Literally had to bite my lip not to knock my cubicle over while shaking with laughter...
We Flame-Warriors are happy that you are entertained.
*rat-a-tap-tap...*
It's the low Dexterity score, obviously.
|
Tic-Tac-Toe is also pretty much perfectly balanced... wonder why more people don't play it?
Only people who actively play Tic-Tac-Toe think it's balanced.
Everyone else knows the game goes to whoever goes first. That's why I published my home-brew rules wherein the first player is decided by the flip of a coin. But then I had to present a 3rd edition when I realized that having a face on one side of the coin and a building on the other side was upsetting the balance of the coin. Now you are expected to spin the coin instead.
Next I'm planning a 4th edition wherein the grid is four tiles across to avoid the "perfect play" strategy (top left, bottom right, top right, followed by any of the center square, top center, or right center, whichevers available). In that edition, the first player is decided by the direction of the first bird to fly past the window...
Tic-Tac-Toe is also pretty much perfectly balanced... wonder why more people don't play it?
Actually, its game mechanics are inherently flawed; the player who starts has a clear advantage. Our group has house-ruled Tic-Tac-Toe™ so that both players start simultaneously and we use a chess timer to enforce rapid play. And, except for a few accidental pencil stab wounds, it's worked quite well for us. I can post our Tic-Tac-Toe™ house rules if any are interested.
|
|
Tic-Tac-Toe is also pretty much perfectly balanced... wonder why more people don't play it?Actually, its game mechanics are inherently flawed; the player who starts has a clear advantage. Our group has house-ruled Tic-Tac-Toe™ so that both players start simultaneously and we use a chess timer to enforce rapid play. And, except for a few accidental pencil stab wounds, it's worked quite well for us. I can post our Tic-Tac-Toe™ house rules if any are interested.
I'm sorry... did you just start a Tic-Tac-Toe edition war with me?!?!?
No one will buy your product. *I* am the official and definitive Tic-Tac-Toe designer.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Tic-Tac-Toe is also pretty much perfectly balanced... wonder why more people don't play it?Actually, its game mechanics are inherently flawed; the player who starts has a clear advantage. Our group has house-ruled Tic-Tac-Toe™ so that both players start simultaneously and we use a chess timer to enforce rapid play. And, except for a few accidental pencil stab wounds, it's worked quite well for us. I can post our Tic-Tac-Toe™ house rules if any are interested.
Actually, I have house rules to address the accidental stabbing issue: you simply don't use writing implements. You do it all mentally, assuming as part of your calculations that your opponent makes optimal moves, and you can extrapolate - without writing - who the eventual winner is. This has myriad benefits (aside from the aforementioned stablessness), such as reduced cost and waste, quicker play, and the ability to play when your opponent is not able to make it to the session.
I'm sorry... did you just start a Tic-Tac-Toe edition war with me?!?!?
No one will buy your product. *I* am the official and definitive Tic-Tac-Toe designer.
I'm not publishing a product; as I said, our modifications are merely house-rules. Tic-Tac-Toe isn't open-sourced dummy. Mark my words, you're going to get sued within an inch of your life for copyright infringement.
|
|
Alo, monks suck, and wizards are way too weak to be playable.
They should be able to cast in medium armor at least. One hit and the fighter kills them. Freaking melee classes are able to kill everything, while wizards run everywhere casting sucky fireballs...
*blink* *blink*
right troll, not serious
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would just like to point out that if the game were perfectly balanced, no one would be able to defeat anyone else. This game requires in-balance for there to be 'winners' and 'losers' -- generally of combat, but in other ways too.
The classic character archetypes are built around the idea that they can do one or two things much better than anyone else, and one thing that no-one else can do. Fighters can hit hard and big wear armor, rogues can sneak up on gods, disable traps and pickpocket kings in plain sight, clerics can heal and speak to the gods and forces of nature, wizards can cast spells and learn arcane secrets. With effort, resources, and time, it is possible for those characters to branch into the other archetypes, and be able to do those others things a little bit, but not overshadow the original.
Unfortunately, this is not true practically, because, well, magic is magical, and can do anything -- the game now is that it is stronger and more 'effective' than anything else. And games aren't just a series of hallways, traps and monsters; there are things in between that can be just as challenging and dangerous to the characters. So versatility is extremely important as well. (For a complete explication of what I'm talking about here, please visit the Class Tiers post here
What I'm trying to get around to is that this game is inherently unbalanced, and -- here's the point -- has to be unbalanced. Perfect balance is static, and has no room for growth. Chess, for example. Right now the problem that many people see, complain about, and a few try to alleviate (ToZ and Kirth, and Evil Lincoln, for example) is that magic isn't just specialized any more, but grandiose and all-powerful. This game (and most like it) are unbalanced. That is good. It also has the problem of having some characters specialized strengths be better than others. That's something we can work on as a community, rather than just, y'know, complaining about it.
