Pathfinder: Reverse Power Creep?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been noticing alot of really underwhelming abilities in the new pathfinder releases. Lots of places with options that are worse at doing whatever youre trying to do than the options in the core book that look like they don't do it as well. I've been getting the feeling that the options are getting weaker and weaker as each new book comes out.

I understand the desire to avoid powercreep, but when an option is crappier, one of two things occur:
1. Something that could have been useful and cool is simply a waste of space in my otherwise flavorful and interesting book. This occurs when an option is so terrible everyone can immediately see it as such, and avoid it. Luckily there aren't as many of these - though there are some.
2. The ability LOOKS useful; but isn't. Eventually, this will lead to either an upset player wanting to either alter his character or make a new one entirely, which is an irritating campaign disruption, or it will lead to the character not understanding why he's so ineffective at tasks he thinks he designed himself to be good at, or why he can only do one thing. This could result in an unhappy player as above, or it could result in everything being more difficult for the party.

Things like: "This is a really cool spell. It would be powerful as a spell 2 levels lower, but I'd consider it if it was one level lower - unfortunately I can't ever justify buying the thing at this level" Really sucks.

Don't get me wrong, every book so far has some abilities I think are fantastic, and I dont think I've ever seen any options in the book that were TOO good (unlike in 3.5, where too many were TOO good), but I've seen alot that I would never take, with any character, because they're awful - or they're crappy alternatives to an option in the CRB that accomplishes the same flavor. Those options, I wish weren't even in the book. I feel like they're options to serve as a trap for players who aren't very used to the system, and I don't want to have to put admiral ackbar stickers in my pathfinder book that the players use to avoid complaints later.

Am I the only one who feels this way?


My personal opinion (and only mine) is that the Paizo staff is finally getting to the point where being backwards compatible/respectful to the past is becoming stifling. I think they did a bad a$$ job fixing the core game, working within the old 3.5/D20 system, but with APG, UM, and now UC it seems like they want to go in directions that are a bit different and the old ways are in the way (somewhat). It is almost like Tome of Battle, you can see them wanting to go a different way/have a different view of things, but they hold back a bit.

So reverse power creep? I'd say no. I'd say that Paizo now has a different idea of where the "balance" line should be from what it was in 3.5 or PFCRB. I think the Gunslinger and Monk archetypes demonstrate this.


People who aren't used to the system, either are in over their head in the UC/UM or will learn through their mistakes.

I remember the old days...lots and lots of mistakes...

Liberty's Edge

i have noticed many abilities and such just like this darkholme. They are underpowered and just feel like a way to fill the book/class or whatever without breaking the game.

That being said there are some broken and just good things in the book to. So i don't think its reverse power creep. Prob still power creep with filler thrown in.

Dark Archive

Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:

People who aren't used to the system, either are in over their head in the UC/UM or will learn through their mistakes.

I remember the old days...lots and lots of mistakes...

I started out gaming... as the GM.

No other GM around, I got the books first, we learned which options sucked as we went. None of us had a heavy internet presence in 2001, so I wasnt checking forums for advice or anything. it was all try it out and get the handle on how the system works and where the power levels were.

I know I've seen written in UM that it's perfectly fine for the player to choose options that are intentionally weak. I disagree, because I don't believe the premise that the players can necessarily tell a good feat from a bad feat. Hell, I know one (experienced) player who doesnt believe me when I tell him that a twf rogue is not the best dpr in the game, and says he wont believe me until I show him proof (which I keep forgetting to do).

The players don't necessarily know if they are picking weak options. If they pick one or two, it may not be a big deal.

If they pick too many, it's a problem. And I dont want to have to babysit and sit next to them while they decide which spells to learn. or what have you, so they dont unintentionally cripple themselves.

Some of the design choices paizo makes I dislike for being too gamey (alchemist bombs/spells immediately stop working when the alchemist passes them to someone, but work long enough for him to throw them? that bugs me because its too video/boardgamey for my tastes). I dont know. Just seems a few too many *objects* in the game are overpriced for what benefit they grant, and I dont see them ever being worth it as a result.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see a problem with underpowered feats as long as it has some in-game effect the player sees some use out of.

