We're planning to run through this Adventure Path (AP) and my group is trying to decide on which books to allow for character creation and development. My group's GM (me) is a bastard and only wanted to allow Core classes initially, but he's starting to bend.
My initial hesitance to using the additional content was for balance issues. It seems to me that most of the NPCs in Adventure Paths are designed with Core classes, feats, spells, etc. so allowing PCs access to a whole host of new classes, archetypes, feats, spells, items, etc. that the NPCs are not going to have access to would be imbalancing and significantly reduce the challenge to the party, thereby reducing the fun (presupposing that the fun comes from overcoming significant challenges). One of my players has suggested that recent Adventure Paths have been including more and more content from the Advanced Player's Guide (APG), Ultimate Combat (UC), and Ultimate Magic (UM) so it actually would not be imbalancing at all to allow such content for the players.
Can a designer reply with some suggestion of how much of the content from APG, UC, and UM are written into the AP so I can get a better sense of whether allowing such content for those playing through this AP would be imbalancing? And obviously I recognize that the Paizo staff have a vested interest in encouraging use of as much content from supplemental books as possible to encourage sales, but I'm asking for a realistic opinion of whether I can do so and maintain a fair balance.
i'm not a developer but i do have the last four adventure paths (kingmaker, serpent's skull, carrion crown and jade regent) the last 3 make wonderful use of APG, UM and UC (kingmaker came out before APG,UM and UC but isn't unbalanced by them at all). i highly recommend checking out the various free player's guides for the different adventure paths.
Paizo has been pretty good about power creep, that said if you want to you could just ban gunslinger, alchemist and summoner as they are the ones most likey to cause balance issues.
i haven't had a problem with alchemist power creep, my alchemists always die:).
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Paizo has been pretty good about power creep, that said if you want to you could just ban gunslinger, alchemist and summoner as they are the ones most likey to cause balance issues.
Both alchemist and summoner can be tricky to GM as they can get at problems in unusual ways. Alchemists have access to decent nonmagical elemental damage, which can throw off some GMs who expect SR and saves to keep that stuff away from their critters. They make short work of golems, for example.
Summoners can be very broken if the player makes a mistake in building the eidolon. Properly built eidolons are not unbalanced. Creative players can really work the summoner by accessing spells and skills the party otherwise doesn't have via the summon spells.
Is gunslinger even worth playing on Golarion with its cruddy firearms? I've not seen one so I don't actually know.
I can really only speak to Serpent's Skull as I've run it, but APG stuff shows up a bit in there, like one or two encounters per issue.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
APG is worth looking into; the extra combat tactics are useful without being game breaking, plus the Traits provide an interesting amount of flexibility.
I personally allow the Hero Point system in my games, although I am running my current campaign as the PC's being heroes. It's mostly used to recover a bad d20 roll (a 1 on a sneak attack roll or a saving throw), but it does provide a bit of PC power to cover up for potentially bad luck.
As far as classes goes, Alchemist needs guidance as noted; so will the summoner (base summoner isn't THAT per se, although complex). Most of the archetypes otherwise are quite flavorful, and you shouldn't expect much for issues there. Monks, in particular, really should have access to the archetypes and extra feats.
Speaking of feats, if you allow UM feats, make a quick hard rule on Antagonize before any PC's try to take it :P
|
Paizo has been pretty good about power creep, that said if you want to you could just ban gunslinger, alchemist and summoner as they are the ones most likey to cause balance issues.Both alchemist and summoner can be tricky to GM as they can get at problems in unusual ways. Alchemists have access to decent nonmagical elemental damage, which can throw off some GMs who expect SR and saves to keep that stuff away from their critters. They make short work of golems, for example.
Summoners can be very broken if the player makes a mistake in building the eidolon. Properly built eidolons are not unbalanced. Creative players can really work the summoner by accessing spells and skills the party otherwise doesn't have via the summon spells.
Is gunslinger even worth playing on Golarion with its cruddy firearms? I've not seen one so I don't actually know.
I can really only speak to Serpent's Skull as I've run it, but APG stuff shows up a bit in there, like one or two encounters per issue.
Gunslingers can still be great even with early firearms, they go at touch AC.
