As I've reviewed the existing archetypes and read many of the threads on the subject, a thought monster has slowly crept its plodding way across my withered mind...
How do we (or they, being Paizo) maintain game balance with Archetypes?
My #1 concern about Archetypes is that the same thing happens to them that happened to Kits and is happening to Prestige Classes.
That is, as more and more are developed, they become progressively more powerful. It seemed that those who approved them become less sensitive to game balance and more focused on diversity, and -frankly- coolness.
What more, there is the potential to start having archetypes for every little nuance of a difference in character styles.
In 2E if you looked at the kits from the fighter's handbook next to the kits in the paladin's handbook you saw huge changes in power level. The same occured from the thief to the bard. The elves handbook was even worse (though cool).
In 3E they got rid of kits, and decided to use prestige classes. At first this was good, but as more books came out you had more and more powerful prestige classes appear. Also, you had prestige classes for such minor character choices that they didn't make sense (ie chain fighter).
Eventually the games became unbalanced.
I don't think Paizo will let this happen. They are very astute and game balance is very important to them.
However, as other publishers produce books, each GM must weigh the power of those unofficial Archetypes and see if they will fit well into the game balance.
That said, as we develop our Archetypes, or as we vote on others', we must keep that point in mind as well.
Creating a "system" to balance Archetypes is difficult, but I can tell that Paizo put a lot of work into balancing the Core Classes. I hope that before any archetype is officially published by them, it will have the eye of scrutiny and be placed on the rusty balances of game design :).
Just my thoughts,
Ken
As a developer, part of my job is to squelch problems like that.
I prefer to err on the side of caution when looking at new archetype abilities. I'd rather a new archetype be less powerful than the original class, but still interesting to someone who wants to play a character like that, than bump the power level even a little bit.
Keep in mind I played a rogue 5/fighter 6/cleric 4 in Monte's original Ptolus game... not exactly a powergaming combo. ;)
The problem with both AD&D kits and 3.x PrCs were that there were specific kits and PrCs produced BY THE MAIN PUBLISHER (TSR/WotC) that were broken (YMMV on how broken a given kit/PrC was, of course).
For example, I'm blanking on the name, but I know there was an "official" AD&D thief kit that caused you to give up NONE of your standard thief abilities, but you gained several additional abilities.
And nearly all of the WotC "Complete" books had at least one PrC that just made no sense for a player NOT to take it if they played a certain class, because again, they lost nothing and gained everything.
As exemplified by Sean Reynolds' post above, Paizo has done an excellent job of publishing Archetypes (which are more a contemporary love child of AD&D kits and 3.x Alternate Class Abilities) and PrCs that always involve that oh-so-necessary tradeoff--you are always trading one thing for another of relatively equal value.
(If anything, I struggle with the existing APG archetypes because some of the tradeoffs aren't strong enough (e.g., Freehand fighter trading Armor Training for Elusive isn't an equally balanced trade, with Armor Training being better, IMO). Although Mr. Reynolds' statement explains some of that.)
So the only real concern---will Paizo create power creep with Archetypes and PrCs? Can be answered with a firm "that is highly unlikely." There are not, right now (that I'm aware of), any official materials with the kind of feared brokenness that, frankly, TSR and WotC comparatively created with their own two hands.
As for 3rd Party Publishers---buying products from them is ALWAYS a matter of caveat emptor, no matter what the content is.
Will a 3PP put out archetypes that are stupidly overpowered? Probably.
But the nice thing is that 3PPs aren't official. They are not necessary. Of course, well-written 3PPs are always nice to have.
How do we ensure 3PPs make non-broken stuff? We the gamers review the material before we buy, and we do not put money in the pockets of publishers who create poor material.
With OGL material, it is not likely or fair to expect Paizo to limit their creativity because some hack takes an idea and exploits it in unbalanced way. So it falls to the publishers to make good stuff, and to the customers to push them to maintain a high standard of material. Fortunately, many of the current 3PPs of PFRPG compatible materials have worked to maintain that standard.
|
Paizo has been traditionally very careful and timid with their crunch. A little too timid even, but at least we don't run the risk of seeing Ur-Priests, Abjurant Cheespions and Sublime Chords, hopefully.
