|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...This approach intrigues me.
I believe that class power level should be set in Core, and if I want to build a fully functional representative of a class, Core is all I need.
That holds true for every class except the poor old Monk.
Splats should be there to allow me to mechanically represent some weirdo concept that just got in my head. And I'm fine with weirdo fiddly concepts being slightly below Core in power levels - after all, if somebody plays only using one book he shouldn't feel like he's missing POWER, he should miss VARIETY. If new splatbooks will be desired because they give you more ooomph, well the 3.5 madness lies that way.
My approach comes from playing with my groups, which have several players who never opened APG and won't open UM/UC. YES, players who don't want splats. I know, heresy! So, they build their PCs using Core only, and I'm perfectly happy with them not missing out anything vital. When they ask me "Does UC contain anything that would make me more powerful?" I would answer "Nah, it's great if you want to make a FFIV Dragoon, wake me up if you ever want to.".
That's followed by "What's a FFIV Dragoon", BTW. (sighs)
IOW: if Power Attack was a splatbook feat, something would be horribly wrong.
I guess we can apply the old rule: If A says that X is underpowered and B says that X is zomgbbqwtfop, then X is fine.Had to jump on it, since we have threads at odds with each other.
So, power creep or no?
That reasoning crops up every so often (even from Paizo developers), and it always makes my blood boil. THIS IS NOT LOGIC, PEOPLE.
|
|
That reasoning crops up every so often (even from Paizo developers), and it always makes my blood boil. THIS IS NOT LOGIC, PEOPLE.I guess we can apply the old rule: If A says that X is underpowered and B says that X is zomgbbqwtfop, then X is fine.Had to jump on it, since we have threads at odds with each other.
So, power creep or no?
Who cares about logic?
|
Had to jump on it, since we have threads at odds with each other.
So, power creep or no?
I don't think the approach should be "the book" as much as "this specific ability" when you are discussing power creep.
I think the concept of reverse power creep is just stupid. Unless they are nerfing an existing rule, the you can't have a new rule reverse creep the game since you don't have to use it.
As to the book itself, like I said in another thread I haven't seen anything as egregious as "Persistent" spell yet, but it is a big book and the community hasn't digested everything yet.
So far, so good. We'll see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Logically, if one person says cake, and the other says pie, then it obviously must be cakepie.
That's logically. Realistically, if two people are pointing at a pastry and arguing about whether it's cake or pie, a third person will come along and eat the pastry, then say "Who the F--k cares? It was delicious!".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Logically, if one person says cake, and the other says pie, then it obviously must be cakepie.That's logically. Realistically, if two people are pointing at a pastry and arguing about whether it's cake or pie, a third person will come along and eat the pastry, then say "Who the F--k cares? It was delicious!".
" if one person says cake, and the other says pie, then it obviously must be cakepie" is the golden mean fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Whether it is cake or pie is determined by whether it is cake, mostly cake, cake pie, mostly pie, or pie (or some gradation in the middle)
It could in fact, be a muffin, a tarantula, or even non existent.
What level spell should detect cake be?</sarcasm>
Logically, if one person says cake, and the other says pie, then it obviously must be cakepie.That's logically. Realistically, if two people are pointing at a pastry and arguing about whether it's cake or pie, a third person will come along and eat the pastry, then say "Who the F--k cares? It was delicious!"." if one person says cake, and the other says pie, then it obviously must be cakepie" is the golden mean fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Whether it is cake or pie is determined by whether it is cake, mostly cake, cake pie, mostly pie, or pie (or some gradation in the middle)
It could in fact, be a muffin, a tarantula, or even non existent.
Wise words. Thank you.
Logically, if one person says cake, and the other says pie, then it obviously must be cakepie.Isn't cake a sort of pie or vice versa?
The cake is a lie! The "cake" is a pie!
What level spell should detect cake be?</sarcasm>
Bard 1, Wizard/Sorcerer 1
This is one level lower then Detect Thoughs, which can help you detect lies, which the cake is. Since it's a specific kind of lie, drop the level by. It would be 0 but lies that are cakes and cakes that are lies are common enough not to be a cantrip.
====
On topic, I'm still digesting UC so I can't speak to the power creap. It feels like it a bit in the stances, although that really only creaps fighters and monks so... not much of an issue.
