Honestly, if a "pretty good games designer" told me he thinks something he did a while ago was pretty imbalanced, and if I also thought that something he did was PLENTY imbalanced, I wouldn't tell him "well that's just your opinion".
...while I can accept they aren't, is there some reason that without undermining the core mechanical features of the assorted classes that they shouldn't be?
Particularly as an idealized design goal?
Because they're not. QED!
(It's Latin for "Look, I'm a circle!".)
The funny thins is that, quoting Monte, this particular game design philosophy that "rewards mastery of the game" just ends up with a lot of stuff thrown into the garbage. If mechanical equality is not a goal worth pursuing (either because of limited resources or a deliberate decision), then those options that are not deemed competitive will just be forgotten by the competent player or GM (the so-called "trap option").
This is a waste of company resources, space and man-hours -but that's a waste Paizo is allowed to make, given that Pathfinder is theirs and theirs alone. Obviously, while not every feat is going to work for every build (and that's perfectly fine), the very act of designing a feat or spell or class feature in a deliberately "imperfect" way ("We could've make it work better") baffles the buyer & reader, and leaves him frustrated.
Why?
Because, to be blunt, mechanically weak choices that encourage "mastery of the game" will achieve nothing, save to be deemed garbage by the skilled player. There is no escape, no alternative: since game designing material does not fall from the heavens, it really makes no sense for a company to -deliberately- provide trap options. None at all.
It really seems a cheap way to not admit mistakes, though.
Incidentally, great way to improve mechanical inequality if you'd rather work around the problem: get a spring-loaded boxing glove. Every time someone picks a trap option, cry "YOU JUST ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD!" and use the glove.
When I run for my group I let them roll a Reflex save first, for realism.
Incidentally, great way to improve mechanical inequality if you'd rather work around the problem: get a spring-loaded boxing glove. Every time someone picks a trap option, cry "YOU JUST ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD!" and use the glove.
When I run for my group I let them roll a Reflex save first, for realism.
You see, that could work in certain games.
Under Pathfinder, "mastery of the game" is a useless concept because PF is not (by default) a competetitive, PvP or PvGM game. There are games that work that way, RPGs at that, in which the rules force GM and players to play as opponents (one springs to mind, Agon). Unless one is a sadistic, killer GM (and probably not a nice person IRL), there is absolutely no need for a player to discover the hard way that some option he took performs poorly.
If you mean the rules about godless clerics then ok but if you mean that you can't call yourself a seperatist if you are a godless cleric then i say that this is BS.They doesn't matter since you are not allowed to apply that rules.You mean the same flavor, background and roleplaying I get out of using the pre-existing, standard, Core Rules for a philosophy cleric, and calling it a schismatic/seperatist/heretic/mystery cultist/what have you?
For flavor? For background, For roleplaying purposes?
I mean the former, the rules about godless clerics.
Now I am imagining the Toughness feat coming with a note that says "This is for 1st-level elf wizards, one-shot convention characters and monsters who have extra feat slots the Dungeon Master doesn't really know what to do with."
It'd still be an awful piece of game design but at least its dirty secret would be revealed like the filthy whore it is.
Oh baby.
|
I've been thinking about this and comparing it to history. I was thinking about RL clerics of note have been 'seperatists' (unless they're oracles) and on philosophical level I have a problem with making the 'sepratists mechanically weak.
These are the people who stand up entire hiearchies, tell the high priests to to hell, and change the world.
This option should come off as slightly more powerful rather then less in archtype form.
These are the people who stand up entire hiearchies, tell the high priests to to hell, and change the world.This option should come off as slightly more powerful rather then less in archtype form.
That depends on the separatist and other factors, doesn't it? The Bogomils and Arians didn't do so well. Martin Luthor may have done so, but he was unable to hold the line against other separatists (nor, apparently even recognize that he was a primary spark for most of those others).
The internet would be much better off if more people just stopped feeding the trolls.
Agreed. It's threads like this that prevent me from recommending Paizo forums despite recommending Paizo products. There is some tremendous butthurt going on in this thread.
I think the forums need a new tag. We need to be able to tag threads "no Paizo staff allowed" because I think it's a shame that folks like SKR are wasting their time justifying things I see no reason for them to justify. I've seen plenty of FAQ threads worth commenting on and I see plenty of products coming out in the next year worth working on. This thread, however, ehhhh...