IMO: the Ultimate books did not make characters any more powerful. Nearly everything comes with a trade off and most of the feats are something very specific. The APG upped the power level slightly, but not overly so as to unbalance the game.
Obviously without reading the S&S PG or first module: I am going to be allowing all of the major Paizo books (APG, UM, UC). I just remind the players that force gets met with force. Also, I think that the S&S setting would be very hard for some classes to participate in. Alchemists, Cavaliers and Paladins especially will have a ad hoc hard time in the setting both thematically and structurally.
For alternate rules: we will not be using Hero Points (the PCs already have enough advantages) and we will be using traits. However, I am limiting combat-affecting traits to conditional bonuses only (ie: none of the blanket +saves or blanket +hit, but always on skill bonuses are OK).
|
I'm allowing my players to build characters from the Ultimate book's with approval prior to play. I will not let my players pick spells or equipment from them, opting instead to use it for treasure.
No power creep? Are you guys kidding?
UM has many unbalanced (untested) spells in it. Remember how the Spell Compendium ruined 3.5? Tread lightly into this book.
If you're curious to see how I laid down the law for my S&S campaign, check out my Alternate Rules for S&S.
My general opinion is CRB and APG are allowed. The summoner has some restrictions on who can play it (only more advanced players), and even then they have to abide by the "don't marginalize the rest of the party" rule. I'm fine with most archetypes from UM and UC. Feats from UM are fine, as are most of the spells. Feats and spells from UC are allowed on an approval basis. Anything from Super Genius Games is allowed,
If the comparison point here is "what the NPCs in the AP are built like" then make sure you notice this observation:
With very rare exceptions, no NPC is built with more than one "extra thing." Where "extra thing" is an archetype, PrC, or important feat.
I don't have the thread handy, but James said on these forums that that is deliberate so that things don't get too confusing to run. FWIW, he also said that he doesn't want Summoners in Golarion as NPCs.
So, if your goal is to "be up to par with the NPCs", then the rule should be that characters can only snipe "one thing" from the expansion books, and not do a crazy mix-n-match of many different class-features from different books.
(Things that require multi-grabs, such as a Magus archetype, are of course exempted.)
Remember how the Spell Compendium ruined 3.5?
Nope, can't say that I do.
I ran a the full Shackled City and Rise of the Runelords allowing everything in 3.5 and had no issue. The adventures as written were plenty deadly and a challenge to the players.
Do more spells change things? Yep. But the GM can also learn and understand how the spells work and deal with them. If they aren't coming out of left field, my experience has been that they aren't a HUGE problem. Typically, the most powerful stuff is still from the CRB.
My advice would be that any of the books that the GM feels comfortable with the content of should be just fine. If you are not familiar with a book and a player wants to use content from it, don't accept the book whole hog but accept things in based on what they want and that you have time to read up on them (and access to the material).
Things will always have issues if you do not know and are not prepared for the PCs abilities, so make sure you are and my experience is that you will be fine.
Likewise, as previously stated the APs are not using stuff from the APG, UC, and UM, so it seems a little unfair if the PCs can't as well.
Sean
Incorrect. The APs use material from these books quite often.Likewise, as previously stated the APs are not using stuff from the APG, UC, and UM, so it seems a little unfair if the PCs can't as well.
Judging from the context of his sentence, I believe that is what he meant. Just a typo.
If the comparison point here is "what the NPCs in the AP are built like" then make sure you notice this observation:
With very rare exceptions, no NPC is built with more than one "extra thing." Where "extra thing" is an archetype, PrC, or important feat.
I don't have the thread handy, but James said on these forums that that is deliberate so that things don't get too confusing to run. FWIW, he also said that he doesn't want Summoners in Golarion as NPCs.
So, if your goal is to "be up to par with the NPCs", then the rule should be that characters can only snipe "one thing" from the expansion books, and not do a crazy mix-n-match of many different class-features from different books.
(Things that require multi-grabs, such as a Magus archetype, are of course exempted.)
have you checked out the adventure module "the harrowing"?, it has a summoner npc and is a super awesome fun time:).
