a 18 INT caster, the save DC is 15. CR1 monsters cannot make that save consistently because their Will saves are probably +1 at most. This means a wizard can take out more enemies with 1 action than a fighter can.
The reasons people say casters are overpowered is because they change the way the game plays. Instead of defeating monsters through combat, they trap them with Web, Entangle, Black Tentacles. They put them in a harmless state like sleep, stunned, paralyzed, nauseated, etc. They end encounters quickly and decisively. The problem become more expanded when casters get powerful utility spells like Invisibility, Fly, Teleport, Permanency, Charm Person, etc.. That lots them solve both combat and non-combat problems with greater ease. Lord of the Rings would be a lot less epic if they just Teleported into Mordor, dropped the ring, and called it a day. Or Fly. Or other methods that creative people can think of. It becomes an issue almost of "protect that casters at ALL costs, or else we die". This can be unfair to other players who basically end up playing 2nd fiddle.
There are things that compound this problem. Casters generally do not need much equipment. They need a few protective devices, and misc items like Bag of Holding, Ring of Wizardry, etc. But those are relatively cheap compared to +5 armors and weapons. Plus a wizard gets to make those.
Another example is that Dispel Magic got nerfed to canceling out 1 spell effect. Therefore, it is impossible at early levels to stop something that has multiple buffs and other effects on. If a wizard has Fly, Stoneskin, Invisibility, and other buffs, one spell will not take it all out. Now that sounds like a good thing, but the practice is that it's much harder to contain that threat now. The players using the same tactic doesn't stop the tactic from being used. It's just escalating the power level. It becomes an arms race, and initiative become very important as going first allows that character to do devastating first action that might result in the opponents all being disabled somehow.
I'm sure I'm mistaken a few of these issues. I think the problem is ultimately this: "to fight magic, you need magic". That's fine and dandy for a slogan, but from a balance standpoint, it's bunk. It's not really solving the problem, but presenting your opponents with the same problems that they also cannot handle. Instead of being heroes, sometimes players are reduced to bodyguards to the guy who plays the caster. I've been there before, and in that particular case, it did suck because the player was both good and arrogant. I've played 2nd fiddle in other games as well, and it went better.
I just wanted to throw my two cents in (for whatever they're worth) and say that I completely agree with the OP. The game, in my experience, does not favor casters any more than any other class - and this coming from a guy whose favored class is the Wizard, who has played a wizard (admittedly, in 3.0/3.5) from 1st - 30th level, and who has been DMing for 15 years now. If your game ends up "favoring" casters, you really have to start taking a good hard look at your DM or DMing style.
Actually it does. That is what a limitation is.
I am not understanding what this is referring to.
Power gamers can't power game unless the rules or DM allow them.
I thought the discussion was about using the rules without DM intervention.
I'm saying it isn't the rules. Casters can do awesome things. So can all the other classes.
I agree that all classes can go great things, and be fun to play. That does not mean casters are not more powerful than other classes.
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?
Yes me
That is the *real* balance of casters vs melee. The melee are already ready. The casters have a very small chance to actually have what they need on hand as it happens.
-S
+1
although I do not think a fighter, monk, and ranger have to be as simple as you say. They just typically are played by novice players who only do that.
I will admit a clever Wizard is an awesome sight. A tactful fighter is impressive. A crafty rogue... (my personal fav) forget about it.
IMO :)
-1. Only due to the statement of a caster having a small chance of being ready. Being always prepared is almost impossible, but I have never seen a caster that was mostly unprepared, which is what, "...have a very small chance....", is saying.
|
I agree with the OP fully.
The game works just fine for me and my group, and you'll always find some discontent people who will complain about anything and everything just for the sake of it.
And no game will ever be perfect, but if you focus on the 5% empty glass ... you won't ever see the 95% full part.
|
|
When did I say spells don't have limitations? Spell having limitations, and all of them do, does not mean that casters can't ruin your fun if a powergamer is at your table.Name the spell, I'll show you the limitation.