Imagine a world where SKR stops and thinks, "Woah! I had an epiphany! The separatist archetype is too weak. Let's give them a bonus feat or something" and the separatist-haters suddenly rejoice. Is that really a better use of time than working on Advanced Race Guide or handling genuine FAQs out there rather than simply options people don't like?
I don't, and I don't believe you do either. I'm not sure your words match how you would play. I don't believe you would allow a separatist free rein of all the domains as their non-deity-granted choice. Nor would I allow a philosophy cleric representing a separatist to do that either.
I presume this is in reply to my post and you have a lot of nerve not taking me at my word when you have pretty much no reason not to. You'd also be wrong on both counts here.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you just use "We were bad at developing" as an excuse for making a bad development choice?Still waiting on that reason as to why certain characters "should" be mechanically inferior.Still waiting on why you think all the options in the Core Rulebook are mechanically equal.
No, I'm pointing out to you that "balance" in an RPG where you have healing classes and damage classes and support classes is an illusion. Is the cleric with the Healing domain "balanced" against one with the Travel or War domains? Is the healing cleric balanced against the fighter? Or the barbarian? Or the sorcerer? Or the bard? How do you rate how "balanced" they are against each other? By how much damage they do? By how much damage they prevent or cure? By their total skill point bonuses?
The game, dating all the way back to Basic D&D, isn't built for you to win, it's built for you to have fun. And if you're given different ways for you to have fun with your character, even if some of those ways mean you're not "balanced" against a character specialized purely in damage or healing or Diplomacy checks, you're still having fun. This isn't World of Warcraft where a bad talent tree for a class means you're overall damage is down 2.5% from the best spec and you get yelled at by trying to raid in that poor spec because you're making it harder to kill boss monsters. This is a cooperative game where the odds are stacked in the PCs' favor and you don't have to maximize a number to ensure survival of the group. You're allowed to make choices that suit the story of your character, even if those choices mean you're not the best at damage or healing or Diplomacy. The game has greatswords and longswords and short swords and daggers, and each has its place in terms of damage, utility, and character flavor. Yet I don't see you complaining that the dagger-specialized fighter isn't balanced against the greatsword-specialized fighter.
If you want every option to be mechanically equal, you need to play a different game.
Me, I'm going to write for, and play, a game where it's okay if you want to play a Indiana Jones-style wizard who starts with a 15 Dex and 12 Int and fights with a whip. And it's okay if you want to play a rapier-wielding swashbuckler rogue who multiclasses into fighter and cleric of luck because it suits his theme, even though it costs him BAB and access to some better feats. And it's okay if you want to play a dwarf fighter who's slow as hell, has a 20 Con and 100 hit points at level 7, and takes Great Cleave to finish off all the minions while his monk and barbarian buddies kill the leader. Because those are all fun character options. Even if the wizard is struggling to keep his Int in pace with the minimum needed for his higher-level spells... because sometimes the wizard pulls off an awesome move in combat that he couldn't do with a pathetic Dex. Even if the swashbuckler is always out-damaged by the lower-level paladin with a greatsword... because sometimes the swashbuckler crit-kills a beholder in one stab. Even if the dwarf only gets to use Great Cleave once in the entire campaign... because that one time he kills 8 foes in one round and convinces the campaign boss to surrender in the face of such might.
If you're not satisfied with your numbers, choose another options that makes you feel like more of a man. If you're not having fun, play something else.
To paraphrase my second post in this thread:
Basically, "worthwhile" is not solely defined as "something mechanically equal to other options."
Not entirely sure why I'm replying to someone who used "butthurt" unironically, but okay.
While my use of "butthurt" was not ironic, it was flippant and I trust it will taken that way.
If SKR suddenly had the epiphany of "Oh! Let's not make some choices weaker simply because they run against the grain of how I think the game should be played," then Advanced Race Guide and future FAQs would be much higher quality. In fact, the idea that certain characters should be weaker because they go against the grain of how the game designers felt the game should be played is most of why Savage Species was so lackluster.
I know nothing about Savage Species and I don't intend to. But I think it's been made clear by Paizo whether through words or by products that they have a particular design methodology when it comes to Pathfinder.