EDIT: Hey, uh, yeah. I know that this actually has nothing to do with the TWF feat chain, etc. but I really wanted to have this said. We need to stop talking about balance as if it were some sort of golden nirvana of playability in the sky, and instead focus on making the characters specialized, versatile, and effective.
Senior Software Developer
|
Pfft. Everybody knows the best way to chess is da mystery of chess boxing.
Pfft. Everybody knows the best way to chess is da mystery of chess boxing.
Real men play mixed martial arts chess.
I thought Pathfinder was bad at balance because, being an inanimate object, the rulebook has a Dex of 0, meaning it always fails Acrobatics checks.
Alternately, if we're talking about the system of rules, those are intangible and non-corporeal, so they're actually superbly balanced, I suppose.
I thought Pathfinder was bad at balance because, being an inanimate object, the rulebook has a Dex of 0, meaning it always fails Acrobatics checks.
Alternately, if we're talking about the system of rules, those are intangible and non-corporeal, so they're actually superbly balanced, I suppose.
Yeah, but if they got the kerning of the font wrong, the ink might be off! Then the rules are fart-tastic!
Bunch'a dweebs on this board, playing the game wrong.
"Balance" offends the chaotic side of my nature. If Paizo were to make Pathfinder "balanced" then I'd have to stop playing it.
And if Two-Weapon Fighting were easier to become skilled at effectively, more people would be using it. How annoying would that be? All the Two-Handed melee-types are bad enough.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, didn't the OP already take his ball and go home to play Essentials?
I'm generally of the opinion that the fewer self-proclaimed, all-knowing lords of balance and good game design in the Pathfinder population, the better the gaming experience will be. I'd say I support having Pathfinder be the least balanced, most ridiculous game ever in the history of the hobby if it drives off people like the OP.
Don't get me wrong, I like creating ridiculous scenarios based on reading the core rules as if they were instructions for assembling a nightstand as much as the next guy, but I also like having fun while gaming. Pathfinder is fun to play, and that's really all I care about.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong...
Oh, another post about the almighty "balance." Wow, this never gets old.
|
Alo, monks suck, and wizards are way too weak to be playable.
They should be able to cast in medium armor at least. One hit and the fighter kills them. Freaking melee classes are able to kill everything, while wizards run everywhere casting sucky fireballs...*blink* *blink*
right troll, not serious
You calling me a troll because I'm only stating an obvious truth is insulting to say the least, and probably representative of the Paizo community from your acts alone. The fighter totally owns any wizard. Just spring attack + vital strike + overhand chop + charge + power attack the guy and he'll cry when killed by a x3 falcata critical.
And the monk, hell, even the wizard can beat him with the worst possible insult : ignoring him. Just cast expeditious retreat, and the sucker is only trying to follow your skinny nerdy ass flying over the battlefield while you run away to find another group who will accept to share their food by pity for you.
I disagree, and I'd love to have that discussion with you over on the 4e sub-forum.4e balanced, LOL. Good one.+1. 4e is far more unbalanced than PF (or even core 3.5).
I'll have to agree with Scott on this one, having played (and, dare I say it? ENJOYED a couple of 4E games).
I'm not as qualified as Scott to discuss the 4E system, knowing Pathfinder a lot better.To me Pathfinder is "the game", but that is a matter of taste, not quality.
Good Gaming to you all,
GRU
Also, didn't the OP already take his ball and go home to play Essentials?
I'm generally of the opinion that the fewer power gaming min-maxers in the Pathfinder population, the better the gaming experience will be. I'd say I support having Pathfinder be the least balanced, most ridiculous game ever in the history of the hobby if it drives off people like the OP.
Don't get me wrong, I like creating ridiculous scenarios based on reading the core rules as if they were instructions for assembling a nightstand as much as the next guy, but I also like having fun while gaming. Pathfinder is fun to play, and that's really all I care about.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong...
Just because I'm a power-gaming min-maxer doesn't mean I can't have fun just like you can. Or roleplay well. You are not doing it wrong, and neither am I. Every way to play is the right/wrong way to play.