Judging from the context of his sentence, I believe that is what he meant. Just a typo.Incorrect. The APs use material from these books quite often.Likewise, as previously stated the APs are not using stuff from the APG, UC, and UM, so it seems a little unfair if the PCs can't as well.
It was indeed. Not sure why the fingers decided to put that not in there... I will go smash them in a door or something...
Sean
In the Pathfinder pirate campaign I'm running, it's core only, plus specific other stuff I've added from Paizo and 3rd parties (Adamant/Sinister). APG stuff considered on request.
In our Jade Regent game, it's Core + APG only with samurai/ninja from UC. We're not real big fans of the power and complexity creep of the Ultimates.
|
|
Power creep is pretty close to nonexistent in Pathfinder. Something I really like about it, actually.
If balance is a worry, be careful about allowing Summoners (who can be unbalancing if used without GM oversight), avoid the Antagonize Feat, and make sure to stick to the Emerging Firearms rules for a Gunslinger.
As for how many of these things will be in the AP, they've outright stated that the guy basically in charge of the Shackles has magical guns, and his ship is equipped with cannon (though nobody else local has such things), and heavily implied that PCs might have to fight him, and they've specifically stated that they try to make sure to include things from all actual rulebooks at least semi-regularly, so that none of them are marginalized the way some things that showed up only in a single supplement were in 3.5, so I'd be shocked if other stuff from the books you list didn't show up. From the little I've read trying to avoid spoilers, such things certainly came up in Jade Regent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Power creep is pretty close to nonexistent in Pathfinder. Something I really like about it, actually.
That's really interesting because my impression is quite the reverse. What I've seen of the spells, character classes, weapons and feats in the APG and beyond suggests to me that Paizo is just as bad as 3.5 (and Magic the Gathering for that matter) for power creep. Perhaps not for 'what you see is what you get' but the moment a wargamer gets hold of something like the alchemist I think you'll find that core spell casting classes become obsolete. This is, I accept, only an impression based on a once over reading of the rules and one game in which one of the other PCs was an alchemist because it was such a strong impression that very quickly the rule at my table was "anything not from the core rule book is only allowed by special dispensation". I'm not out-and-out banning anything but my players are encouraged to tell me exactly why they want to use something and what the long term impact is going to be. This is because if I allow something and three levels down the line they surprise me with a 'kill everything' feat everyone is going to end up cross and frustrated whereas if they tell me that three levels down the line there's a 'kill everything' feat (or spell, or class feature or...) there's much more chance that I'll allow it (or let them know that I won't allow it so they don't gear their character development towards it).
|
|
That's really interesting because my impression is quite the reverse.
That is indeed interesting. :)
What I've seen of the spells, character classes, weapons and feats in the APG and beyond suggests to me that Paizo is just as bad as 3.5 (and Magic the Gathering for that matter) for power creep. Perhaps not for 'what you see is what you get' but the moment a wargamer gets hold of something like the alchemist I think you'll find that core spell casting classes become obsolete.
I've played with or run for Alchemists, Inquisitors, Oracles, a Gunslinger, and a delightfully vicious Antipaladin. I have never seen them notably outperform the corebook classes (most of which I've likewise seen) at similar levels of optimization in similar roles. And I'm a good, solid, systems mechanic, so I know whereof I speak.
I mean, really, how does an Alchemist make a Wizard or Cleric superfluous? I guess they have a few advantages over the Evoker in terms of AoE damage...but that's actually the only area I can even think of where they do better than a base class at it's own thing, and is the last thing a Wizard should be doing anyway.
The biggest thing I've noticed that Alchemists can do, with a bit of prep, is become nearly unassailable defensively (barring Will Save effects). But it takes as much as four or five rounds (and never less than two or three), and uses up a lot of their spell slots as well as their (once daily) Mutagen. It's a good trick (especially at very early levels), but by 7th level a Bard can buff an entire party almost enough to counter it each individually in the same amount of time. It's not unbalancing per se, just cool and effective. They're focused self-buffers, give them time to prep for their one encounter a day and they're perhaps unbalancingly dangerous...but neither one encounter a day nor lots of prep time should be universal conditions, and without them they're less than stellar comparatively.