The APG was a big test, but they pulled it thru - the book contains a nice ratio of good and useful stuff to "less useful but hey, somebody's going to like it" stuff. As opposed to an average WotC 3.5 splatbook, which was 10% unusable, 40% "meh", 40% "well maybe" and 10% "Holy Pun Pun Batman, what were they thinking ?".
I don't think Paizo will let this happen. They are very astute and game balance is very important to them.However, as other publishers produce books, each GM must weigh the power of those unofficial Archetypes and see if they will fit well into the game balance.
As other publishers produce books, each GM must look at basically everything therein to see if it's not too powerful. And they should do it with Paizo stuff, too, because nobody is perfect and sometimes the GM has special insights into his game, campaign and style that let him view things in a different light.
I'll agree that Paizo has done a good job most of the time.
But anyway, the problem is not really tied to archetypes. There are so many things people can screw up, Archetypes just add one more type of rules mechanic people can mess up, but since books will probably not get bigger because of them, I don't think it will be any more work than before (except for the Big Book of Archetypes or something like that, of course).
So, personally, I add archetypes to a list that already contains races, base classes, prestige classes, feats, equipment, magic items, spells, and traits (and probably other stuff I forgot) and welcome the addition of archetypes into the game, since I really like them! Class variants have always been interesting, if done right.
|
The problem with both AD&D kits and 3.x PrCs were that there were specific kits and PrCs produced BY THE MAIN PUBLISHER (TSR/WotC) that were broken (YMMV on how broken a given kit/PrC was, of course).
For example, I'm blanking on the name, but I know there was an "official" AD&D thief kit that caused you to give up NONE of your standard thief abilities, but you gained several additional abilities.
Swashbuckler kits for rogue or ranger. You gave up nothing and got a rangers THAC0 (for thiefs) or rogues backstab (for rangers).
Tho I think you may have been limited in weapons (you could only backstab with daggers, stilleto's and other dagger like weapons, but that's how backstab worked anyway)
The only "power creep" I've noticed is with the fighter archetypes - but only compared to the original fighter. There's an archetype for each "fighting school", so if you were going to focus on one (like 99% of all fighters do), there's no reason not to take the archetype version - if you want to be a TWF fighter, you really have no reason not to be a Two Weapon Warrior. Though I do notice that just about all the Fighter archetypes ditch Armor Training, a very attractive option that remains the domain of vanilla fighters.
Of course, this sort of "power creep" is nothing compared to the torrential downpour of poorly thought out 3.5 material. The slight imbalance I'm noting here is indeed very slight - perhaps not even an imbalance at all.
That being said, I love the fighter archetypes so much. Whenever I pick a fighting style for a non-fighter character, I look back at the fighter archetypes and sigh wistfully at all the cool stuff I'm missing out on. Paizo did a really good job of making the fighter an attractive option.
As I've reviewed the existing archetypes and read many of the threads on the subject, a thought monster has slowly crept its plodding way across my withered mind...
How do we (or they, being Paizo) maintain game balance with Archetypes?
My #1 concern about Archetypes is that the same thing happens to them that happened to Kits and is happening to Prestige Classes.
That is, as more and more are developed, they become progressively more powerful. It seemed that those who approved them become less sensitive to game balance and more focused on diversity, and -frankly- coolness.
What more, there is the potential to start having archetypes for every little nuance of a difference in character styles.
In 2E if you looked at the kits from the fighter's handbook next to the kits in the paladin's handbook you saw huge changes in power level. The same occured from the thief to the bard. The elves handbook was even worse (though cool).
In 3E they got rid of kits, and decided to use prestige classes. At first this was good, but as more books came out you had more and more powerful prestige classes appear. Also, you had prestige classes for such minor character choices that they didn't make sense (ie chain fighter).
Eventually the games became unbalanced.
You’re describing power-creep, and it is very difficult to avoid. I agree that Paizo is aware of the danger and has done an excellent job at avoiding it.
However, as other publishers produce books, each GM must weigh the power of those unofficial Archetypes and see if they will fit well into the game balance.
My solution is to ignore 3rd party material entirely. Once in a while something stands out, and I review it carefully, and then still ignore it.
