Color me shocked, but it’s begun.
The primary concern that I had with the introduction of Asian-themed elements into the Golarion and the Pathfinder RPG had very little to do with the source material and everything to do with the very vocal “It must be Uber-everything” crowd. The katana must be the most superior weapon in the game, the ninja must be able to out sneak the rogue, out fight the fighter, and out martial arts the monk, and so on.
With the introduction of the archetypes system in the APG, I had hoped that ninja & samurai would end up as archetypes. I figured Paizo would lean towards separate classes (& while there are limitations with the alternate class distinction, it’s still a separate class in the book and on the character sheet) so I wasn’t surprised to see ninja and samurai called out as classes. The gunslinger was a surprising inclusion, I have to admit.
Now we have threads upon threads talking about the inferiority of guns (“I should be able to snipe & one-shot a dragon through the eye!”), the katana (“it can slice through stone”), and the gunslinger and the ninja – the most disturbing posts being the ones that say that the base classes need buffed rather than having the ninja or gunslinger toned down.
Aside from satisfying the fan-boy quest for character coolness, that is simply bad game design. Your 10-min fix can seriously harm the PFRPG’s health and longevity.
1. The first printing of the core rulebook was a mere 18 months ago.
2. Based on various reviews & fan-related feedback of the vast majority of PF fans, Paizo did a bang-up job of improving all of the base classes - -including the rogue. Given the sheer number of increased abilities gained through rogue tricks & advanced tricks (further expanded in the APG), the rogue is fine. It’s one of the most popular classes in both of my player groups and no one’s complaining it’s not effective. I’m sure most classes can’t hold up at the tables of min-maxers that think all classes should do the same DPR, starting characters have to have a 20 stat to be viable, and wizards got “nerfed”.
3. The power scale can’t always go UP. The answer to every overpowered option isn’t to increase the power level of everything else.
If the (playtest) ninja becomes the new baseline power level for class design, you’ve invalidated the core rulebook 18 mos. after its publication. Considering the Paizo staff have expressed a desire of editions going for many years (some posts cited a decade or so if I recall directly), this would seem to be [u]spectacularly stupid[/u] philosophy for them to adopt.
Fortunately, again based on posts from Paizo staff, this idea of buffing the rogue & others seems to hold little or no weight. So while I’m still not a fan of a ninja, samurai, or gunslinger class, I recognize every whim & desire I have for the game isn’t going to be met either. Once again, thank you for giving the game the treatment it deserves and for finding options that appeal to the lion’s share of your fans.
Hopefully, this “buff this” mentality can be relegated to the same bin of bad PFRPG suggestions as incorporating 4e design elements/making PF more 4e-ish into the game…
I think a large amount of the difficulty in balancing the classes is defining a rubric for viability across all classes. This isn't an MMO, and so we can't balance everything off of damage, defense, buffing, or debuffing. We have social situations, we have skill-use situations, we have roleplaying situations. Probably the largest factor in how well one class does over another is how the GM runs the game. My GM does away with the Appraise skill to speed things up. Some GMs have a focus almost entirely on Combat (which is going to make the Rogue and the Bard far less useful than if they were in Social and Skill-use situations.)
Ironically, balancing the classes against each other based on all of these factors is a prescriptive method, meaning that in some form, it's showing the GMs how they should run the game. Yet that is clearly not the focus of designing a Tabletop RPG. I will comment, however, that the archetypes have gone a long way to smooth this idiosyncrasy out. Highly optimized Big Dumb Fighter isn't going to be effective in a high Roleplay setting? Go for one of the flavorful archetypes and build a good backstory.
As far as fretting for the Ultimate Combat classes, all I can say is that it's first playtest, and it's an EARLY playtest, at that.
I ask, OP: do you really fear Ninja means power creep? You really think that Ninja is stupid powerful? Compared, say, to a Sorcerer?
Said this, "buff Rogue" does not mean "give Rogue Lazors". When people suggested some cool tool for rogues, was to discuss about things people expected from the rogue and the rogue cannot have without multiclassing (Hide in Plain Sight), thing the rogue cannot do and formerly was able to do (Sneak attack with Flasks).
Maybe without giving up vital stuff like Trapfinding.
About the Katana... are you sure you didn't misinterpreted some post? I remember someone re-post ironically an old post about uber-katanas, but it was not intended to be serious.
Finally, please note that balance is impossible to reach without making everything the same. On the other hand, a careful fine tuning of rules can lead to:
1) diverse, interesting choices more or less powerful depending fromthe situation
2) the possibility to explore new character concepts, archetypes and tactics, increasing the fun.
I think the opinion on the viability of the Rogue is pretty divided. I fall more into the camp of thought that the class is underpowered in comparison to even other martial classes. An Urban Ranger does about everything better than a Rogue, for example.
As such, introducing a Rogue-like class which is obviously better than the Rogue doesn't upset me in the slightest. It rather seems as a good idea to create some incentives to bring the classes with problems ( Monk, Rogue ) up to the level of the well-done classes.
