| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, here's a question; did the Paizo developers really not see the inherent imbalance of 3.5 (and now Pathfinder) core rules, or did they just ignore it? Really, despite improvements to certain overpowered spells and classes, it doesn't really make a difference. Spellcasters still rule the game past level sevenish or so, and melee still have no way to use good standard actions, or have any out of combat utility at all. Has the status quo been retained for backwards compatibility reasons, or what? It just seems strange that with such good examples as the focused spellcasters (Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, etc.), Tome of Battle, and other resources that fighters still gain only numerical bonuses, rather than anything versatile, fun, or useful outside of combat.
Anyways, am I the only one seeing this as a problem?
Pathfinder is designed to be backwards compatible. If you didn't think it was balanced before, you won't think it's balanced now. And there was alot of hate directed towards ToB.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Balance" between people who swing sticks at one another, and people who manipulate the warp and weave of the universe itself is a fool's goal.
Look at 4e if you don't believe me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Balance" between people who swing sticks at one another, and people who manipulate the warp and weave of the universe itself is a fool's goal.
I agree.
For the most part I think that the non primary casting classes could use some more perks epecially in the out of combat/dungeon arenas. I also think there is, and should be, a fundemental disconnect in power between those that are really good at hitting people with sharp bits of metal and those that can rip reality asunder and/or channel the power of the gods.
I accept this and I also really enjoy playing fighters and rangers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder had to stay fairly close to 3.5 to make it work otherwise they would be designing an entirely new system from the ground up with a probably too small client base to make it work, also the game despite imbalances is still fun and some characters want to play a fighter still, even though they have no fair chance against magic-users without their companions, though it feels glorious if you CAN cut one of those wigglefingers in half.
If you seriously want to balance the game you'd have to break many of the 'classic' D&D style spells and systems we have grown so fond off which many people like, despite glaring imbalances between characters it somehow works decently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't buy that for a minute. Balance can be retained while still maintaining different feels in playstyle and flavor.
A fighter is designed to be mundane, that is part of it's charm, but it is quite possible to make a skilled fighter, just invest a little in intelligence and buy appropriate skills, it can do even dex based skills in armor fairly well. With skill focus it can be pretty good even.
I agree that focused casters are more fun and balanced, I am inclined to ban the wizard and cleric as they are outright but havent bothered with adjusting these classes, I feel witch is a step in the right direction for a more flavorful and thematically restricted wizard though I do not feel familiars are essential to the witch theme.
With an eye on backwards compatibility you do understand why they did things they did I think, 3.5 options are still options anyway and RAW is only binding in official play, seriously houserules are part of the fun of the game.
seriously its dnd a little inbalance is part of the fun if its that big of a deal play something else. i see no problems in the balance. who wants to play a dnd where all the classes are the same... oh yeah 4th edition
So, here's a question; did the Paizo developers really not see the inherent imbalance of 3.5 (and now Pathfinder) core rules, or did they just ignore it?
Or C: don't consider the so called "balance question" to be important, or even really exist, when creating and selling an enjoyable the game.
Balance is an impossible goal but the pursuit of it is worthy. The best we can hope for is to get close.
The most important thing about balance is to maintain the fun. This is a game. We play it for our enjoyment, whatever reasons they may be.
Attempts at balance should be so that players of each class, race and whatever else have an equal chance at enjoying the game.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D is not a competitive game, inside the party, anymore than the members of any given football team compete against each other.
Does someone get upset that the quarter back is the one always throwing the ball? Of course not. Why?
Because the point of the team is to get the job done. D&D is balanced around having a balanced *group* that can go and take care of the *job*. The game is *not* balanced around everyone being a quarter back, tight end, or whatever.
Who cares if the wizard can turn the fighter into a frog? Its not his job to attack the fighter, its his job to work /with/ him and to defeat the foes of the group.
It isn't a flaw or over sight of the game- it is the intent of the rules. That you've discovered it, just means it is working as intended..
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you want your non-casters to do out of combat that they can't already do? With the skills condensed, more ways to get class skills, the elimination of cross class skills, the improved skill feats, and simple role playing, what are you expecting non-casters to be able to do that they can't do already?
In addition, with many feats being improved, more feats for every character, and more feat options, the simplified combat maneuver system, and archetypes, what more options do you want in combat?
Why aren't your casters seeing some limitations? If the GM is always allowing the casters to have 1,000 gp for their spells, or always have the time to prepare just the right spell, or don't enforce the wealth by level limits (even with crafting), then of course your casters will be far above the non-casters.