The only 3rd party material I’ve used so far was Making Craft Work, and I really don’t miss the rest.
ive found that what you have to give up for archtypes is often stuff i want to Keep. So whenver ive looked at Making a fighter i say 'i dont want to loose x' and often just Stick with normal fighter when working out the idea.
So i think this means what you give up for them matters.
On the other hand i noticed when looking at Monk archtypes i am not attatched to any of the monks class abilities and dont seem to have this reaction.
but i think that thats because the monk just has so many of them.
I agree APG Fighter variants are the ones pushing the envelope...
Archer variant being able to Full Attack in melee is a huge difference.
Certainly choosing WHICH variant you want might be hard in many cases (2Handed vs. Mobile vs. 2WF)
But basically the ONLY reason to go Vanilla Fighter is Armor Training, which besides POSSIBLY eking out a few points of AC is essentially about Tumbling in heavier Armors (cetainly a nice ability). But worst case, that just means variant Fighters are limited to Tumbling in Mithril Breastplate... Any Fighter who ISN`T maxing Acrobatics (and finding ways to buff it besides ranks) just doesn`t care much about that loss, and Mitrhil Breastplate is a decent enough Armor to begin with, especially with Nat Armor items, Bracers of Armor for properties and Miss Chance / other AC items.
Losing Weapon Training in 2ndary Groups just doesn`t matter THAT much IMHO - A 2 Handed Fighter can still easily afford the few Feats to buff Archery DPR (PBS, Multi, Rapid) and will still do signifigant damage on the rounds they are FulL Attack shooting when melee isn`t an option. Likewise, I just don`t see a Fighter who chooses to focus mostly on Ranged Combat caring THAT much whether their 2ndary melee options have their lower Tier Weapon Training or not... Especially given that they can now use their bow in melee. If Grapple was part of Close Combat group that might be something signifigant giving up the 2ndary Weapon Training bonus on (if it applied to Grapple CMD), but that isn`t the case... Even 2-Handed Fighters can use a weapon like Scimitar or Bastard Sword 1-Handed with all Weapon Focus/Spec bonuses when Grappled, etc, just without Training and special class abilities.
I do think some of the archetypes are more powerful than others.
I don't think that this is absolutely true in every circumstance. The fighter archetypes are what you're going to take if you use x weapon or shield bash, the ranger ones give excellent (perhaps too excellent) non-spellcasting options. At the same time, the APG introduced a lot of new spells and feats that would be useful, and fed my desire for more polearms to the busting point. If you decide to not take spells as a ranger or paladin, you lose out on something. If you take some of them, you're more of a specialist. Does this make you better than your "basic class" at something? Yes. Because that's what they're designed to do.
Some of the archetypes are clearly in there to try out a fun concept. Others are there to allow for a "class" that people really wanted to play (Like the swashbuckler archetype for rogue) but didn't seem to be worth a whole new class worth of mechanics. These tend to be the less powerful archetypes. The more focused archetypes often give up something small, like say, trap sense, in return for a bigger payoff. I believe that these archetypes can be more powerful when played to their strengths than the base classes. However, D&D is not about playing to your strengths. It's about using everything in your set of skills and box of magic stuff to not die against the DM's monsters and traps. These more focused archetypes, even when giving up something as small as trap sense, will probably wish they had it at some point when the fighter stomps on a pressure plate and sends rocks falling from the ceiling towards the back of the group. Honestly, they may be better at their thing, but they're hardly a replacement for a generalist.
There's an archetype for each "fighting school", so if you were going to focus on one (like 99% of all fighters do), there's no reason not to take the archetype version
I wouldn't call all those archetypes must-haves. There might be some among them that are hands down better than the general fighter in their niche, but in general, I'd say the standard fighter, with his weapon training and armour training, is always an attractive option!
Maybe I just haven't gotten the art of prediction down yet, but whenever I play a fighter, I NEVER seem to specialize in the campaign's uber-weapon. Though I can easily see the advantage of an archetyped fighter when the gear are my own decision, I can also see a HUGE advantage in the vanilla for adaptability.