If you're interested in running an optimal party, sure, sit with them and help them make _good_ characters. But even a haphazardly thrown together character full of flavor/story choice feats can be helpful in a group.


Darkholme can you give some examples of no.2?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

leo1925 wrote:
Darkholme can you give some examples of no.2?

Vow of Poverty.


I remember thinking the same thing about the alternate class/race abilities.

I remember being really excited about the possibilities to mix and match and make unique characters... Then i saw them and said "ehhhh.... I like the core stuff better."


I am in full agreement with DH on this one, UC showed a clear trend towards what I like to call "gimp creep". Aside from the Ninja class and the Monk options, everything was distinctly meh.

Yet again, spellcasters got far tastier candy than the non-spellcasters, which is fine for UM, but not so cool for a book called "Ultimate Combat".


Darkholme wrote:
I dont think I've ever seen any options in the book that were TOO good (unlike in 3.5, where too many were TOO good)

Antagonize. But, not much in the way of overpowering, no.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
see wrote:
Darkholme wrote:
I dont think I've ever seen any options in the book that were TOO good (unlike in 3.5, where too many were TOO good)
Antagonize. But, not much in the way of overpowering, no.

Persistent Spell is firmly in the "Too Good To Ignore" camp, but it still has nothing on Quicken Spell.


A Man In Black wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Darkholme can you give some examples of no.2?
Vow of Poverty.

Who in their right minds would think that anything good can come from using that? The no.2 option is about something that looks good but it isn't.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

leo1925 wrote:
Who in their right minds would think that anything good can come from using that? The no.2 option is about something that looks good but it isn't.

Touché.

Also Siege Mage is so hilariously bad that I can't even stand it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:

People who aren't used to the system, either are in over their head in the UC/UM or will learn through their mistakes.

I remember the old days...lots and lots of mistakes...

I recall when I first started GMing v3.0 D&D I thought that wildshaping druids had to select a single animal form per size category and they were limited to that specific animal for the rest of their career. For example, a druid could turn into a puppy, dog, wolf, or dire wolf. Another druid might instead choose eagle, wolf, bison, dinosaur.

Due to my ignorance my entire group played this way FOR YEARS. It wasn't until I played as a guest in another group that it was pointed out to me that a druid could "spontaneously" pick his animal form. I remember being like, "but that's totally overpowered!" :P


See, its not about where any individual ability or choice sits on the power scale. Its the game as a whole. If a book has a few powers/options that seem like they are 'too powerful', and some that seem like they are 'very weak', and hopefully more that seem like they are 'ok', then we have a well written product. I still havent dug through all of UM (and certainly not UC) to see how i feel on the subject, but I think not only is it ok for some abilities to be weaker then others, but also that it is needed to retain the overall balance of the product.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And folks still don't get the "this game isn't meant to be balanced" memo.

If you want a cookie cutter balanced game, 4E is right around the corner.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
And folks still don't get the "this game isn't meant to be balanced" memo.

Because it exists only in your mind. If game balance didn't matter, there are much more versatile or lightweight or simulationist or detailed games, depending on your taste.

Besides, 4e is a horribly-balanced game.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
And folks still don't get the "this game isn't meant to be balanced" memo.

Because it exists only in your mind. If game balance didn't matter, there are much more versatile or lightweight or simulationist or detailed games, depending on your taste.

Besides, 4e is a horribly-balanced game.

No, it's the balance that exists only in your mind. Jason did state at one time that balance is matter of perspective - what's balanced for one person, it isn't balanced for another. Threads like "Fighters are too powerful" or "Buff Clerics" confirm that.

If you still believe that there is some absolute, purely abstract balance that can be achieved, you might be at the wrong forum. At any rate, Pathfinder RPG with the current design philosophy will not satisfy your expectations. There might be other, much more balanced games out there, depending on your taste.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
If you still believe that there is some absolute, purely abstract balance that can be achieved, you might be at the wrong forum.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Perfect balance isn't achievable, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to improve on class balance. Narrowing the set of things classes can do, a la 4e, would be one possible way to achieve closer balance, but 4e does an awful job of it and it makes for a less interesting game, anyway.