The core rulebook established a certain power level for casters, healers, melee/ranged fighters, etc. All future rules will be either equivalently powerful or, in many cases, mechanically inferior to the optimizers out there. Sure, there are some new interesting build combinations, but new rules will rarely make something better than before. There will not be a Wish+ or somebody better at using weapons than the fighter. The core rulebook itself includes many mechanically inferior options all on its own. That's part of the game. Separatist is just another one.
I don't think I've seen a wiz/sorc thread on this board that didn't recommend color spray and other required spells at each level. Should I be prepared for the threads on the literally hundreds of underpowered spell options we have?
AMIB, your fake SKR quote is much different than mine. Mine was unlikely, but what do you think the possibility of not only SKR, but all of Paizo changing their minds about how they design the game? And if it's possible, how effective do you think this thread has been at conveying your viewpoint in a way that would help bring about that day?
Just wanted to say SKR, that that mentality is about the best base you could have for designing an RPG that I enjoy at least. Not that it's the ONLY thing that matters, but without it, you'd lost me as a customer a long time ago.
*Stuff*
Preach it!!!!!!!!
This is the best summation I have read in a long time, and it comes from somebody in the company. It is the precise reason I don't get along with min/maxers. To me they suck the fun out of the games I run.
The game, dating all the way back to Basic D&D, isn't built for you to win, it's built for you to have fun.And options like the separatist, which is a copypasta of a core option with a random -2 penalty and a terrible fluff, provide 63% more fun than the base option.
Wait. What?
Try contributing something other than snark to the conversation, and you'll have a chance that I'll listen to what you have to say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if the fluff isn't terrible, it's exactly the same as a core option, with a -2 to stuff.
That obstructs fun.
I wish I grew up in the magical world that you did, where every single choice you can make is the best choice. I wonder how McDonald's stays afloat in your world, what with having to pay its philosophy majors $50,000 per year just like doctors and chemists.
|
And options like the separatist, which is a copypasta of a core option with a random -2 penalty and a terrible fluff, provide 63% more fun than the base option.Even if the fluff isn't terrible, it's exactly the same as a core option, with a -2 to stuff.
That obstructs fun.
No, it creates a challenge.
Some of us like challenges. Some of us like brainstorming ways to make an effective monk with a vow of poverty, and are glad that an option was added that makes it more viable than just taking a monk and not having him have things.
Which is what you would need to do for that concept prior to the archetype.
Similarly some people want to create a cleric that isn't restricted to the domain choices listed for the gods.
And now they can.
How people find downside in more options that are more viable than the previous lack of options is beyond me.
How people find downside in more options that are more viable than the previous lack of options is beyond me.
They are saying that they can just use godless clerics that have gods and thus pick any two domains, so it's fully valid to have a cleric of iomedae with the evil and undeath domains in core anyway, just by calling it a godless cleric of iomedae/a cleric of the philosophy of iomedae.
|
|
They are saying that they can just use godless clerics that have gods and thus pick any two domains, so it's fully valid to have a cleric of iomedae with the evil and undeath domains in core anyway, just by calling it a godless cleric of iomedae/a cleric of the philosophy of iomedae.How people find downside in more options that are more viable than the previous lack of options is beyond me.
Only they can't do that in Golarion, as Jacobs has pointed out.
The whole point of a cleric is that they pray to receive spells from a god. Without a god...doesn't work out so well.
No, I'm pointing out to you that "balance" in an RPG where you have healing classes and damage classes and support classes is an illusion.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that you openly stated that the Separatist was intentionally made mechanically inferior?
You can't say "There's no such thing as balance" immidiately after saying "We intentionally made this unbalanced in being weaker." You're just throwing up a word salad at this point.
Incidentally I'm glad you brought up older editions! Because, let's see...
Absolute balance between classes is not possible, but I surely did seek to keep the various types at least reasonably on a par with eachother.
Cheers,
Gary
So let me ask you once more: Why should the Seperatist be mechanically inferior on purpose? Is it, indeed, because you personally do not like the fluff? You stated this was the cause.
|
|
So let me ask you once more: Why should the Seperatist be mechanically inferior on purpose? Is it, indeed, because you personally do not like the fluff? You stated this was the cause.