Sure its still a bit of a guessing game, but much less of one. This is of course ultimately a question of play-style, but I really see a strong advantage in versatility here, not by having four backup weapons, but being able to turn many a centerpiece of a dragon's hoard into your new weapon. Or PFS open play, where you don't always pick what +2 weapon your second to last foe will drop that isn't in the available loot at the close of play.
Home campaign with a GM who wants you to have the ultimate longsword ...er i mean light pick of power, then this post is not valid. But module runners with GMs who don't redesign every cache, or players with GMs that like a more 'believable' game, vanilla may be for you!
|
|
Honestly, considering how much talk there is about the 3.x system preferring casting over melee, is this really an issue?
Personally, I'd have preferred all the Fighter archetypes options simply be feats (Fighter-only or Combat *shrug*).
And while I can see someone playing a Rogue without Trapfinding (some campaigns it won't come up) I can't imagine *anyone* wanting to play a Bard without Inspire Courage.
I think game mechanics expertise is far better these days as RPG forums gives designers a clear look at how players are "crunching the numbers" and using material. Plus Paizo has greater interaction with players and DMs which gives them a greater idea of how their books are being used in games. I think they've learnt from the mess that 3.5 became and you can see it by how they've released material for people to download, test/use and then give feedback. So I'm not worried about the archetypes destabilising the game like some kits did "back in the day" of kits. Game mechanics wasn't a huge focus of RPGs like it is now and I reckon Paizo is on top of it.
As for PrCs I think that Archetypes are more restrictive in that you can't take two fighter archetypes. Its one or the other. Part of the mess that 3.5 became was the constant class hopping that players started to do to build their characters. Yes it wasn't always in the pursuit of power, but I reckon it made for a power creep. By making these Archetypes instead of PrCs it restricts the access to the class hoppers.
Plus Archetypes should be more balanced because there is a clear trade off. Give up ability X at Y level for new ability Z. So X should equal Z or at least approximately. With PrCs you could be starting it at different levels and you're also measuring the power of it by its delaying of access to and progression of abilities. Its more complicated and then theres the whole other classes meeting the pre-req's to exploit unintended combinations. Front-loading isn't a problem here.
Ultimately I trust the power levels of archetypes (current and future) because I believe they saw the mess that 3.5 became. I think they've learnt about the importance of thinking about how potential abilities could be combo'd and exploited. With the various optimization guides online I'm sure designers have a good idea about how rules exploiters are using current material. In Paizo I trust - bring on more archetypes.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to play a bard.
Other than the way Bardic Performance (BP) has changed (I liked a number of uses per day vs the number of rounds thing. More so with the Inspire Confidence BP seeing as there are quite a few of prolonged skill checks.), the bard has really received some excellent changes. Bardic Knowledge as a bonus to knowledge skill ranks is fantastic compared to an unclear check on its own. Versatile Performance even more so when your performance skills ranks count for other skills. (A true jack-of-all-trades.)
Like the fighter, the bard got a significant bump. I've played bards in 2nd edition, 3.5 and now in Pathfinder. And no I'm not a bard fan. In fact, I wasn't even planning to play a bard in PF. It just sorta happened organically based on what happened in the game.
Take another look TriOmegaZero. Maybe even look how a higher STR and mediocre CHA can create an interesting alternative to what people expect of a bard.
And as for PrC vs. Archetype... I really liked PrCs; some more than others. But I won't cry if we don't see them again in PF. 3.0 and 3.5 were brutal with them. Perhaps Archetypes will win out.
It's a joke. :) Had an annoying player play a bard once, and he was moderately useless most of the time. Thus we mock bards.
HAHAHA I caught it this time! (TMZ usually catches me with such statements too) -- and mocking a bard? Isn't that a bit of a twist!
|
Yeah, the 'bard sucks' meme helps make the joke funny. I've come around to where I think the bard is good as support, and even good when built right for more. Said player had shot himself in the foot by mostly focusing on knife-throwing and taking Master Thrower. He did shine in roleplaying moments, and even helped in a particular encounter once he picked up Dimension Door. As frustrating as he was for the other players, I did actually enjoy having him in the game.
Missed the inflection, TriOmegaZero. My bad.