After reading the thread, looking at the ARG play test, people's homemade races already created and how the core races were made with the system I can't really find anything out of balance.
Maybe I'm missing it, where is the balance issue?
Look at anyone trying to break it. You manipulate it in one way or other and the whole thing easily turns into a parody of race creation. That should not be doable. There should be inherent limits here and there to stop that or at least dampen it. If they try to attack it from the end result instead of the root cause, like the Eidolon, they will hurt it for everyone.
And as far as bad abilities go - look at Change Shape and Spell-Like Ability when picking 0 level spells.
The only concrete rules are in the core book. The rest are options that may or may not be balanced when used all together. I believe that to be true under TSR's AD&D 2nd Edition in late 90's, WOTC 3.5e in the mid-2000's, and finally currently under Paizo.
Clearly because TSR and WotC wrote stuff completely stand-alone from each other and uncollaboratively and otherwise poorly designed, Paizo should continue that traidition.
You want a good game; you got have a good DM with good players. No rulebook is going to make it so. This is the game from 0e to 3.75e.
Great, not we get into the existential sophistry.
Options whether for the GM or player are still only options at the GM's discretion. Options bring flexibility and power but in the wrong hands can bring abuse. I don't want to be "protected" by the ruleset just to bring perceived balance.
You didn't answer the question.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some posts.
Please folks, flag it and move on. Certain personalities thrive on the attention. If you don't respond to them, they'll get bored and go somewhere else.
Edit: I'll add that if you're worried about the outcome of the playtest, the best way to ensure its success is to participate, discuss, and suggest alternatives. It's easy to say someone is doing something wrong. However, it's much more helpful to suggest what could be done right.
I agree in part and I disagree in part.
The Summoner by its very nature is a vehicle for allowing a PC to create something, such that no other PC is the same as him. I like that. But, the Eidolon should be balanced with the point structure with what you can create. Since it is Player Class it *should* be written with a minimum of "broken combo's" allowed.
Creating races on the other hand is a tool for the DM. It, by its very nature, will require the oversight of the DM if not the direct and active work of him. It is the DM's job to create the races not the job of the PC's. So yes, there will be "ways" to create overpowered critters in it. But since it is something for the DM to use, it'll be something for the DM to consider and balance out appropriately. Paizo should trust that a system to help the DM out abit, will also require that DM to understand the rules enough not to break his own game with it. There will *always* be ways to game the system. Just like people try to pick the perfect race to benefit their class, there wll be ways to create races to "min/max" for that perfect class.
But since creating races is a system for the DM, I feel it is alright for them to trust the DM not to allow the PC to break the system with it.
Unlike the Eidolon, which *should* Be fully self contained for the PC to create with, without requiring the DM to stand there with a hammer and stop silly combo's. (which it currently requires).
-S
I agree in part and I disagree in part.
The Summoner by its very nature is a vehicle for allowing a PC to create something, such that no other PC is the same as him. I like that. But, the Eidolon should be balanced with the point structure with what you can create. Since it is Player Class it *should* be written with a minimum of "broken combo's" allowed.
Creating races on the other hand is a tool for the DM. It, by its very nature, will require the oversight of the DM if not the direct and active work of him. It is the DM's job to create the races not the job of the PC's. So yes, there will be "ways" to create overpowered critters in it. But since it is something for the DM to use, it'll be something for the DM to consider and balance out appropriately. Paizo should trust that a system to help the DM out abit, will also require that DM to understand the rules enough not to break his own game with it. There will *always* be ways to game the system. Just like people try to pick the perfect race to benefit their class, there wll be ways to create races to "min/max" for that perfect class.
But since creating races is a system for the DM, I feel it is alright for them to trust the DM not to allow the PC to break the system with it.Unlike the Eidolon, which *should* Be fully self contained for the PC to create with, without requiring the DM to stand there with a hammer and stop silly combo's. (which it currently requires).
-S
I must agree and disagree with you in turn. A race creation guide is the most beneficial for GMs in homebrew worlds (and perhaps theoretically for adventure path writers to make new creatures but that may be marginal due to constraints). But this does not erect a wall between players and race creation. Either we can pretend that players won't want to create their own races because "it is for GMs" or we can accept that will happen and not accept problems that the GM is going to have to fix himself that should have been fixed in the first place.
I must agree and disagree with you in turn. A race creation guide is the most beneficial for GMs in homebrew worlds (and perhaps theoretically for adventure path writers to make new creatures but that may be marginal due to constraints). But this does not erect a wall between players and race creation. Either we can pretend that players won't want to create their own races because "it is for GMs" or we can accept that will happen and not accept problems that the GM is going to have to fix himself that should have been fixed in the first place.I agree in part and I disagree in part.