This isn't to say that there isn't some power difference (there is), but it isn't so far apart that there are essentially two different games being played.
D&D is not a competitive game, inside the party, anymore than the members of any given football team compete against each other.
Does someone get upset that the quarter back is the one always throwing the ball? Of course not. Why?
Because the point of the team is to get the job done. D&D is balanced around having a balanced *group* that can go and take care of the *job*. The game is *not* balanced around everyone being a quarter back, tight end, or whatever.
Who cares if the wizard can turn the fighter into a frog? Its not his job to attack the fighter, its his job to work /with/ him and to defeat the foes of the group.
It isn't a flaw or over sight of the game- it is the intent of the rules. That you've discovered it, just means it is working as intended..
-S
Ahh... but wouldn't it be a problem if the quarterback always had more rushing yards than the running back just because he was the quarterback? The running back wanted to run with the ball, but quarterbacks do it better, wouldn't he ask himself "why wasn't I a quarterback, then?"
Or what if you are a lineman who consistently blocks one guy for your quarterback, but that quarterback never gets sacked, even if he gets hit by two or even three guys. The lineman starts asking the question, "what is the point of me blocking these guys?"
That's when we see problems in your "team balance."
So, here's a question; did the Paizo developers really not see the inherent imbalance of 3.5 (and now Pathfinder) core rules, or did they just ignore it? Really, despite improvements to certain overpowered spells and classes, it doesn't really make a difference. Spellcasters still rule the game past level sevenish or so, and melee still have no way to use good standard actions, or have any out of combat utility at all. Has the status quo been retained for backwards compatibility reasons, or what? It just seems strange that with such good examples as the focused spellcasters (Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, etc.), Tome of Battle, and other resources that fighters still gain only numerical bonuses, rather than anything versatile, fun, or useful outside of combat.
Anyways, am I the only one seeing this as a problem?
I think this is a playstyle issue. Casters don't rule past level 7 in my games. Now somewhere between levels 15 and 17 things start to get difficult if I want to keep the melee guys competitive.
I personally like ToB, but a lot of people don't. Some think it is mechanically broken Others think it is to anime or look at them as magical fighters. To some they just don't feel right. A pathfinder fighter is so good in combat that I don't know what to give him outside of combat.
The way PF works is that everyone has a job to do. The fighter stabs things in the face, and he is no longer worried about the Codzilla taking his job. Well the druid might give him a run in certain situations, but it is not as easy as it was in 3.5.
I did not care for the Beguiler though past a certain level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a playstyle issue. Casters don't rule past level 7 in my games. Now somewhere between levels 15 and 17 things start to get difficult if I want to keep the melee guys competitive.
This is roughly my experience as well. The only times we have had problems with casters, the player was specifically trying to dominate the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't buy that for a minute. Balance can be retained while still maintaining different feels in playstyle and flavor.
Absolute balance = sterile homogenized gameplay
The important thing is not that every class be equally effective in all aspects of gameplay, but that each class be viable in filling a role. If one class was good at everything, and every class was equal, the game would grow tedious and tiresome very quickly. Furthermore, anyone who thinks melee is useless past level 7 clearly has never seen what a high level fighter is capable of. . .
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is an impossible goal but the pursuit of it is worthy. The best we can hope for is to get close.
The most important thing about balance is to maintain the fun. This is a game. We play it for our enjoyment, whatever reasons they may be.
Attempts at balance should be so that players of each class, race and whatever else have an equal chance at enjoying the game.
I totally agree with UR,its about the fun. So many people get caught up in game balance. I am currently running an open world PF/3.5 game where 4 players are currently 18th level (going to 27th level). High Cr creatures as races (Valkyrie / Wood Gaint / Human-Forever Jack + Adv. simple / Human-Adv. Simple + Adv. Mighty) + full class levels, 3x's gold limit per level (can buy anything in any book), Weapons of Legacy (no negatives) and on top of it all a cut down version of Vow of Poverty (BOED) set up as a misc "Divine bonus".
They are ridiculously over powered and unbalance even between each other but no one is complaining about it. They took down a CR 27 1800 hit point Red Dragon in 5 rounds, stopped a rogue group of Andorian Nobles 3rd sons from starting a slave trade (underground) with Cheliax by taking down a castle and hundreds of Men at arms. Defeated a Linnorm + CR 15 devil + CR 16 outsider and 6 cr 12 NPC cohorts+mounts and took Trollheim as their kingdom. Totally crazy, WAY unbalance and no where near RAW but they are having FUN.I just feel we should focus more on the Fun than the Blance. You job is successful as a DM if the group is having fun. But everyone has a different idea of fun. Just chipping in my 2 cents.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters master flow of battle. Casters do not have enough spells to take out more then a few bad guys in one day.