(This is known as the stormwind fallacy. I'm not trying to call you out on this, just letting you know it's a bit of an old hat in the gaming community. Powergaming != can't roleplay)
Oh, another post about the almighty "balance." Wow, this never gets old.Hey, some of us are seeing this for the first time, and it's a fun ride. :D
Trust me, despite all the flashy lights and cool theme music, this ride gets old quickly. Stick with bumper cars. They're always fun. Stay away from the games of skill though; they're all rigged.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because I'm a power-gaming min-maxer doesn't mean I can't have fun just like you can. Or roleplay well. You are not doing it wrong, and neither am I. Every way to play is the right/wrong way to play.
(This is known as the stormwind fallacy. I'm not trying to call you out on this, just letting you know it's a bit of an old hat in the gaming community. Powergaming != can't roleplay)
My bad. Wasn't trying to diss on the power gamers among us who can have a conversation about balance/mechanics without turning on the whambulence to cry about the game being "broken" generally. Power-gaming min-maxer was a substitute for a less pleasant, but more accurate, description and did not quite serve the intended purpose. Unfortunately, the word needed to capture the intended purpose would constitute a breach of forum rules.
I agree entirely with your sentiment - there's no right/wrong way to play. There's having fun, and there's not having fun. If you're having fun, you're doing it right. If you're not having fun, go find something fun to do.
Edit: Revised the post in question because it was clearly not what I meant to convey.
Basically if you like 3.5, but you know it had balance problems (per whatever definition you want to use), then pathfinder is based on the same mechanics, so by extension it will carry some of those issues over. In the same respect, you are not going to like 4E, since it is different from 3.5.
Based on playing either system, I have noticed balance problems with both, but I prefer how 4E attempted to tackle the problem, and I agree with the majority of design decisions they made.
I agree Pathfinder could have done alot more, but they also had to keep 3.5 fans interested, and had the specter of backwards compatability to deal with.
Anyone who starts a (legitimate) balance argument has obviously never been a Rifts player. Other wise they would find complaining about balance as silly as the rest of us.
Rifts was the second RPG I thought of. First one to come to mind was Shadowrun.
My bad. Wasn't trying to diss on the power gamers among us who can have a conversation about balance/mechanics without turning on the whambulence to cry about the game being "broken" generally. Power-gaming min-maxer was a substitute for a less pleasant, but more accurate, description and did not quite serve the intended purpose. Unfortunately, the word needed to capture the intended purpose would constitute a breach of forum rules.I agree entirely with your sentiment - there's no right/wrong way to play. There's having fun, and there's not having fun. If you're having fun, you're doing it right. If you're not having fun, go find something fun to do.
Edit: Revised the post in question because it was clearly not what I meant to convey.
No problem dude, glad we're all straight on what we meant to say. Sorry if I seemed abrupt or rude but I was just trying to keep my language clear. Have a smiley: :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No problem dude, glad we're all straight on what we meant to say. Sorry if I seemed abrupt or rude but I was just trying to keep my language clear. Have a smiley: :)
No worries and thanks for the smiley. You know you've done something wrong when someone responds to your post saying something you believe in opposition to what you posted.
In other words, had someone else posted what I posted, not only would I have had a similar reaction to you, I'd have been far less kind in my response.
I disagree, and I'd love to have that discussion with you over on the 4e sub-forum.4e balanced, LOL. Good one.+1. 4e is far more unbalanced than PF (or even core 3.5).
Well in 4e core every spell is just as easy to get rid of except those cast by Orb Wizard, witch become nearly impossible to get rid of.
Evrybody does about the same damage in normal combat except Storm Warden who does on average double.
Everybody attacks about as many times as anybody except fighter when using Steel Cage (or what that was) ... and as I recall he can get it back using Paragon.
In general 4e has far more choices in powers that simply suck. And some powers that are just ??? powerful.
I agree that PF isn't balanced between classes or even doesn't claim to be or try. And I only played 4e one campaign, but it seemed to me (and reading DPR threads the feeling echanced) that in 4e the damage differences got higher and the damage meant more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is bad at game balance for a simple reason: that wasn't one of Paizo's design goals when they created the system.
4E is very balanced because that was the primary design goal of that system. It gave up several other things to get that balance though.
As someone who plays both systems and enjoys them both, here is my perspective:
4E was created for the players (who mostly played Fighters and Rogues) who were sick of the godlike Wizards and Clerics dominating the game. They screamed out for balance and got it. I really enjoy that aspect of the game, but dislike the lack of fluff and flavor in 4E.