Because when you select a god, you are limited to the domains of that god.
With this, you aren't.
If you haven't been playing this way, you've been house ruling.
I wish I grew up in the magical world that you did, where every single choice you can make is the best choice. I wonder how McDonald's stays afloat in your world, what with having to pay its philosophy majors $50,000 per year just like doctors and chemists.Even if the fluff isn't terrible, it's exactly the same as a core option, with a -2 to stuff.
That obstructs fun.
Good news - you can! You start by playing a tabletop game created by human beings!
You do realize that Pathfinder is a game made by human beings, not bithed thrust from the Earth itself, right? You helped make it, so I really, really hope so.
Stop making excuses.
So let me ask you once more: Why should the Seperatist be mechanically inferior on purpose? Is it, indeed, because you personally do not like the fluff? You stated this was the cause.
Because when you select a god, you are limited to the domains of that god.
With this, you aren't.
If you haven't been playing this way, you've been house ruling.
I am not asking "What differences are there between clerics and Seperatists?" I'm asking why SKR stated flat out that Seperatists should be mechanically inferior.
|
|
I am not asking "What differences are there between clerics and Seperatists?" I'm asking why SKR stated flat out that Seperatists should be mechanically inferior.So let me ask you once more: Why should the Seperatist be mechanically inferior on purpose? Is it, indeed, because you personally do not like the fluff? You stated this was the cause.
Because when you select a god, you are limited to the domains of that god.
With this, you aren't.
If you haven't been playing this way, you've been house ruling.
And I am telling you they are getting a trade off, as not all domains are equal. Some have synergies.
Having access to more domains than the god you selected is an advantage. The -2 is the trade off for that advantage.
Normally you choose between I believe 5 domains available to a god. Now you don't.
And in exchange one of them has a penalty.
How is that not reasonable?
Blah blah blah
Did you miss the part where SKR flat out stated that Seperatists were intentionally made mechanically inferior?
I can requote that for you if you want.
A little bit of disclosure here: Cooke was writing about the old 3.X Toughness feat which only gave you a flat 3 hit points, not the present one which gives you 1 extra hp per level against a minimum of 3.
Seriously? You thought that needed explaining? You sadden me, sir. :(
I meant it! Toughness was a terrible feat that got used as monster feat slot filler. See: the 3.5 Tarrasque, which ran out of good feats and filled out six slots with the bloody thing.
|
|
Blah blah blahDid you miss the part where SKR flat out stated that Seperatists were intentionally made mechanically inferior?
I can requote that for you if you want.
No I saw it. And having a minus is mechanically inferior.
It is a minus.
What you seem to be missing is that there are more than 5 domains, so you having access to more than 5 means you have access to more.
Which is an advantage.
You may not understand this if you read posts in the form of "blah blah blah" rather than reading for context. It's fun, you should try it.
So while you are failing at logic, have a consolation prize.
No I saw it. And having a minus is mechanically inferior.
You know this is not what anyone is saying, and are no longer arguing with intellectual honesty; I'm done with you.
|
|
You know this is not what anyone is saying, and are no longer arguing with intellectual honesty; I'm done with you.
No I saw it. And having a minus is mechanically inferior.
I read Sean's post and you are trying to say he said something he didn't.
He said losing the favored weapon is a loss. And he said all classes don't need to be balanced against each other.
However you keep wanting to ignore the fact that having access to more than 5 domains is a huge advantage if you are playing in a game that actually follows the domain rules.
I think most of the people are ticked off that this class brings attention to the fact that they haven't been following the domain restriction rules.
The line
"I want to follow a path and gain powers different than 99.99% of the adventuring clerics of my religion" is more than just "different descriptive text." And that sounds like a choice that should be a little mechanically inferior."
What he is saying is if you want to gain the advantage of getting powers 99.99% of Clerics of your god can't get, there needs to be a trade off.
What part of that is hard to understand for you?
*stuff*
Preach it!!!!!!!!
This is the best summation I have read in a long time, and it comes from somebody who has thought things out. It is the precise reason I don't get along with people with superiority complexes. To me they suck the fun out of the games I run.
Only they can't do that in Golarion, as Jacobs has pointed out.
The whole point of a cleric is that they pray to receive spells from a god. Without a god...doesn't work out so well.