Combat character master damage per round. They have unlimited ability to do damage per round.
Casters win when they can go nova on one fight. Any fight past the first 3 to 5 is going to the person with a weapon in there hand becous the caster ran out of spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters master flow of battle. Casters do not have enough spells to take out more then a few bad guys in one day.
Combat character master damage per round. They have unlimited ability to do damage per round.
Casters win when they can go nova on one fight. Any fight past the first 3 to 5 is going to the person with a weapon in there hand becous the caster ran out of spells.
Only if the player decides he just has to blow a spell every round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The great error in analysis of RPG game design is the mistaken belief that power = fun, and that therefore the only way to make fun equal is to make power equal.
This is true for some people. But not for all people. I play 3.5, PathFinder and 4e. PathFinder and 3.5 feel like a magical fantasy role playing game to me. 4e feels like a combat simulator. I've played 4e fighters, wizards, rangers, clerics and rogues. They are all the same. My melee characters have the same level and sorts of abilities as the casters do. To do this the 4e designers turned melee characters into thinly disguised spellcasters and nerfed spellcasters to equal the melee casters. The result does not feel, to me, like a magical fantasy role playing game.
Part of the feel of a fantasy role playing game is the undeniable fact that spellcasters are powerful manipulators of space and time. When wizards become just another bit of combat artillery, no better, and ultimately no different than an archer, the game has lost its soul.
I enjoy playing 4e. I role play the heck out of my 4e character. But the cost of all that balance is any feeling whatsoever of magical fantasy role playing. You can role play your wizard to be all wizardly all you like, but the bottom line is that he can't do anything the fighter can't do in combat when it matters.
And this is by design.
Balance was not the problem with 3.5. And 4e was not the solution. Pathfinder is a better, more balanced game, but it still retains the feel of fantasy role playing.
I frankly don't see how you make people who hit each other with sticks equal in power to people who manipulate the very fabric of the universe and still call it "fantasy role playing." And "fantasy role playing" is what I want to do. So Paizo game designers, please do me a favor and never fall prey to the false beliefs that equal power is the same as equal fun and that you can have a fantasy magical experience when magic is no different than hitting someone with a stick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I frankly don't see how you make people who hit each other with sticks equal in power to people who manipulate the very fabric of the universe and still call it "fantasy role playing." And "fantasy role playing" is what I want to do. So Paizo game designers, please do me a favor and never fall prey to the false beliefs that equal power is the same as equal fun and that you can have a fantasy magical experience when magic is no different than hitting someone with a stick.
Agree 100%
SOME characters are meant to me more powerful than others.. A Wizard does 10D6 fireball to 5 enemies at once... How can people justify a fighter being able to match that?
Most of my characters are the figher variety... but no, I never felt 'lessened' becasue wizards out blast me. I know that I can do it all day, while they have a limit to their casting...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, here's a question; did the Paizo developers really not see the inherent imbalance of 3.5 (and now Pathfinder) core rules, or did they just ignore it? Really, despite improvements to certain overpowered spells and classes, it doesn't really make a difference. Spellcasters still rule the game past level sevenish or so, and melee still have no way to use good standard actions, or have any out of combat utility at all. Has the status quo been retained for backwards compatibility reasons, or what? It just seems strange that with such good examples as the focused spellcasters (Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, etc.), Tome of Battle, and other resources that fighters still gain only numerical bonuses, rather than anything versatile, fun, or useful outside of combat.
Anyways, am I the only one seeing this as a problem?
Do you really not get it?
Those of us that stuck with Pathfinder don't want balance. That word is unimportant to us.
We don't mind what might be called "reasonable" or "playable". These are important words to us. As in we don't want the game to make classes unplayable due to being overpowered.
But at the same time we don't want balance in a fantasy game. Fantasy games by their nature are not balanced and neither are the books based on fantasy. Are Gandalf and Aragorn equal? Are Aragorn and Frodo Equal? Is Conan balanced against Subatai? Is Daenerys Targaryen balanced against Jon Snow?
What we want is to be able to participate in a good story using the game system. A fantasy story about fantastic and legendary happenings while maintaing some semblance of realism and genre conventions.