I am amenable to things that make the game more interesting at the cost of perfect balance, and I imagine most people feel similarly. It's still worth discussing game balance when new things s&~@ on game balance for no good reason, or when something is designed in such a way that it wrecks game balance for no/negligible benefit.

Threads like "Fighters are too powerful" or "Buff Clerics" are useful, but not as discussions of balance, but more as a way to teach people who haven't mastered the system to understand the game better, or as a way to discuss how to make the game more transparent.

But no, uninformed opinions are not automatically correct - or even partially correct - merely because they exist.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If you still believe that there is some absolute, purely abstract balance that can be achieved, you might be at the wrong forum.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Perfect balance isn't achievable, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to improve on class balance. Narrowing the set of things classes can do, a la 4e, would be one possible way to achieve closer balance, but 4e does an awful job of it and it makes for a less interesting game, anyway.

I am amenable to things that make the game more interesting at the cost of perfect balance, and I imagine most people feel similarly. It's still worth discussing game balance when new things s+~* on game balance for no good reason, or when something is designed in such a way that it wrecks game balance for no/negligible benefit.

Threads like "Fighters are too powerful" or "Buff Clerics" are useful, but not as discussions of balance, but more as a way to teach people who haven't mastered the system to understand the game better, or as a way to discuss how to make the game more transparent.

But no, uninformed opinions are not automatically correct - or even partially correct - merely because they exist.

You hold that there is some kind of golden standard of balance which you have a grasp of and everybody who doesn't is "not mastering the system" and "uninformed". That's certainly a comforting thought to live by, but I remain unconvinced, and even further - I remain unconvinced that you can convince me :)

And seeing how Paizo staff reacts to the issue of balance, I am convinced that they view it entirely differently than you do. Therefore, all you will get from new books is frustration and opportunity to show off that somebody who gets paid $$$ for writing the book doesn't know a thing about "balance".

Again, it's a comforting opportunity, but one that's fundamentally flawed at the very core.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Again, you hold that there is some kind of golden standard of balance which you have a grasp of and everybody who doesn't is "not mastering the system" and "uninformed". That's certainly a comforting thought to live by, but I remain unconvinced, and even further - I remain unconvinced that you can convince me :)

No, I hold that there are approximate standards of balance (breadth of problem-solving skills, reliability of execution, vulnerability to mishap), and I've always been happy to discuss them. I have dozens if not hundreds of posts in "tier threads", class balance discussion, and suchlike doing just that. If you want to pose some sort of specific reason why balance can't be improved (rather than just mischaracterizing things I've said in vague ways), I'd be happy to address it.

Anyone who thinks fighters are too powerful hasn't yet learned how to do the same thing(s) with other classes. Anyone who feels that clerics need to be buffed probably hasn't yet learned how to do whatever they want to do with clerics, or has some fundamental disagreements about the scope of the class (which isn't really a mastery or balance discussion, I suppose).

In any event, you're not looking for some sort of discussion, let alone looking for anyone to try and move your beliefs. You haven't made any sort of argument, just mischaracterized other people's arguments then pointed out the flaws in those mischaracterizations. No, Pathfinder is not perfectly balanced, and to some extent that's by design. That doesn't mean that improving balance, either by revision or addition, is impossible. Nor does it mean that disrupting what balance already exists is acceptable.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Again, you hold that there is some kind of golden standard of balance which you have a grasp of and everybody who doesn't is "not mastering the system" and "uninformed". That's certainly a comforting thought to live by, but I remain unconvinced, and even further - I remain unconvinced that you can convince me :)

No, I hold that there are approximate standards of balance (breadth of problem-solving skills, reliability of execution, vulnerability to mishap), and I've always been happy to discuss them. I have dozens if not hundreds of posts in "tier threads", class balance discussion, and suchlike doing just that. If you want to pose some sort of specific reason why balance can't be improved (rather than just mischaracterizing things I've said in vague ways), I'd be happy to address it.