Paizo developers ( Jason or James, I am not exactly sure which of the two ) said that they don't think the Rogue has a power problem. I'd be really interested to know why they think it is well balanced, as a contrast to the side who think the class is underpowered.
the problem often seems to be that people think "ninja is better than rogue, we have to give the rogue something". Well the ninja is a rogue, so if he is slightly better, then the rogue got something. However this comes from the "rogue-sucks?" question.
Also playtesting ain't over. I don't think the gunslinger will stay as he is, and same is for the ninja.
I still hope that the base-classes will stay the "best" choices for that character in general, and alternative things will be mostly for fluff.
|
If the (playtest) ninja becomes the new baseline power level for class design, you’ve invalidated the core rulebook 18 mos. after its publication. Considering the Paizo staff have expressed a desire of editions going for many years (some posts cited a decade or so if I recall directly), this would seem to be [u]spectacularly stupid[/u] philosophy for them to adopt.
This.
I still hope that the base-classes will stay the "best" choices for that character in general, and alternative things will be mostly for fluff.
And this, too.
Classes don't need to be balanced imo.
Classes AREN'T balanced. They are not supposed to be. They do different things. All are good to have. They should be equally able to provide a service to the party though.
Classes AREN'T balanced. They are not supposed to be. They do different things. All are good to have. They should be equally able to provide a service to the party though.
How much service? Or how many points of service? I would venture to say that most people won't find it enjoyable to only benefit the party when they enter a town, because his character is excellent at finding accommodations and good deals from the merchants. I'm not saying that any of the current classes only contribute such a benefit, but I submit that it doesn't exist for a reason: no one would play it.
As I said above, there is a perceived benefit to the party, and it is even quantifiable. It isn't EASILY quantifiable, but just as you decide in the grocery store if you'd rather have this type of apple or another, you assign a relative value to both items. Likewise with character abilities and mechanics. There is a relative weight that is assigned to the classes, and they are generally going to be different for each person assessing them. This, of course, makes designing the characters more difficult that many people realize.
And the other variable to consider, again, is the campaign and the GM's play style. If the GM is running a one-off meat-grinder, the conscientious player is going to want to make sure their character has a higher survivability, combat versatility, sustainability, what have you.
But perhaps the most interesting point is that so MANY people think the Rogue is underpowered even though he fills some of the roles that are commonly useful in a party.
Classes AREN'T balanced. They are not supposed to be. They do different things. All are good to have. They should be equally able to provide a service to the party though.How much service? Or how many points of service? I would venture to say that most people won't find it enjoyable to only benefit the party when they enter a town, because his character is excellent at finding accommodations and good deals from the merchants. I'm not saying that any of the current classes only contribute such a benefit, but I submit that it doesn't exist for a reason: no one would play it.
My point was that not all classes do the "putting the hurt on monsters" equally well. A cleric oriented around buffs, debuffs and healing might never do a single point of damage, but his contribution to a party is very real, even if everyone and their grandma can take him in a 1-on-1.
Contribution to combat is a necessity, as combat is 70% of the game. My wife plays a Rogue/Diviner/Arcane Trickster that does nowhere near the damage the rest of us do, but she shines outside combat, and does help by casting haste, see invisible+glitterdust and such to help the rest of us murder even faster and more effectively.
My point was that not all classes do the "putting the hurt on monsters" equally well. A cleric oriented around buffs, debuffs and healing might never do a single point of damage, but his contribution to a party is very real, even if everyone and their grandma can take him in a 1-on-1.Contribution to combat is a necessity, as combat is 70% of the game. My wife plays a Rogue/Diviner/Arcane Trickster that does nowhere near the damage the rest of us do, but she shines outside combat, and does help by casting haste, see invisible+glitterdust and such to help the rest of us murder even faster and more effectively.
I agree with you. Play outside of combat is a largely contributing factor. But there has to be a measure of how much non-damage play contributes. Unfortunately it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to do it. So that's got to make designing this stuff extremely difficult.
I agree that setting a new power baseline is bad game design. However, I also agree that a power baseline is a very subjective and variable thing. Taking into account the Rogue vs. the Ninja.
The ninja, without a doubt, is much more effective as a melee combatant. He has access to a 1d10 damage weapon at level 1, sneak attack, a very nifty ki-pool, and some seriously awesome tricks that give him major combat advantages (1 ki point for mirror image? Yes sir!).
That said, where the rogue shines is in his defensive capabilities, which the ninja lacks HORRIBLY. Trapfinding and trap sense both grant a HUGE boon when dungeon crawling. The ability to detect/disarm magical traps is something no party should be without, as well as a designated front-man who can dodge near-anything. Likewise, evasion at level 2 is incredible. With an already-powerful reflex save and a likely high dex, the rogue is the evoker's worst nightmare. AoE damage just doesn't apply to him. Yes, a ninja can get evasion, but not until level 10.
A ninja can deal some damage, and has some decent combat prowess. But he still has the same HP as a rogue, with less defense. And he's more MAD to boot, tossing charisma onto his list of "sh*t I need to be effective."