D&D is a game that very much allows fantasy lovers to do that. But no, I don't want balance.
I want appropriateness. I want coolness. I want reasonableness.
1. Appropriateness: I want classes to feel appropriate. I want fighters that use weapons in a way I can see them using them. I want Paladins and clerics that gain power from their gods. I want rogues that are sneaky and dangerous in battle. I want barbarians that are brutal raging beasts. I want monks that can fight in hand to hand combat. I want wizards that wield vast magical power and are the most dangerous beings in the land.
2. Coolness: I want everyone to have some cool abilities. I think they do. When the fighter in my group stuns everything within 10 feet of him and does truckloads of damage at the same time, I don't see that as not having options for the fighter. The fighter has more options now than he has had in any previous version of D&D. And those options are still appropriate. They still fit what you expect a warrior to be able to do. And I think every class has great options, even the rogue.
3. Reasonableness: Can a character of any class perform at a reasonable level in all aspects of the game and add to the overall group effectiveness. This is what I'm looking for. I dont' want auto-win spells in the game. I'm vetting those because the Ultimate Magic and Advanced Players Guide let a few slip in. So I had to rewrite them.
I don't in any way expect a fighter to be able to beat a prepared wizard. He shouldn't be able to unless he has some help or a destiny or something or he gets lucky. That is how most books even are unless they make magic incredibly weak in the book.
If you want a heavy emphasis on balance, then 4E has that for you. Everything for every class depending on type works about the same. Every single high level power does about 7dice worth of damage. Every midrange power does about 3 dice worth of damage. It's all built around balance and an attempt at egalatarian D&D.
Why would you think Pathfinder players wanted balance? We didn't stick with Pathfinder for balance. We stuck with Pathfinder because we liked the type of D&D fantasy we grew up on and wanted it to stay the way we liked it.
Which is simply put "Magic is King". And may it always be. Melee may do the most damage in terms of raw output, but wielding magic is the true path to power and being an arcane caster means you will eventually be one of the most powerful beings residing in any world you live in.
To me that is how it should be. I enjoy novels like Lord of the Rings where the Witch King of Angmar is one of the most feared beings in all the land and only the noble wizard Gandalf can hope to stand against him. I like books like Tigana where two powerful wizards are the tyrants going against each other and it takes some careful work by a party of adventurers to beat them.
I like that in Game of Thrones the White Walkers are the scariest being in the book and the person who is eventually going to be the most powerful person of all is silver-haired queen with the dragon bloood who will command mighty dragons using the powerful magic of her family bloodline.
Magic is the most powerful force in fantasy. Even in The Wheel of Time it takes a superpowerful wielder of arcane power to slam down the bad guy.
That's what I'm looking for in a fantasy game. A system I can use to simulate the fantasy stories I love. And Pathfinder aka D&D is the system that most closely gives me the feel I'm looking for. And it does have it's own sort of balance tied to the group that comes together. That group balance and dependency goes a long way in ensuring that each member feels like a useful part of the story. That is way more important than individual class balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SOME characters are meant to me more powerful than others.. A Wizard does 10D6 fireball to 5 enemies at once... How can people justify a fighter being able to match that?
Actually, by the time you factor in spell resistance, saving throws, resistances, immunities, evasion, improved evasion et al, the fighter's full attack probably outdamages the wizard's fireball.
Reasonableness: Can a character of any class perform at a reasonable level in all aspects of the game and add to the overall group effectiveness. This is what I'm looking for
+1
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is actually even less balanced than 3.5. They rolled it into Acrobatics, so it's not even its own skill any more. :(
|
|
Do you really not get it?
Those of us that stuck with Pathfinder don't want balance. That word is unimportant to us.
And, if some of us want a game where we're like Lancelot, riding off to besiege the Castle of Enchanters on his own; Conan, killing spellcasters with speed and fury; Fafhrd and the GRey Mouser, finding ways to use their skills to make spellcasting less effective; or the scores and scores of other protagonists of Sword and Sorcery tales, legends, etc who manage to overcome magic with skill; well, we're stuffed. Because D&D and AD&D got it wrong when it made powerful adventurers highly resistant to magic, and at least there's an edition out that recognises the superiority of the spellcaster to everybody else that should have been there from the start but wasn't.
Yes, we get it.
I believe all those genre are very doable. You just have to work with the group and DM. The great thing about any RPG is you can make the world your own. This rules are guidelines not set in stone. You can magic low magic worlds, no magic, High magic you name it.
I love the PF skill system and skill based characters are alot of fun.