The game definitely favors casters. I am not saying casters rule every game session, but that is more because a lot of people don't play to win the game. If they did then it would show up more often.
Actually it does. That is what a limitation is.
Power gamers can't power game unless the rules or DM allow them.
I'm saying it isn't the rules. Casters can do awesome things. So can all the other classes.
The thing is, all the optimized say by using only Core, it expands the problem, instead of dealing with it.
Lots of them have stated that Core does not give the defensive spells needed to survive, so the solution is to go first, and take those opponents out before they can do the same to you. I don't know that stuff very well, but it could very well be true.
People complain about optimizers as if they are trying to ruin the game. They are not. Those people are the reasons why PF has newer rules, because of imbalances that 3.5 proved (like spells being too good, which is why they nerfed a lot of spells).
I agree with the OP fully.
The game works just fine for me and my group, and you'll always find some discontent people who will complain about anything and everything just for the sake of it.
And no game will ever be perfect, but if you focus on the 5% empty glass ... you won't ever see the 95% full part.
Nobody, well at least not in this thread is complaining. How do you handles SoD casters that force monster to roll high rolls or end a combat? Now my group does not play like that, but I have seen it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I think we've established that martial characters are a liability already in optimized play.
I am confused. An optimized fighter casues more damage than any other class, save maybe an antipaladin or a really good barbarian. Unless you are routinely throwing out an Empowered meteor swarm, the close fighter is gonna consistently bring things down. Only a handful of times and a handful of spells will consistently compete with good melee optimization. And even then, this talk of the game being broken because at its opitimized form one or two classes or archetypes (say, antipaladins, fighters and wizards) do better than others is a little silly. The game is played many ways by many players. I like to optimize players, but my priority is in character roleplaying, so my fun is also there. The game is fine.
More to the point though, the problem goes away if they aren't in a 90 degree angle in front of you. So, you go first and you Color Spray, and that's that. Or you don't go first, and people don't run in front of your [strike]automatic weapon fire[/strike] spellcasting like an idiot.
And then on the bad guy's turn, your color spray caster gets charged by an optimized fighter, is Power Attacked, and dies?
|
|
I agree with the OP fully.
The game works just fine for me and my group, and you'll always find some discontent people who will complain about anything and everything just for the sake of it.
And no game will ever be perfect, but if you focus on the 5% empty glass ... you won't ever see the 95% full part.
I find the problem comes up when the DM or 1 player plays fully within the rules. Like a party of monks against 1 dragon. That's hard to win with mechanics. That's the mistaken impression that many people have. Often it is not because a player is cheating or playing outside the rules. Often it's just people not playing the best they can do on a mechanics level.
And this is why I say the game has design flaws. The CR system is crappy and should be reexamined.
I think we've established that martial characters are a liability already in optimized play.I am confused. An optimized fighter casues more damage than any other class, save maybe an antipaladin or a really good barbarian. Unless you are routinely throwing out an Empowered meteor swarm, the close fighter is gonna consistently bring things down. Only a handful of times and a handful of spells will consistently compete with good melee optimization. And even then, this talk of the game being broken because at its opitimized form one or two classes or archetypes (say, antipaladins, fighters and wizards) do better than others is a little silly. The game is played many ways by many players. I like to optimize players, but my priority is in character roleplaying, so my fun is also there. The game is fine.
More to the point though, the problem goes away if they aren't in a 90 degree angle in front of you. So, you go first and you Color Spray, and that's that. Or you don't go first, and people don't run in front of your [strike]automatic weapon fire[/strike] spellcasting like an idiot.And then on the bad guy's turn, your color spray caster gets charged by an optimized fighter, is Power Attacked, and dies?
Ciretos did not say that. Codzilla did.
|
|
The problem with RAW is that is favors casters. Now if nobody cares about it, sure that's fine. But if groups were really going only RAW, it will favor casters more in the end. These optimizers aren't lying for the sake of a trip. Using simple math, they've figured out that casters are more effective because there are much less defenses against it. And PF rules end up helping out more than they hinder.