Anyone who thinks fighters are too powerful hasn't yet learned how to do the same thing(s) with other classes. Anyone who feels that clerics need to be buffed probably hasn't yet learned how to do whatever they want to do with clerics, or has some fundamental disagreements about the scope of the class (which isn't really a mastery or balance discussion, I suppose).

In any event, you're not looking for some sort of discussion, let alone looking for anyone to try and move your beliefs. You haven't made any sort of argument, just mischaracterized other people's arguments then pointed out the flaws in those mischaracterizations. No, Pathfinder is not perfectly balanced, and to some extent that's by design. That doesn't mean that improving balance, either by revision or addition, is impossible. Nor does it mean that disrupting what balance already exists is acceptable.

I'm not going to argue actual rules with you, because that means discussing things on your terms - with your meaning of balance as the backdrop. That's not gonna float with me, I know your discussing style pretty well after all those years and I've learned not to fall into that particular trap.

Once again, my issue is that you continue to present your opinions as if everybody, devs included, had your "approximate standards of balance" in mind. Winning arguments on your own terms is easy.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
leo1925 wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Darkholme can you give some examples of no.2?
Vow of Poverty.
Who in their right minds would think that anything good can come from using that? The no.2 option is about something that looks good but it isn't.

I can see were really inexperienced players think this might be okay, since you get extra Ki in return. Especially players that haven't gotten into mid to high levels where everything has DR (that they'll never be able to overcome).

But, I generally agree as far as Ultimate Magic is concerned. It seems like every time I look through the book, I see something that looks promising, but once i read the exact mechanics, turns out to be disappointing.


hmmmm let me ask a question AMiB ... have your DPR threads surprised you in regards to the effect of the new rule books? Have there been any trends you have seen in the rules "balance"?

*leans back and takes a puff of cherrywood pipe*


Darkholme wrote:
I've been noticing alot of really underwhelming abilities in the new pathfinder releases.

I haven't read Ultimate Combat, but every rule book with a lot of new abilities (whether it's for Pathfinder or D&D or some other system) is going to have a wide variation in their relative usefulness. I don't think that's anything specific to new Pathfinder releases.

By the way, what do you consider an old Pathfinder book?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also sit in the camp that says "the game can't be balanced." From either a real-world OR fantasy logic standpoint, wizards are better than you. I don't like to play wizards, never have, but I accept that they are just better, particularly once they gain the proper divinations, transportation, and defensive spells. Then they can just hole up, study, and take you out on their terms. Brains over brawn. I accept that.

My entire group accepts that, actually. How many fighters do you see being the BBEG in a campaign? I bet it's less than 1%. I can't say that I know what everyone here has run or how they play their game, but I would put money on the fact that if everyone who ever posted on these forums listed out every BBEG they ever created or encountered as a PC, there would be more wizards than anything. Because they're just better.

The sub-optimal choices have always been there. I don't know anyone who [in my days of playing 3.5] ever took exotic weapon proficiency (especially for the bastard sword) or feats like Persuasive, Stealthy, etc, unless they had to do so for a prestige class or as a prerequisite for another feat. Because those were considered weaker choices, and feats were more scarce back then.

I would point to a number of feats and call shenanigans. Of recent interest to me is the purpose of Deceptive Exchange in Ultimate Combat. You forgo denying your target's dex on a successful feint to force them to take an object from you that can fill no more than one hand. If not for the special text beneath that outlines alchemists using it to give opponents delayed bombs... I can't think of anything (if you can, please let me know, because it has the ILLUSION of usefulness to me, still).

Stalwart is an awesome looking feat, but I feel like it's a trap because the only time you'd rather have DR over AC is when something can hit you on very low rolls. It's better to just not get hit than to absorb more damage from each hit. (This is an opinion, and the usefulness of this feat is entirely subjective to gaming experiences.)