Balance is relative.
I guess that I choose Pathfinder because the balance range and the flavour are more similar to my ideal ones than other games.
IMHO more should be done, but even if I often criticize several things, I'm quite fine with that.
Furthermore, I've seen in other games that shifting more toward balance neutered interesting spells and removed important fantasy element. I prefer less balanced but interesting stuff - even if i will continue to point out flaws ;)
Finally, with GMG and UM you can tweak out stuff to make spells powerful but more random or dangerous in casting. If you want drawbacks for spellcasters, the game HAS tools for that.
So.. yeah.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another fun little fact; a fighter can never catch a wizard who bothers to use divination magic unprepared. If the wizard deigns to battle the fighter at all, it'll end within one or two rounds of Save-or-Sucks. So the fighters main shtick, his fighting, is something the other guy can do better. To rub the salt in the wound a little further, the fighter is all but useless out-of-combat, while the wizards qualitative abilities, which grow exponentially every time a new splat book is released, allow him to do whatever the heck he wants. Simply put; there is no balance. And this is a bad thing.
If only there was someone running things to keep it all under control...If such a role could be created he could master this game and things would not feel so unbalanced.
Your fact is actually just an opinion. Not all games see the same problems you do. In my games (and I've got more than 30 years of experience so I'm no noob), those problems are not prevalent because I don't allow them to be. I'm not a control freak. I just don't give my players everything they want all the time. The more experience a GM has, the more he realizes that it's ok to say "no" sometimes.
These "fighter vs wizard" threads go nowhere because one side never concedes that the other plays the game slightly differently even when both sides stick as close to RAW as possible.
If you don't like the game system, then find one you do like. I'm not trying to be flippant. I'm serious. If you think that there is a better game for you, then play it. Whining about the game you are playing, and trying to convince others that their way is wrong because it's not your way, is a waste of good game time.
|
Divergent,
I think you're missing an opportunity. Not only is Pathfinder an open content game, but the developers gave us a House-Rule section, and we have a great community of people who will help you hone your house rules into something that works for you.
So, rather than complaining that you don't like how things are balanced, you could start a thread in the House-Rule section with suggestions of how you'd fix the issue you have.
I'll help you find balance, I don't really agree that there is a problem, but I respect your opinion and I'll be a sounding board for you to invent something you like better and I'm sure anyone here will do the same.
Cheers,
DSP
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really. So, tell me; how exactly are you limiting your spellcasters in such a manner that perfect balance is maintained? If the wizard really wants to have something, he can get it. Want to know where to buy new spells? That's what divinations are for! Want magical items? Take a few crafting feats!
Yes, different groups play different games, but the problems that are inherent to the game still remain. Just because you have had fun with the rules does not mean the problems do not exist.I like the game system, I really do, it's just that I would like to use the game system without having to worry about my melee players feeling overshadowed and marginalized by the much more powerful characters.
I never said I had perfect balance in my games. In fact, if you go back and read my first post I acknowledge that there is some power discrepancy. I just don't think it's nearly as bad as you think.
Here's how I handle the problems that many people face:
1) I enforce cost for spells. If there is a gold piece cost listed, you better find the money. Just as the rules say, I don't worry about the material components without a monetary cost. If you want to cast scrying, you better have that silver mirror that costs 1,000 gold or it's not gonna happen.
2) If you want more than your 2 spells per level as a wizard, then you better be willing to pay for the scrolls and the scribing costs. You also need to find the time.
3) If you want to craft items, that's great! I encourage it. Remember that you will not be able to go over the wealth by level by much. Wealth by Level is not meant to be as strict as other numbers but if you stay close to the number, you should do just fine.
4) I have never seen a melee character that wasn't useful in and out of combat. Can they be made? Absolutely. How hard is it to make a useful non-caster? Easy. Of course this is going to depend on the group dynamic. A fighter does not need to put every little thing he has into his fighting style or single weapon. He can be built with versatility and use tactics at all levels of play. Even the mighty CR 20 creatures can be hit by fighters without any magical gear at all. This means that they can put some effort into other things besides just swinging their sword. Oh, and this can be done with 15 point buy and Core only material.
5) The game master needs to use appropriate encounters. This is key to running a successful game no matter what the characters are playing. Use multiple opponents of varying abilities. Don't always throw the same type of opponent at the party. If you typically use creatures that have high saves, your wizards will take feats to deal with those defenses. Those are feats that aren't being taken for other things, like crafting more items. Even with the greater number of feats characters get in Pathfinder, they are still limited.