There's no problem until people playing realize that...
I disagree completely.
Your math is fuzzy at best.
-1. Only due to the statement of a caster having a small chance of being ready. Being always prepared is almost impossible, but I have never seen a caster that was mostly unprepared, which is what, "...have a very small chance....", is saying.
That is the *real* balance of casters vs melee. The melee are already ready. The casters have a very small chance to actually have what they need on hand as it happens.
-S
+1
although I do not think a fighter, monk, and ranger have to be as simple as you say. They just typically are played by novice players who only do that.
I will admit a clever Wizard is an awesome sight. A tactful fighter is impressive. A crafty rogue... (my personal fav) forget about it.
IMO :)
*sigh*
They do not have a small chance, they just don't always have the perfect spell. Not having any viable options would make them suck.
I mean when you choose in the morning blindsight, because you are going down into the depths of the earth so you think that is a good idea.
Viable right?
but because you prepared Blindsight you decided you wouldn't need calirvoyance/clairaudience, not today anyways.
And then it just so happens you need a scrying spell on a previous room and you didnt prepare one because you were in a hall for a crawl. Ah nuts.
I never said casters suck or that they were never prepared, but they dont always have the golden boy to end all be all prepared in their arsenal.
And the -1 offended me.
:)
|
|
The problem with RAW is that is favors casters. Now if nobody cares about it, sure that's fine. But if groups were really going only RAW, it will favor casters more in the end. These optimizers aren't lying for the sake of a trip. Using simple math, they've figured out that casters are more effective because there are much less defenses against it. And PF rules end up helping out more than they hinder.
No it doesn't.
Wizards are also more vulnerable than other classes, as people always seem to forget it also takes rounds to cast defenses. And of course you can only know so many spells per day.
Like I said, name a spell and I will show you the limitations of the spell.
The system is balanced just fine if people actual play the game as written and not as imagined.
People are assuming you actually have time to buff before every single encounter and that you are only self-buffing.
If that is true, then the GM isn't doing his job, because he's actually allowing the party to know when and where every encounter is.
I hate the attitude that players think every encounter happens in a vacuum.
|
|
I think we've established that martial characters are a liability already in optimized play.I am confused. An optimized fighter casues more damage than any other class, save maybe an antipaladin or a really good barbarian. Unless you are routinely throwing out an Empowered meteor swarm, the close fighter is gonna consistently bring things down. Only a handful of times and a handful of spells will consistently compete with good melee optimization. And even then, this talk of the game being broken because at its opitimized form one or two classes or archetypes (say, antipaladins, fighters and wizards) do better than others is a little silly. The game is played many ways by many players. I like to optimize players, but my priority is in character roleplaying, so my fun is also there. The game is fine.
More to the point though, the problem goes away if they aren't in a 90 degree angle in front of you. So, you go first and you Color Spray, and that's that. Or you don't go first, and people don't run in front of your [strike]automatic weapon fire[/strike] spellcasting like an idiot.And then on the bad guy's turn, your color spray caster gets charged by an optimized fighter, is Power Attacked, and dies?
This is exactly what I mean. Damage is only 1 way to end a combat. It is not the only way. It is an inefficient way generally. It is proven within the rules that casting a spell to disable your targets is better. Monsters generally have weak saves, so a caster targets them.
I already said I'm fully willing to take the chance that monsters save against me. That's how it goes. But the odds of them saving the DC is low. It's more than 75% chance of success most of the time. And that problem is further expanded if there are multiple casters. If 3 fighters can save against Color Spray, Charm Person, and Sleep in a single round against 3 caster, they deserve to win. But I'm betting they won't. Higher the level of the game, the more difficult it is for opponents to save against everything.
Fun is subjective. If a group is having fun, that's fine. If they choose to go 4 casters and solve problems that way, that's fine. The problem seems to be that going 4 casters seem to be objectively BETTER. That's a problem I wish that can be fixed.