The Summoner by its very nature is a vehicle for allowing a PC to create something, such that no other PC is the same as him. I like that. But, the Eidolon should be balanced with the point structure with what you can create. Since it is Player Class it *should* be written with a minimum of "broken combo's" allowed.
Creating races on the other hand is a tool for the DM. It, by its very nature, will require the oversight of the DM if not the direct and active work of him. It is the DM's job to create the races not the job of the PC's. So yes, there will be "ways" to create overpowered critters in it. But since it is something for the DM to use, it'll be something for the DM to consider and balance out appropriately. Paizo should trust that a system to help the DM out abit, will also require that DM to understand the rules enough not to break his own game with it. There will *always* be ways to game the system. Just like people try to pick the perfect race to benefit their class, there wll be ways to create races to "min/max" for that perfect class.
But since creating races is a system for the DM, I feel it is alright for them to trust the DM not to allow the PC to break the system with it.Unlike the Eidolon, which *should* Be fully self contained for the PC to create with, without requiring the DM to stand there with a hammer and stop silly combo's. (which it currently requires).
-S
I get you most of the time. I think you are a terrible comunicator, but I understand where you are coming from, specially here.
The system should be as close to "perfection" as possible so it will need as little DM fiat as possible. I'm of the same school of thought.
Not as much as you, that think spellcasters are the creme de la creme and that this is wrong, but I do enjoy some semblance of balance to say the least.
Now, what we need is to create options for development of the rules, ways for the Paizo staff to make this rules better, why not stop ranting and putting most people against you, but trying to make them work WITH YOU, to make a better system?
The only concrete rules are in the core book. The rest are options that may or may not be balanced when used all together. I believe that to be true under TSR's AD&D 2nd Edition in late 90's, WOTC 3.5e in the mid-2000's, and finally currently under Paizo.Clearly because TSR and WotC wrote stuff completely stand-alone from each other and uncollaboratively and otherwise poorly designed, Paizo should continue that traidition.
You want a good game; you got have a good DM with good players. No rulebook is going to make it so. This is the game from 0e to 3.75e.Great, not we get into the existential sophistry.
Options whether for the GM or player are still only options at the GM's discretion. Options bring flexibility and power but in the wrong hands can bring abuse. I don't want to be "protected" by the ruleset just to bring perceived balance.You didn't answer the question.
@Cartigan
Yes, they should indeed. Piecemeal options from both TSR and WOTC worked great in many cases. It really depends on the type of campaign that is being run. Every GM and player should be open and honest about the type of game they wish to play. The concept that every option especially together will work perfectly in sync and balance is an unrealistic and impossible expectation.
A good game is about telling a great story and having fun. Sadly, there are too many tyrannical gotcha GMs and munchkin players. I like Pathfinder because it embraces the sprit of the world's oldest RPG. Once again, if you want a game that doesn't embrace that spirit and has balance in the forefront, please look to 4th edition. You are not going to find that here.
In fact, I have recently grown more excited about a 0e retro-clone Swords & Wizardry. I plan to attend North Texas RPG Convention in June 2012. I hope to get the chance to play a game with Bill Webb and Matt Finch. Perhaps, I will get the chance to experience a exciting death in their very challenging game.
What was the question again? Don't answer that, I won't answer. I am done feeding!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they should indeed. Piecemeal options from both TSR and WOTC worked great in many cases. It really depends on the type of campaign that is being run. Every GM and player should be open and honest about the type of game they wish to play. The concept that every option especially together will work perfectly in sync and balance is an unrealistic and impossible expectation.
Especially when you explicitly design for the opposite result.
A good game is about telling a great story and having fun.
Which you can do without any rules at all so let's stop playing the true role-player card in an argument about mechanics.
I like Pathfinder because it embraces the sprit of the world's oldest RPG.
Wargames?
Once again, if you want a game that doesn't embrace that spirit and has balance in the forefront, please look to 4th edition. You are not going to find that here.
"If you want a game where the rules are second to the story, please go play White Wolf, you won't find that here."
In fact, I have recently grown more excited about a 0e retro-clone Swords & Wizardry.
The irony is palpable.
I personally like the idea of of racial creation, and I don't believe that one can go and make everything 100% balanced as many things are circumstantial, but saying that "there's nothing wrong with the system" is just being ignorant when one ability does twice as good what another ability can do plus extra for half the cost. Just look around and see how many threads on the peculiarities with racial ability costs there are.
I've seen other Gaming systems that used build points where the costs were much more in line.
@Cartigan
Ok, one more post. It is like potato chips, you can't just stop with one. It is like getting sucked into a reality distortion field.
Why would I play White Wolf? I am extremely happy with Pathfinder as is. It reaches an excellent balance between mechanics and role-playing.