Combat Medic? Can only use it's ability on OTHER Combat Medics. 9_9 That should not have been a teamwork feat. Three of us immediately deemed it useless, and it wasn't unanimous because the other two are at home for the summer.

I'll stop rambling, as I could go on forever. My point is that there are going to be sub-par options, and for some the choice may not be so clear. NPCs may benefit from these feats more than PCs. And that's fine.

Because wizards are better than you.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Foghammer wrote:
Lots of things that I agree with.

I totally agree with you on most of what you said. My beef with UM is that I'm having a hard time finding almost anything (except the Magus, which I love)that I want to use from the book. UC is looking pretty awesome though..

Dark Archive

Foghammer wrote:
Combat Medic? Can only use it's ability on OTHER Combat Medics. 9_9 That should not have been a teamwork feat. Three of us immediately deemed it useless, and it wasn't unanimous because the other two are at home for the summer.

I think you're forgetting that the main users of Teamwork Feats are Inquisitors and Cavaliers, who have the Solo Tactics and Tactician abilities.

Now, granted, I don't think the Tactician ability is particularly well implemented but that's a different argument.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Reverse creep isn't really possible. If every option in a splatbook is universally trumped by abilities in the existing material, then power levels have stayed exactly the same.

Soon as a single ability in a splatbook allows you to do something you could not do in the existing material, and is balanced, then you've increased character versatility, and the power level potential has increased (just a bit).

Generally speaking, a splatbook induces power creep, it's pretty much inevitable if you are providing mechanical options. The question isn't as much "if" it produces power creep, the question is "how much?"

That said, if splatbooks have interesting options that improve a player's ability to make unique characters, and make the game more fun, then a bit of power creep is a small price to pay right?

Dark Archive

When a Serpent Skull game was forming awhile back, the GM asked me if I wanted to try out a Jungle or Swamp type druid, from the APG Archetypes, and after looking at them, I realized that, in almost every case, taking an Archetype would weaken the Druid's wild shape ability, in exchange for some mostly insignificant terrain-specific bonuses, each of which *also* had another ability it swapped out and replaced. It felt, after reading Druid AT after Druid AT, that the design goal wasn't 'offer new options for Druids,' it was 'reduce the effectiveness of Wild Shape, and disguise it as new options for Druids.'

Balance is obviously tricky, but I keep seeing stuff that sounds neat and appropriate thematically, but ultimately ends up being less effective than the core class feature it is replacing.

I'm not a fan of unbalanced class options (such as the Zhentish Fighter substitution levels from 3.5) that grant something for nothing, but I'm not a fan of class options that swap out something that's always useful for something less effective that might never come up.

I love the idea of Archetypes, but not the execution, and I'm increasingly finding that I liked the idea of Substitution levels better, as they were more customizable and I could take only the levels that best suited my concept, and didn't have to get squeezed into 20 levels worth of an Archetype.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Anburaid wrote:
hmmmm let me ask a question AMiB ... have your DPR threads surprised you in regards to the effect of the new rule books?

They don't really have much to do with balance, since murdering fools is only one problem-solving tool, but absolutely they have shocked me. I was surprised to see how much the APG options improved the ability of the monk to do damage. Temple Swords or even just the APG's unarmed attack toolset can turn into quite a lot of increased damage, when the monk gets the opportunity to sit down and drop a full attack. Conversely, I was already pretty sure that sneak attack was overrated, but I really did think that it produced competitive damage without heavily focusing the rogue on murder (high str, combat feats, combat talents, etc.)

I've had some assumptions shaken up by even that limited form of analysis, yeah.


Both powercreep and worthless abilities were more common in WotC products IMO.

I have noticed a few of both in most splatbooks, but I can live with most of them.
What I have found is a lot of archetypes that work fine for either low or high levels, but are really weak for the other half of the class levels.

IMO they have too much stuff in a single book, and time/money to playtest everything is limited. Yet, IMO, the ammount of options and their quality are acceptable.


If a book were to swing one way or the other, I much prefer it to swing on the weaker side, and then my group and I can adjust to be more powerful based on our campaigns and playing style.