6) Wizards (and all casters for that matter) are limited to how many spells they can cast in a single day. Their spells also have diminishing returns. As you burn through your few higher level spells, your lower level spells are less effective.
7) Use the rules for the spells correctly. Let's look at scrying. Notice that it's only a 10 foot radius around the subject? That's about the size of a two-car garage (a two-car garage is about 24 feet on a side). Stand in one and get a feel for how much can be seen.
8) Have your opponents use better tactics. You wanna know who gets attacked first in my games? The guy who used a single action to take out half the opposition. It's amazing how fast a wizard can drop when a group of intelligent and powerful enemies focus their attention. The guy who has died the most in my current campaign? The wizard (he's at 3 deaths so far).
9) Have varied types of encounters. Not just creatures to fight, but other obstacles as well. Traps (yes, they are effective at all levels if used and placed appropriately), hazards, puzzles, and role playing encounters require the casters to have more variety of spells available.
10) Enforce action use. If it takes a move action to get your scroll out and standard action (or more, never less) to use it, then your wizard is stationary that round. If your wizard wants to use a wand, remember that all wands are standard actions or longer. If your wizard wants to use a staff, remember that there are only 10 charges and the wizard needs to use his own spell slots to recharge the staff (and this has certain limitations as well).
There are many things that can be done, just using the rules themselves. Some things may require a change in game style. One thing I have noticed in nearly all these types of discussions, the theoretical wizards tend to shine more in "kick in the door" style games. The more one deviates from that style, the less powerful I have seen casters of all kinds become. If that's your preferred style, that's cool. I love a good orc-bash as much as the next guy. I also know what that brings to the table as potential problems for the game. The more you mix it up, the harder it is for your players and their characters to dominate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Really. So, tell me; how exactly are you limiting your spellcasters in such a manner that perfect balance is maintained?"
"Perfect balance"?, not possible without "perfect sameness" Not a desirable design goal!
First of all, let's establish a few details:
-Casters don't start off ruling the game. Some folks claim they start becoming overpowered around level 5, while for others it is in the teens.
-Class balance is really a function of how much you are willing to min/max. Casters are generally easier (and more effective) to min/max then martial types. Nothing is inherently over/underpowered, unless folks choose to play it that way.
-There are many, MANY things written into the rules (or as "guidelines") that give power and discretion to a GM. Frequently (but not always) the most overpowered stuff is expected to be limited by the GM on a case by case basis.
Pathfinder has made some obvious changes, but the minor ones add up to be the most game changing. Stuff like Ray of Enfeeblement now allowing a save, or changes made to the Grease spell, or Protection from Evil, are subtle, but add up to power shifts.
To maintain balance in my own games, I just have one or two house rules, although they are more like campaign guidleins then hard rules.
-No starting stats above 18 after racial adjustments. (And no stats below 10).
-Saying right up front that I don't enjoy an action-denial heavy game. You can do it now and again, but don't over-use it.
-GM maintains control of magic item and treasure distribution networks, as well as there being some limits on item creation.
-Game will probably top out around level 15 or so.
And really it is as simple as that.
PS You are comparing Pathfinder Core plus two books, with years of 3.5. If you compare Pathfinder Core with 3.5 Core, martial types are MUCH better off!
Sigh. So sad to see this topic raging on. I guess it will never end. As I have posted before, balance will never be achieved. You could have an entire group playing the same class, and some players would still outshine the others. Are we supposed to dumb down the rules and hobble creative players just so everyone feels more secure and "equal"?
Allow me to paraphrase a story from a book on Tao that I have. A matial arts sensei noticed that one of his students was continually frustrated during sparring sessions with other class members. The students skill level was lower than the other students, and he often resorted to tricks, shortcuts, etc to try to gain an advantage during sparing sessions, to no avail.
The Master took the student aside one day and lead him outside. The sensei drew two lines on the ground of different lenghts and then asked the student how they could be made the same length. The student offered a couple suggestions, all involvied diminishing the longer line in some fashion. The teacher listened patiently, and then stooped and extended the shorter line until it was the same lenght as the other."Lengthen your own line", he told his student.
As I recall, the student in the story didn't go on to be the best in the class or anything. But his frustration disappeared as he concentrated on just improving his own ability and not trying to tear down the ability of others.