Note that all this is coming from someone who doesn't particularly like ninjas. I'm not a "Get this asian crap out of my western fantasy" guy, but ninjas in general feel over-done and stale. I am of the school of thought that the ninja should just be an archetype, with ninja tricks turning into rogue talents, and a small ki pool available to everyone as a feat (2 + wis/cha or something).
Again: increasing the power baseline is bad game design, and "buffing" the rogue is a BAD idea. The rogue is good at what it does, it doesn't need to be buffed.
-The Beast
NOTE: The gunslinger on the other hand seriously needs a re-write to make his damn weapon actually effective in combat. But that's a topic for another thread.
Um, why did this get moved to "Ninja Discussion"?
My post was about a concern of buffing of core classes via a ripple-effect of UC-class power creep. While I used the Ninja-good/Rogue-underpowered argument as the primary example, this was not a thread started to achieve another discussion solely about the Ninja class.
I started the thread out of a concern for the RPG as a whole.
Um, why did this get moved to "Ninja Discussion"?
My post was about a concern of buffing of core classes via a ripple-effect of UC-class power creep. While I used the Ninja-good/Rogue-underpowered argument as the primary example, this was not a thread started to achieve another discussion solely about the Ninja class.
I started the thread out of a concern for the RPG as a whole.
It got moved here because no one is suggesting moving the power curve.
No one has said to buff the fighter, druid, sorceror, wizard, cleric, alchemist, oracle, cavalier, witch, barbarian, monk (okay sometimes), bard.
these have not been asked to be buffed, and are actually well balanced with the UC classes.
Do you know who has been asked to be buffed? the rogue, that is all, The ninja is better then the rogue but is no more powerful then any other class.
So it isn't the ninja increasing the power curve, it is the rogue that was never anywhere near that curve in the first place.
|
A ninja can deal some damage, and has some decent combat prowess. But he still has the same HP as a rogue, with less defense. And he's more MAD to boot, tossing charisma onto his list of "sh*t I need to be effective."
I agree with most of your post and also feel that the rogue has some advantages that the ninja just doesnt get, the 'less defense' part, specifically (though I accidently deleted it from what I was gonna quote lol) the 'evade + high reflex is an evokers worst nightmare' is extremely useful, I'll give you that, but in a pure combat sense, I'll take Vanishing Trick in its current form over Evade any day in a combat situation.
Rogue: Evade to escape most/all of the damage the evoker throws at you, do your thing in combat.
Ninja: Vanishing Trick to go invisible to move unopposed through the battlefield to Sneak Attack the evoker(d10 for katana + d6 SA + 1.5*Str dmg can be deadly for a lvl 2 caster), and then Swift action back to being invisible for 1ki point, and repeat the process.
Back closer to topic. I agree that the Ninja probably needs to be curbed a bit to keep it close to the rogue in combat effectiveness as possible, opposed to upping the rogue's power level to match what the ninja is now in round 1 of the early playtest.
However, even if the ninja was released as is, does it risk unbalancing the game? No. Will it make the regular rogue less-playable. Probably. But the rest of the classes dont directly compare to it, and it doesnt really overshadow anything (except maybe the rogue in a few places) so the game will be just fine.
Also, to quote someone else in this thread: We are in Round 1 of this early playtest. Plenty of time for change.
Now we have threads upon threads talking about the inferiority of guns (“I should be able to snipe & one-shot a dragon through the eye!”), the katana (“it can slice through stone”), and the gunslinger and the ninja – the most disturbing posts being the ones that say that the base classes need buffed rather than having the ninja or gunslinger toned down.
Um ok... hyperbole much? The katana is an existing weapon. Is it a good weapon? Absolutely? Is it cause to start digging out apocalypse bunkers? No. The ninja gets a specific exotic weapon in its list. So does the monk, it doesnt make it over powered. In fact it still isnt the most effective weapon for a ninja to use. Sneak attack is still at it's best with MATCHED 2 weapon fighting. You cant do that with katanas, you you are better off with 2 short swords, just like the vast majority of rogues. Using the 'overpowered' katana is actually a step down in overall effectiveness.
And the gunslinger...seriously? Are you looking at the same class as the rest of us? The one that needs 3 feats and 11th level to start working at all? How does this need to be toned down? Compared to what exactly? Guns as they exist (including in the hands of gunslingers) are weapons crossbow users laugh at, they only need TWO feats for their weapon to start working, let alone the archer who mocks the gunslingers as her rapid/manyshots the enemy at 2nd level.
I dont actually care to argue your point about the general power curve going up, because these new classes are still way behind casters in power, so you can have a seat in the 'martial characters cant have nice things' desk and we'll agree that you and i wont get to a point of agreement on the subject. But your foundation that its because of the ninja and especially the literally unplayable gunslinger is so outrageous it actually made me wonder if this is a deliberate attempt to incite angry responses.
The Ninja doesn't do anything the Rogue shouldn't be able to. Rapier for katana is a fair trade, considering the rapier is a better weapon for the Rogue, anyway.
And the ki pool is a good excuse for Rogues to buy Charisma.