What is great about Swords&Wizardry is that I can easily add any option from 1st and 2nd edition as needed.
The bottom line is that I enjoy playing. I can be a chameleon and enjoy games from 0e - 4e and any modification in between.
|
Look at anyone trying to break it. You manipulate it in one way or other and the whole thing easily turns into a parody of race creation. That should not be doable. There should be inherent limits here and there to stop that or at least dampen it. If they try to attack it from the end result instead of the root cause, like the Eidolon, they will hurt it for everyone.
"Like any "X creation rules", either it's so bad and nerfed no one will use it, either there is potential for abuse with enough rules-fu."
Item creation rules are the same, yet I see no one complaining about how the DM must watch and fiat over any attempt to craft magic items.And as far as bad abilities go - look at Change Shape and Spell-Like Ability when picking 0 level spells.
Finding overlooked, potentially gamebreaking rules is what a playtest is for, beyond other details. In appropriate threads, that is.
Senior Software Developer
|
Just a quick note to point out that this is precisely the kind of thread that I can pretty much guarantee the designers will not be reading. We get that you all need a place to argue about our playtest strategy, our collective skills at putting together a balanced game or whatever, so I'll leave the thread standing, but:
If you have actual feedback to give on the playtest, you should post it in a different thread.
Because no one understands that is not a valid rebuttal to "something is inherently wrong with the game design."
Well, speaking only about the Advanced Races game design, just as a reminder :
Right now the system in is playtest.Their playtests rarely change much from test to print. They usually through in some bad balancing and call it a day.
My problem is that this premise is looking a lot like the Eidolon. And that didn't go well at all. The release was not only just as broken as the playtest, it managed to confuse the hell out of everyone with all the unique rules and arbitrary constraints they made up to try and balance it which did nothing to actually address the problems.The first clue of what is wrong with this is they are CLEARLY balancing it based on existing races and using that as a rule of thumb to reverse engineer the race creation system out of them. The problem is, races aren't balanced for spit. Unless they COMPLETELY overhaul this - which they won't - the whole thing is going to be another Eidolon.
You want some fix suggestions?
1) Include fractional RP worths (I can NOT be the only person who looked at the 0-lvl spell 1/day SLA ability costing 1 RP each and went "What.")
2.a) Stop reverse engineering from existing races
2.b) Keep the reverse engineering but stop using a concrete system to judge correct power level by.
The Magus changed quite a bit, the Gunslinger changed quite a bit, the Ninja changed enough to be playable. Even the Summoner which my group has no problems with had changes from the playtest, Words of Power got a complete overhaul. It seems to me that Paizo listens and modifies what it playtests. They just don't do what Cartigan thinks is balanced.
"Like any "X creation rules", either it's so bad and nerfed no one will use it, either there is potential for abuse with enough rules-fu."
Item creation rules are the same, yet I see no one complaining about how the DM must watch and fiat over any attempt to craft magic items.
Because either you are trying to create something unique and the GM is expected to arbitrate it because the rules don't really address it or you are trying to create something that exists and no one cares. If the unique magic item creation system was expanded to a complex point-based design system about how and what magic items could be made, I imagine there would be a lot more threads on it.
Finding overlooked, potentially gamebreaking rules is what a playtest is for, beyond other details. In appropriate threads, that is.
Finding and fixing them. You missed part two.
Just a quick note to point out that this is precisely the kind of thread that I can pretty much guarantee the designers will not be reading. We get that you all need a place to argue about our playtest strategy, our collective skills at putting together a balanced game or whatever, so I'll leave the thread standing, but:
If you have actual feedback to give on the playtest, you should post it in a different thread.
Which is why I didn't put it in the playtest forum to begin with.
"Like any "X creation rules", either it's so bad and nerfed no one will use it, either there is potential for abuse with enough rules-fu."
Item creation rules are the same, yet I see no one complaining about how the DM must watch and fiat over any attempt to craft magic items.
So because one system is flawed every system is allowed to be equally bad?
And you can easily create a Magic Item Crafting System that isn't broken and will satisfy almost everybody...
Thats just great. Paizo needs to deliver more badly made stuff that is completely broken. Everybody just LOVES the balancing of the Magical School system.
WoTC didn't learn anything out of the TSR publishing mess. And it looks like Paizo didn't learn a thing from both WotC and TSR.
Actually I'm a little curious about why it's even on our site to begin with.
It's getting to the point of being out of spite for statements like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think his point is that GMs have been making custom races for their worlds since long before the ARG. They don't need 'permission' from the book to make custom races.
This. A THOUSAND times this.
The book is just to make it easier to make races. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean players are going to be able to create Uber Hulks without GM permission.