My point here is, just play what you love/enjoy and forget about the rest.Real life is far more imbalanced in comparison to the games we love. Let's not nit pick the crap out of things which are only illusions to begin with. And above all, have some fun in your games DANGIT! (edited after further consideration)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really. So, tell me; how exactly are you limiting your spellcasters in such a manner that perfect balance is maintained? If the wizard really wants to have something, he can get it. Want to know where to buy new spells? That's what divinations are for! Want magical items? Take a few crafting feats!
Yes, different groups play different games, but the problems that are inherent to the game still remain. Just because you have had fun with the rules does not mean the problems do not exist.
I like the game system, I really do, it's just that I would like to use the game system without having to worry about my melee players feeling overshadowed and marginalized by the much more powerful characters.
How about you give us detailed examples of why casters are ruining your games, but not ours? Are your problems theorycraft issues or real issues that you have experienced?
How is he using the divination spells? How is he getting the gold to buy everything he wants? How is he finding the time to travel anywhere he wants all the time. At higher levels he gets teleport, but that is not always available. IIRC you said it starts at level 7? How does he always have time to craft whatever he wants? Wizards can't control time the GM does.
PS: The game is not a PVP so the fighter does not have to be able to kill a wizard. Balancing for PVP and balancing for team play does not work the same.
I view games like Pathfinder as a team effort. So the balance I'm looking for is: Can a team of 4-5 people work well together to overcome the enemy?
Let's look a the iconic team: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. Sure, the wizard may have the flashiest abilities, but how well would he do if he were on his own? Each member of the party contributes in their own way; I don't think its so bad that a wizard can cast devastatingly effective spells, if you think of it as the party's devastatingly effective spell. The wizard just played his role in helping the party win.
Like other's have said, I don't think sameness is a good goal.
PF is specifically trying to go for the 3.5 market. 4th ed is all about balance, so if PF tried for balance they would be duplicating, and be in direct competition with, 4th ed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I certainly agree that sameness is a horrible thing, and perfect balance is quite idealistic, there is still plenty of room for improvement for Pathfinder.
A few examples:
-I would like a reworking of the skills system, but with an end result where mundane classes always get more skills than magic users. The more magic you have, the less skills you should have. After all, mundane people have to rely on skills in everyday life, whereas magic users can rely on their magic to aid them.
-More combat options (hopefully UC will remedy this a bit). Things like making combat maneuvers easier to try is the bare minimum. A great house rule that I love is that combat maneuvers only provoke AoO on a failed attempt. I've found that this makes martial characters much more likely to try different things without having invested into full feat chains. But that's a minimum. I'd like to see more options that any martial character can do in battle.
-Along the same vain, many feats shouldn't be feats but combat options that are always available. Strike Back is one the more serious offenders. Seriously, I can't ready an action to hit the dragon's head when it tries to bite me without taking a feat? Garbage.
-There should be more viable mechanical options for mundane characters outside of combat. Mundane crafting is one main problem, with trap crafting in particular being obnoxious. 1000g x CR for mundane traps? Seriously? Even a discounted, mundane, one time use, CR 1 pit trap takes weeks to craft by yourself. What the hell? And no, the new trapper archetype in UM doesn't make things better. A straight ranger makes better traps with spells and purchased bear traps than the trapper does until the highest of levels. That doesn't help anything.
-Some supernatural or spell like abilities available for mundane classes that emulate certain spells. I know, I know you have to be extremely careful with this one. But a concept like a Barbarian that can Speak with Animals isn't really that out there. And while you can achieve this via multiclassing, there is a lot of extra baggage to deal with if you go that route (eg a 1 lvl dip into Druid for minimal Speak with Animals carries alignment restrictions, equipment restrictions, extra abilities that don't fit your theme, and the loss of a Barbarian level). I'd like a simpler way. The Eldritch Heritage line of feats are a great step in the right direction in my opinion.
|
-I would like a reworking of the skills system, but with an end result where mundane classes always get more skills than magic users. The more magic you have, the less skills you should have. After all, mundane people have to rely on skills in everyday life, whereas magic users can rely on their magic to aid them.
What is the logic behind this? Just because somebody is good at magic they are not supposed to be able to learn carpentry if they want to? Rubbish.
-More combat options (hopefully UC will remedy this a bit). Things like making combat maneuvers easier to try is the bare minimum. A great house rule that I love is that combat maneuvers only provoke AoO on a failed attempt. I've found that this makes martial characters much more likely to try different things without having invested into full feat chains. But that's a minimum. I'd like to see more options that any martial character can do in battle.