Logically, if one person says cake, and the other says pie, then it obviously must be cakepie.That's logically. Realistically, if two people are pointing at a pastry and arguing about whether it's cake or pie, a third person will come along and eat the pastry, then say "Who the F--k cares? It was delicious!".
Word.
I think creep is kind of a vague concept. Splats tend to introduce things to the the game that are broken, but I think the term "creep" only really makes sense in the context of competitive collectibles games.
Does option X replace option A in combination A+B+C, with the a better result? Does option X replace options A and B?
There can be power creep in non-collectible games. When you compare what the Core options are to the supplemental ones, if the supplement is a direct upgrade of something core does, and does it better, then it's creep. You can also get parallel creep by adding new options that better and still different then what's in core. Crane Style deflecting one attack per round could be an example of slight creep. It's something not avail be in Core, and has a frairly valuable mechanical benefit. How many core options get a free "you missed" option. Mirror Image comes to mind.
If a new option is one that you would take in place of an existing one because it's "better", then it's creep.
I agree. And for the same reason, the concept of power creep is just stupid because you don't have to use it.
- It gets a little rough on the dm if he has to keep saying no. It gets even rougher if they have to say no to some people and yes to others.
|
|
There can be power creep in non-collectible games. When you compare what the Core options are to the supplemental ones, if the supplement is a direct upgrade of something core does, and does it better, then it's creep...If a new option is one that you would take in place of an existing one because it's "better", then it's creep.
I don't know. See, the whole idea of creep is that creep is bad...but its bad in the context of competitive collectible games because it forces players to constantly invest in new collectibles (cards, minis, whatever) in order to stay competitive. That doesn't happen with rpgs.
If a new option is one that everyone takes because its "better," then i don't think that's "creep" - I think that just means it's better.
|
|
I agree. And for the same reason, the concept of power creep is just stupid because you don't have to use it.
- It gets a little rough on the dm if he has to keep saying no. It gets even rougher if they have to say no to some people and yes to others.
Power creep is a problem. It made the core rulebook and base classes of 3.5 "rare" in many competitive games.
The core should be the core, which was a base concept in Paizo's core rulebook and the reason behind the power bump for all the core classes.
As they said at the time it was an attempt to make the primary classes able to compete with classes released later.
Reverse power creep is not a problem. If an alternative option is very flavorful but not as powerful as a core option, that is as it should be.
Core is the standard you judge all other thing against. It should be generally the best option, with other options being "situationally" better, but not surpassing core.
With the exception of a few hiccups, they have done a good job with this, unlike 3.5 at the end which went off the rails.
I think creep is kind of a vague concept. Splats tend to introduce things to the the game that are broken, but I think the term "creep" only really makes sense in the context of competitive collectibles games.Does option X replace option A in combination A+B+C, with the a better result? Does option X replace options A and B?
There can be power creep in non-collectible games. When you compare what the Core options are to the supplemental ones, if the supplement is a direct upgrade of something core does, and does it better, then it's creep. You can also get parallel creep by adding new options that better and still different then what's in core. Crane Style deflecting one attack per round could be an example of slight creep. It's something not avail be in Core, and has a frairly valuable mechanical benefit. How many core options get a free "you missed" option. Mirror Image comes to mind.
If a new option is one that you would take in place of an existing one because it's "better", then it's creep.
Deflect arrows.
|
|
Power creep is a problem. It made the core rulebook and base classes of 3.5 "rare" in many competitive games.
I don't think there was an issue of power creep in the WOTC books. I think the issue there was WOTC's deliberate decision to make the OGL core material worthless in an effort to reshape the game into something that WOTC owned entirely.
I think my problem with the attitude you're espousing is that it assumes that core is perfect ("the standard you judge all other thing against"), and that introducing elements that fix issues in core that are superior (and thus chosen more often) than the elements they fix is "power creep."
I'm also not convinced that people picking new stuff over old stuff is proof that new stuff is better. I saw just about all of the new classes played in my 3.5 campaigns, and in pretty much every case the new stuff was picked for its novelty, not its practicality.
And as always, system mastery matters so much more than any element in the game, which (in my opinion) makes issues like "balance" and "power creep" incredibly subjective and kind of meaningless.