I don't much like something more powerful coming out, and then having to make it weaker (or just ban it outright, which is our more likely response).

If Paizo is going in the direction as the OP is saying, then I approve (as opposed to going in the opposite direction). So... good.


You have your standard build archer with Point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, and multi shot. A new feat comes out, gatlin gun shot, which increases your damage even more. Your power level has creeped up.

You have your standard build archer with Point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, and multi shot. A new feat comes out that lets you throw one arrow a round as a standard action with no penalty.... a completely worthless feat.

Your power level does not decline, because you are NEVER going to take that feat. In other words, power seep isnt possible unless they nerf the existing material.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The one thing I don't understand is why people buy stuff they know isn't balanced. Anyone of us could create unbalanced stuff while sitting in traffic waiting for the light to turn green. So, why spend cash on it? Do some people have cash that is just screaming to be spent?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LilithsThrall wrote:
The one thing I don't understand is why people buy stuff they know isn't balanced. Anyone of us could create unbalanced stuff while sitting in traffic waiting for the light to turn green. So, why spend cash on it? Do some people have cash that is just screaming to be spent?

Me, for example, I'm a rabid fanboy who has been brainwashed using Paizo's orbital mind control lasers into buying anything they put out. It's the best explanation I can give.


I blame the pretty pictures the put in the books...

Shadow Lodge

Arnwyn wrote:

If a book were to swing one way or the other, I much prefer it to swing on the weaker side, and then my group and I can adjust to be more powerful based on our campaigns and playing style.

I don't much like something more powerful coming out, and then having to make it weaker (or just ban it outright, which is our more likely response).

I'm very much the opposite. I would much rather tone-down a good idea a little (or even ban certain things if need be), than to need to fix something from the ground up. Adding additional abilities to someting like a Feat to make it work the way (I think) it should also has the terrible side affect of making other players feel like others are getting special treatment, especially if it needs to be done often.


Beckett wrote:
I'm very much the opposite. I would much rather tone-down a good idea a little (or even ban certain things if need be), than to need to fix something from the ground up.

I didn't say "ground up". Why did you?

Quote:
Adding additional abilities to someting like a Feat to make it work the way (I think) it should also has the terrible side affect of making other players feel like others are getting special treatment, especially if it needs to be done often.

Huh, interesting. Such a feeling would not even dawn on anyone in our group.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Arnwyn wrote:

If a book were to swing one way or the other, I much prefer it to swing on the weaker side, and then my group and I can adjust to be more powerful based on our campaigns and playing style.

I don't much like something more powerful coming out, and then having to make it weaker (or just ban it outright, which is our more likely response).

Beckett wrote:
I'm very much the opposite. I would much rather tone-down a good idea a little (or even ban certain things if need be), than to need to fix something from the ground up. Adding additional abilities to someting like a Feat to make it work the way (I think) it should also has the terrible side affect of making other players feel like others are getting special treatment, especially if it needs to be done often.

These are both interesting insights. I've seen both overpowered options and trap options cause problems in games, when a player thought their character could do something the GM couldn't reasonably allow, or when a player thought their character could do something and the rules just weren't up to the task.

I dunno. I think I'd prefer aiming low, because it's about the same amount of work to rewrite rules to make them stronger or weaker, and buffing someone on the fly seems to cause less bad feelings and continuity issues than nerfing them on the fly.


LilithsThrall wrote:
The one thing I don't understand is why people buy stuff they know isn't balanced. Anyone of us could create unbalanced stuff while sitting in traffic waiting for the light to turn green. So, why spend cash on it? Do some people have cash that is just screaming to be spent?

That isn't neccesarily true. I spend alot of time thinking about rpgs rpg options, the story of my campaign, and possibly the next one. However I personally am not overly creative. I am what I like to call an aranger. I like to take other people's ideas and tweak/adjust them to my preference. I need some basis of new ideas to work with or I sit there with a blank sheet of paper. I guess thats why I am a QA anylist. So I buy an AP that I know i wont run as is, or a rulebook where i wont use half of it, but I do it as inspiration for the ideas and concepts i'll eventually use.