It is quite logical that combat maneuvers provoke aoos. After all, if you are not trained in the use of something, there is a very good chance that you will screw something up and probably hurt yourself. Taking an improved combat maneuver feat means that you have gained training in that maneuver and now know how to use it proficiently.
-Along the same vain, many feats shouldn't be feats but combat options that are always available. Strike Back is one the more serious offenders. Seriously, I can't ready an action to hit the dragon's head when it tries to bite me without taking a feat? Garbage.
You can ready an action to strike at the dragon when he attempts to bite you. But you cannot take a standard action that round. Anyway, until paizo includes rules about called shots in UC, you cannot hit the dragon on the head specifically anyway.
-There should be more viable mechanical options for mundane characters outside of combat. Mundane crafting is one main problem, with trap crafting in particular being obnoxious. 1000g x CR for mundane traps? Seriously? Even a discounted, mundane, one time use, CR 1 pit trap takes weeks to craft by yourself. What the hell? And no, the new trapper archetype in UM doesn't make things better. A straight ranger makes better traps with spells and purchased bear traps than the trapper does until the highest of levels. That doesn't help anything.
I agree, crafting takes too long. One potion per week? How can somebody make a business out of that then? Ridiculuos. Prices should maybe stay the same but crafting times should be divided bu 10 if not more.
-Some supernatural or spell like abilities available for mundane classes that emulate certain spells. I know, I know you have to be extremely careful with this one. But a concept like a Barbarian that can Speak with Animals isn't really that out...
I'd roll with this.
NICE... totally agree.Those of us that stuck with Pathfinder don't want balance. That word is unimportant to us.
Completely disagree - balance is extremely important to me. And I *love* the balance that Pathfinder has. Fighters (yes, even melee'ers) do *quite* well at high levels, as part of the team.
-I would like a reworking of the skills system, but with an end result where mundane classes always get more skills than magic users. The more magic you have, the less skills you should have. After all, mundane people have to rely on skills in everyday life, whereas magic users can rely on their magic to aid them.What is the logic behind this? Just because somebody is good at magic they are not supposed to be able to learn carpentry if they want to? Rubbish.
I'm not saying that spell casters can't learn carpentry if they want to. I'm merely saying that for many different tasks there are multiple ways to solve the problem. Spell casters often have a spell to solve that problem, while non-casters rely on more mundane methods (eg skills). A fighter uses Climb to go down a cliff, while a wizard probably feather falls, or levitates, or flies, etc...
From a fluff perspective I think spell casters rely more on spells than mundane abilities in many cases, so they don't need as many mundane abilities. From a mechanical balance perspective, I don't think it's right for one class to have X amount of skills, and another class to have the same number of skills, but dozens of spells able to radically boost those skills and dozens of other spells that can emulate even more skills.-More combat options (hopefully UC will remedy this a bit). Things like making combat maneuvers easier to try is the bare minimum. A great house rule that I love is that combat maneuvers only provoke AoO on a failed attempt. I've found that this makes martial characters much more likely to try different things without having invested into full feat chains. But that's a minimum. I'd like to see more options that any martial character can do in battle.It is quite logical that combat maneuvers provoke aoos. After all, if you are not trained in the use of something, there is a very good chance that you will screw something up and probably hurt yourself. Taking an improved combat maneuver feat means that you have gained training in that maneuver and now know how to use it proficiently.
I don't like the fact that my 20th level fighter who has been in hundreds of battles, and is supposed to be the unmatched master of martial combat can't try to trip someone without provoking AoO unless he has above average intelligence. In my view, I don't think trying to trip someone is the kind of action that provokes AoO. It's as you said though, if you are untrained you are likely to screw something up. So while attempting to trip someone doesn't provoke, if you are untrained and screw up (ie fail your CMB check), you leave yourself open for a counterattack. I think this house rule follows your logic better than the current rules does.
-Along the same vain, many feats shouldn't be feats but combat options that are always available. Strike Back is one the more serious offenders. Seriously, I can't ready an action to hit the dragon's head when it tries to bite me without taking a feat? Garbage.You can ready an action to strike at the dragon when he attempts to bite you. But you cannot take a standard action that round. Anyway, until paizo includes rules about called shots in UC, you cannot hit the dragon on the head specifically anyway.
This isn't about called shots. The idea is that the dragon has reach on you. I don't like the fact that you can't "strike back" against creatures that have reach on you without a feat, even though the dragon is literally stretching his neck out to attack you.
Here thar be necromancy, tread with caution.
Also a question about balance in an imbalanced game. Post with caution...