Power creep is a problem. It made the core rulebook and base classes of 3.5 "rare" in many competitive games.
No, Druid, Wizard, Sorceror, and Cleric were never rare in competitive games.
If you mean, Fighter and Barb than well yeah, non-magicals didn't get buffed by splats much.
As they said at the time it was an attempt to make the primary classes able to compete with classes released later.
Yet, they increased casters which were never underpowered in 3.5...
I can see one way of describing reverse power creep:
That is if you consider the game to be zero-sum. If one class is buffed and the others remain the same, in relative terms all the others got nerfed by comparison. That way, there's no power creep or reverse power creep. There's just creep. It's a skewing of options to favour a few more highly and others less, regardless whether they went up or down or stayed the same. It's relative.
On the other hand, since the monsters and encounters aren't creeping, the zero-sum argument doesn't really work.
Many of the most broken power loops in 3.5 were core problems. Sure they would later add options that allowed level 3 characters to have easy access to infinite power and divine ranks, but once you have broken the game in half with infinite wishes and balor mining, it doesn't even matter that a later book burns down the remains with god artificers or bonus caster levels in excess of your actual caster levels. Anything else is just pissing on the ashes.
That said Pathfinder DOES have power creep. It also has a bunch of crap-tastic, uninspired and boring options. But at the very least, the ratio of sheer banality against feats you actually care about is much better than in 3.5. Pathfinder has done a better job keeping god builds to minimum than 3.5 did and most of the problems that Pathfinder has were inherited. They haven't created any new infinite loops that I am aware of, and there is something to be said for that. It takes a greater attention to detail than WotC was often willing to give to weigh a new option against all preexisting options and expect to catch all of the major issues.
UC has many interesting options, some are underpowered, but not to a degree that would dissuade you from considering it. Some options are overvalued, such as feats with monstrously high prerequisites. Ignoring the Called Shot rules though, I'd say its an excellent book. That's more than can be said about the Complete Warrior, which had a rare few gems hidden in a pile of s%!@.
Those are my thoughts anyhow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perfection is impossible but its pursuit is worthy. :P
Then we'll have to agree to disagree.
I do not believe perfection can ever be attained but that impossibility does not mean it is worthless to strive for improvement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fortunately, we don't have a time limit here. The game can be improved incrementally indefinitely.
I've seen the pursuit of perfection lead to projects running over scope, over budget, and over time. I've seen the pursuit of perfection lead to hopeless complexity which crashes the system and results in the product never being made. And I've seen it happen far too many times to count.
Trust me, in the REAL world, the pursuit of perfection is a trap.
I've seen the lack of motivation lead to projects which are uninspired, unneeded and forgettable. I've seen the lack of vision lead to hopeless ineffectiveness which crashes the system and results in the product never being made. And I've seen it happen far too many times to count. Trust me, in the REAL world, the pursuit of perfection is innovation and progress.
I'm not saying, but I'm just sayin' :P
For me, the test is "That ability used to be underpowered until splatbook X came along and fixed it". That's creep.
Logically, if one person says cake, and the other says pie, then it obviously must be cakepie.
i beleive that the Players handbook 2 for 3.5 had a lot of interesting bonuses for martials. steadfast determination dealt with a fighter's (or barbarian's) will save problems quite nicely and melee weapon mastery was a nice DPR boost for anyone willing to dip 4 levels of fighter. it is one of the few 3.5 sources i would personally allow in pathfinder without question.
For me, the test is "That ability used to be underpowered until splatbook X came along and fixed it". That's creep.
No way. If an ability was useless but now its as good as the other abilities the power of the class that's supposed to have it hasn't advanced: the power of the people trying to use that mechanism has gone up to the point it should be, and not a bit further.
Yeah, I would have to say that for the term "power creep" to have any solid meaning, it would have to mean that the "max" was increased a little in progressive amounts each time a book is released.
If you make something that used to be underpowered into somethign worthwhile, that really can't be called "power creep".
Maybe.. "fixing creep".
Although, in my opinion, the books paizo has released feel more like "fixing bursts". 3 major books and a lot of things feel "fixed". That's quite a lot different compared to 2 dozen books all slowly increasing power level across the board.