Well, they can't really at all in core... If you take "godless" to mean "without a god", that is.
I only explained their argument, I don't agree with it at all. I think it's a fair and valid, though maybe unnessecary, archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I grew up in the magical world that you did, where every single choice you can make is the best choice. I wonder how McDonald's stays afloat in your world, what with having to pay its philosophy majors $50,000 per year just like doctors and chemists.Even if the fluff isn't terrible, it's exactly the same as a core option, with a -2 to stuff.
That obstructs fun.
And you accuse us of snark???
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once rolled a cleric of the concept of Friendship, to be the ultimate team player. Other players laughed and told me you can't get magic powers from friendship.
They're bronies now.
|
|
I wish I grew up in the magical world that you did, where every single choice you can make is the best choice. I wonder how McDonald's stays afloat in your world, what with having to pay its philosophy majors $50,000 per year just like doctors and chemists.Even if the fluff isn't terrible, it's exactly the same as a core option, with a -2 to stuff.
That obstructs fun.Good news - you can! You start by playing a tabletop game created by human beings!
You do realize that Pathfinder is a game made by human beings, not bithed thrust from the Earth itself, right? You helped make it, so I really, really hope so.
Stop making excuses.
I’ve got good news too! You’re fully capable of fixing things you don’t like! Which I would hazard to guess from your many, many, many posts about what is wrong with Pathfinder is quite a bit. You seem a smart fellow; I’d genuinely like to see you offer up some alternatives that you feel are superior to what you’re seeing from Paizo rather than settling for attempting to be the forum H.L. Menken.
Gather your ideas, put them down, and put them in a book. Show em Prof, show em how it’s done. You can call it, “ProfessorCirno’s Guide to an Explosively Awesome Role Playing Experience That is so Awesome That It Punches Awesome in The Face, Steals Awesome’s Saturn L-200, and Makes Awesome Look at Pictures of It and Awesome’s Wife in Bermuda."
I would be first in line for such a book.
|
I wanna troll too !!! Rate my try.
[Troll mode on]
Now i want to know why the dagger-specialized fighter or the low int wizard should be mechanically inferior !! Outrageous !!
It´s obvious that those options shouldn´t be in the core rules ! This game is a hoax !
[Troll mode off]
It´s funny :P
[Edit]
Wow, Google Translator now has Trollit support. I did put some messages from ProfessorCirno and others and the result is bellow:
Dear Mister Reynolds,How are you ? I am having a nice day reading some books i bought from Paizo Publishing. During my reading of Ultimate Magic i found some matter that i thought would need discussion if you don´t matter. I found that the separatist archetype deserve more to differentiate it from some core options like philosophic clerics. Maybe would be harder to recognize them as priest of the god with knowledge religion or a bonus to diplomacy as the cleric become used to defend his sect ideas in religious debates. I trust Paizo´s decisions but in my opnion this point could be improved so everyone can benefit.
Thank you for your hard work making such wonderfull products.
I wanna troll too !!! Rate my try.
Pleasington's was better!
Also, it just occured to me that philosophy majors would probably be in the clergy. I bet that would pay pretty well there.
Incidentally I'm glad you brought up older editions! Because, let's see...Absolute balance between classes is not possible, but I surely did seek to keep the various types at least reasonably on a par with each other.
Cheers,
Gary
Considering lots of domain powers are most useful in particular contexts that may not come up constantly or consistently and thus can't really be counted on to increase the cleric's power 100% of the time, I'm going to say that a separatist is still within the bounds of being reasonably on par with other clerics. Particularly since it means you can pair an unexpected domain with a cleric of a specific deity.
|
|
Incidentally I'm glad you brought up older editions! Because, let's see...Absolute balance between classes is not possible, but I surely did seek to keep the various types at least reasonably on a par with each other.
Cheers,
GaryConsidering lots of domain powers are most useful in particular contexts that may not come up constantly or consistently and thus can't really be counted on to increase the cleric's power 100% of the time, I'm going to say that a separatist is still within the bounds of being reasonably on par with other clerics. Particularly since it means you can pair an unexpected domain with a cleric of a specific deity.
Bill, if you keep posting all reasonable and smart you are going to derail all the snark and trolling going on here...
Why can't you be a team player?