PF was designed for players who really enjoyed 3.5 and didn't really want it to change. Thus, the terrible brokenness of that system lives on in PF. I primarily enjoy playing PF for the excellent setting fluff and flavor of the game, and am willing to put up with the brokenness of the system.
I play a Fighter in both games, and there is a massive difference. 4E Fighters and Rogues are definitelty much better designed and more powerful. In PF, as with earlier editions of D&D, Fighters are mostly an afterthought and Rogues are mostly useful for skills, not their combat abilities.
So, I would say both editions have their strengths. For Paizo, their strength is their excellent setting and flavor material, while 4E is better known for game balance. Play what you like, or play both like I do. Flaming is useless all around though.
|
Pathfinder is bad at game balance for a simple reason: that wasn't one of Paizo's design goals when they created the system.4E is very balanced because that was the primary design goal of that system. It gave up several other things to get that balance though.
As someone who plays both systems and enjoys them both, here is my perspective:
4E was created for the players (who mostly played Fighters and Rogues) who were sick of the godlike Wizards and Clerics dominating the game. They screamed out for balance and got it. I really enjoy that aspect of the game, but dislike the lack of fluff and flavor in 4E.
PF was designed for players who really enjoyed 3.5 and didn't really want it to change. Thus, the terrible brokenness of that system lives on in PF. I primarily enjoy playing PF for the excellent setting fluff and flavor of the game, and am willing to put up with the brokenness of the system.
I play a Fighter in both games, and there is a massive difference. 4E Fighters and Rogues are definitelty much better designed and more powerful. In PF, as with earlier editions of D&D, Fighters are mostly an afterthought and Rogues are mostly useful for skills, not their combat abilities.
So, I would say both editions have their strengths. For Paizo, their strength is their excellent setting and flavor material, while 4E is better known for game balance. Play what you like, or play both like I do. Flaming is useless all around though.
+1
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is bad at game balance for a simple reason: that wasn't one of Paizo's design goals when they created the system.
Umm see below in the intro for the corebook..you will see the words balanced and fun to play written by Mr Bulman...
"When design of this game first
began, compatibility with existing products was one of my
primary goals, but I also wanted to make sure that all of the
classes, races, and other elements were balanced and fun to
play."
Nuff said
Pathfinder is bad at game balance for a simple reason: that wasn't one of Paizo's design goals when they created the system.
Umm see below in the intro for the corebook..you will see the words balanced and fun to play written by Mr Bulman...
"When design of this game first
began, compatibility with existing products was one of my
primary goals, but I also wanted to make sure that all of the
classes, races, and other elements were balanced and fun to
play."Nuff said
While I agree with you, I still don't understand why wizards were made more powerful. Some may argue that spells have been nerfed, and some have, but with each book, you get a bit more power (Create pit is awesome).
I think wizards got:
+1 DC's (due to +2 in caster stat, not possible before with core rules)
more hps
fancy abilities depending on wizard type (i.e. diviner gets bonus to initiative, etc).
bonded item as a ligit choice vs. familiar which some wizards never used.
ability to cast spells from opposition schools.
ultimate magic is also thought to be really helpful to wizards over other caster classes
I think it is cheaper to scribe spells in spell book but I may be wrong.
Nerfs
Some spells have been reduced in effectiveness.
EDIT: combat casting made harder
I would have prefered only 1 or 2 of these buffs.
It is my one of my few complaints with PF. Otherwise I am happy.
Oh, and Monks could use some help...
ducks and runs....
Pathfinder is bad at game balance for a simple reason: that wasn't one of Paizo's design goals when they created the system.
Umm see below in the intro for the corebook..you will see the words balanced and fun to play written by Mr Bulman...
"When design of this game first
began, compatibility with existing products was one of my
primary goals, but I also wanted to make sure that all of the
classes, races, and other elements were balanced and fun to
play."Nuff said
A few responses to this statement by Mr. Bulman.
1. Intentions and end results can be very different sometimes. I believe that is the case here.
2. "Balanced" and "fun to play" are not synonymous, nor are they mutually exclusive. PF is fun to play, but it is most certainly not balanced.
3. Backwards compatibility with 3E basically forbids any real game balance, because 3/3.5 was monstrously broken and unbalanced. Although, I will give Paizo props because PF does seem marginally better balanced than 3.5 was.