Now keep in mind there has been very little from paizo that I outright wont use, maybe a few options here and there, but even if I thought a book will be wrong bad fun, I'll still get use out of it for inspiration of my own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
I've seen both overpowered options and trap options cause problems in games

Me too. Overpowered, if the difference among party members is not that big, can be dealt with just increasing challenges. Buffing up most times became "DM mercy", and the player just rolled/choosed something else.

If an option is bad, is bad. There is nothing you can do, because houseruling it means be a developer or something. Since I do not receive money for that, I just don't do it if I buy a book.

And a thing more about "your DM can fix it". Yeah, he/she can. If is experienced. Now I can fix thing (again, I start to bother now because I just decided to stop buy RPG books).

Then when I was a noob DM, I just made up things and they never worked as expected. I pay books to avoid those troubles. If I have to buy books for other people suggestions and houserules, internet is plenty.

@Balance: perfect balance is impossible and would be horribly boring. What one should aim at is interesting, comparable options with situational advantages/disdvantages. This makes a game interesting.

And this is not obtained when there are feats so bad you cannot take them (ERRATED cockatrice strike), so good you can avoid taking them (persistent spells + FtS), exotic weapons all crappy barring few "WTF" ones, and so on. And paizo seems to just ignore this, or just apply fixes that are not fixes (Cockatrice Strike, antagonize). With a surprising celerity in fixing nonbroken things like the Monk INA feat.

These last two things make you wonder if you are just playing the same game.


Treantmonk wrote:

Reverse creep isn't really possible. If every option in a splatbook is universally trumped by abilities in the existing material, then power levels have stayed exactly the same.

Soon as a single ability in a splatbook allows you to do something you could not do in the existing material, and is balanced, then you've increased character versatility, and the power level potential has increased (just a bit).

Generally speaking, a splatbook induces power creep, it's pretty much inevitable if you are providing mechanical options. The question isn't as much "if" it produces power creep, the question is "how much?"

That said, if splatbooks have interesting options that improve a player's ability to make unique characters, and make the game more fun, then a bit of power creep is a small price to pay right?

I sort of agree as you could always play core. I have never heard of a GM that says you have to use the newest book paizo puts out that would make no sense and could be the only time reverse power creep could be possible. This does seem a bit unreasonable though.


Kolokotroni wrote:
See, its not about where any individual ability or choice sits on the power scale. Its the game as a whole. If a book has a few powers/options that seem like they are 'too powerful', and some that seem like they are 'very weak', and hopefully more that seem like they are 'ok', then we have a well written product. I still havent dug through all of UM (and certainly not UC) to see how i feel on the subject, but I think not only is it ok for some abilities to be weaker then others, but also that it is needed to retain the overall balance of the product.

Can't agree more. Very, very few successful (as in long-lasting for their gameplay) games are truly balanced. Every role-playing game--every one--has a mixture of abilities that are overpowered, average, and below average. And every one of those games has a mixture of players who will take the powerful, average and weak abilities. Unlike a computer game, Pathfinder/3.x is an organic experience where the DM/GM has the ability to tailor the game as needed to the players. If your players have made honest mistakes that have made their characters weaker, you can wave your hand and make the game a little more feasible, while still being as challenging as you want it to be. This is different than a player who obstinately wants to make their character weak just so they can live out some strange archetype.


Jam412 wrote:
Foghammer wrote:
Lots of things that I agree with.
I totally agree with you on most of what you said. My beef with UM is that I'm having a hard time finding almost anything (except the Magus, which I love)that I want to use from the book. UC is looking pretty awesome though..

You must not play a high-level spellcaster. Cold Ice Strike makes me clap my hands and giggle in excitement like a school girl.

Dark Archive

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I would say Paizo is trying to hit the same power level as already exist and trying very hard. But since no one is perfect means sometimes they are going to hit low and sometimes hit high. Do I think some of the newer abilities are weaker or stronger than core options? Yep sure do, but I think as a whole most are close to being on par which is fine by me.

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder: Reverse Power Creep? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.