RPS™ hasn't been the same since the 2e of the game introduced lizard & Spock as player options. How are three inanimate objects or a lizard supposed to compete with a highly intelligent vulcan? I'm sticking with RPS™ 1e myself.
But 1e is soooo limited. I could never make the character I want to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is now part of Acrobatics.
Balance is now part of Acrobatics.
This is the most sensible statment I've seen sofar;)
Balance should not be a goal. Diversity should be a goal.
Balance should be a restraint, and not too tight.
@Chess: Pls nerf the Queen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are three kinds of balance points in a game such as this. First is trivial balance point of homogeneity. It is trivially balanced because everything is the same. The second is the unstable balance point of non-homogeneity. This is what would be the balance point that would be achieved if we were to balance things solely by judging around numbers; for example, the paladin gets an additional +1 HP at levels 3, 7, 9, 10 to counter balance fighter's +1 damage at level 2, 8, 11. With a small amount of thought, it is quite obvious that this approach is not very friendly to the introduction of new material; we need now need to shift the fighter's +1 damage to level 7 because the wizard gained +1 to perception at level 3. Now for the third balance point which is what people are strawmanning to be the first balance point see this post:
Pathfinder is bad at game balance for a simple reason: that wasn't one of Paizo's design goals when they created the system.
4E is very balanced because that was the primary design goal of that system. It gave up several other things to get that balance though.As someone who plays both systems and enjoys them both, here is my perspective:
4E was created for the players (who mostly played Fighters and Rogues) who were sick of the godlike Wizards and Clerics dominating the game. They screamed out for balance and got it. I really enjoy that aspect of the game, but dislike the lack of fluff and flavor in 4E.
PF was designed for players who really enjoyed 3.5 and didn't really want it to change. Thus, the terrible brokenness of that system lives on in PF. I primarily enjoy playing PF for the excellent setting fluff and flavor of the game, and am willing to put up with the brokenness of the system.
I play a Fighter in both games, and there is a massive difference. 4E Fighters and Rogues are definitelty much better designed and more powerful. In PF, as with earlier editions of D&D, Fighters are mostly an afterthought and Rogues are mostly useful for skills, not their combat abilities.
So, I would say both editions have their strengths. For Paizo, their strength is their excellent setting and flavor material, while 4E is better known for game balance. Play what you like, or play both like I do. Flaming is useless all around though.
The third and reasonable point that me and other reasonable people are asking for is the stable balance point of non-homogeneity. This could be thought of as balance by specialization (yes I know this is hard to do with jack-of-all-trades classes like the bard). Need to disarm a trap? Better find a rogue because no one else can really do that. Need to heal people? Get a cleric. If you look at PF on the whole, this is very much the balance that they aimed for, but missed. Where they missed the mark is that some classes heavily encroach on other's schticks. This is the reasoning behind the drastic changes to the polymorph line of spells. With just a handful of spells, suddenly a wizard had the option to do the fighter's job better than a fighter. Go read the monk thread. You see the fighter being better at being a monk than the monk. Where the issue lies is in the fact that non-casters really don't have anything that caster's can't do. What I am arguing for is the polar opposite of homogeneity. What I am arguing for is MORE distinction between the capabilities of the classes. I wrote down some of the details in this post: Caster / non-caster imbalance
Well in 4e core every spell is just as easy to get rid of except those cast by Orb Wizard, witch become nearly impossible to get rid of.
Evrybody does about the same damage in normal combat except Storm Warden who does on average double.
Everybody attacks about as many times as anybody except fighter when using Steel Cage (or what that was) ... and as I recall he can get it back using Paragon.
In general 4e has far more choices in powers that simply suck. And some powers that are just ??? powerful.
I agree that PF isn't balanced between classes or even doesn't claim to be or try. And I only played 4e one campaign, but it seemed to me (and reading DPR threads the feeling echanced) that in 4e the damage differences got higher and the damage meant more.
Again, this is a conversation I'd love to have, but on the 4e sub-forum, where it is appropriate. Pretty much everything you have said here is either inaccurate, or was arguably accurate at one point but has been fixed.
The thing is, I think the people at Paizo aren't concerning themselves with balance so much as they are with trying to make fun characters to tell interesting stories. That doesn't mean every option they come out with is one I like, but it does mean that they exist for a reason.
I'm not saying balance doesn't matter at all. It does, it's just not a huge part of the game for most players.
And, if the OP really hates the company that much, it's simple enough not to frequent their message boards instead of ranting in pointless, inflammatory troll threads.