This is, I accept, only an impression based on a once over reading of the rules and one game in which one of the other PCs was an alchemist because it was such a strong impression that very quickly the rule at my table was "anything not from the core rule book is only allowed by special dispensation". I'm not out-and-out banning anything but my players are encouraged to tell me exactly why they want to use something and what the long term impact is going to be. This is because if I allow something and three levels down the line they surprise me with a 'kill everything' feat everyone is going to end up cross and frustrated whereas if they tell me that three levels down the line there's a 'kill everything' feat (or spell, or class feature or...) there's much more chance that I'll allow it (or let them know that I won't allow it so they don't gear their character development towards it).
I'd really give them more leeway were I you. The APG classes, Magus, and Gunslinger are all a lot of fun (well, admittedly, fun-looking in the case of the Cavalier, Witch, and Magus, which I haven't played with). Feats are probably worth being a bit more careful with, ditto spells, but perhaps not to the extent you're going to. And the actual classes seem quite balanced.
I'll make an exception to that statement for the Summoner, which I also haven't played with, but looks like it's not inherently broken, but fiddly enough to be easily subject to abuse by a good system mechanic who cares little for story or thematics, and likely benefits from the kind of oversight you're talkng about. Also, Antagonize is awful and should be banned. And, annoyingly, in a true example of Power Creep, the Ninja is just better than a Rogue (this one pisses me off a bit, but it's an isolated case and very fixable).
Some of the weapons are, I guess, also power-creep in a way, but only for a point or so of extra damage per attack, and are easy enough to ban (and, admittedly, I've never had a player exhaustively look for the most effective weapon possible. I've seen plenty of min-maxing in almost all other areas, but never on weapon choice, so this seems less problematic to me than it might to others).
Aside from those, many things in the supplementary books are good...but not generally better than the good options available in the main book.
|
|
Ninja, IMO, is meant to be a fix for the rogue, which is widely regarded as massively under powered.
I agree with this...but it doesn't make it any less Power Creep. Or notably less annoying for those of us who like non-Ninja Rogues to be effective. Though it does make the ideal solution giving the rogue things from the Ninja, not disallowing the Ninja.
|
|
Is it really power creep when ninja's still middle of the pack just because its based off the rogue who is at the bottom of the pack?
If it fullfills the exact same role? Yes.
Power creep isn't defined as something showing up that's really powerful, it's a new option making old options basically obsolete because it's flat-out better. The Ninja's pretty much the definition of Power Creep. And one of few such examples in Pathfinder, IMO.
I permit CRB and APG. My general rule is if I own the book it is permitted, if I do not it is not permitted. As GM, I have a lot on my plate running the overall game and I put a lot of time in being prepared prior to every session. Obviously, if I don't have a book then I can not prepare for the material contained therein.
One other thing that I do, if the book was published after the AP, then I do not permit the material. The overall AP theme was not factoring later books material. The exception that I made was for this KM, where I did permit the APG beta rules. With the understanding that when the book was published characters would be modified in accordance. This did effect two characters in the group: a summoner and a cavilier.
As far as power creep, in the KM game that I am running the summoner is fine; however, the cavalier is a bit unbalanced as he multiclassed with rogue for a few levels. Although the early power creep has come back in line with the others recently due to the character violating his Order's Edict, so he needs to atone for his wrong doings.
I allow anything published by Paizo in my campaigns, with the exception of Summoners (who I don't outright ban, but just strong discourage primarily due to their complicated nature). I run multiple groups that run the gamut of pure newcomer to tabletop RPGs to power-gaming optimizers.
In having this open allowance of options, I have found no power discrepancies/power creep at all. Everyone has their chance to shine and contribute in meaningful ways from the rogue to the monk to the magus to the cleric to the ninja, etc...
And I'm really happy that it works out this way (thanks, Paizo for being awesome!) because having so many quality options through classes/archetypes/feats/prestige classes truly allows my players to craft the PCs that they envision at the outset of the campaign, which in turn aids in the stories that we are telling at our table.
As far as power creep, in the KM game that I am running the summoner is fine; however, the cavalier is a bit unbalanced as he multiclassed with rogue for a few levels.
Can you explain that bit?
Can you explain that bit?
As far as power creep, in the KM game that I am running the summoner is fine; however, the cavalier is a bit unbalanced as he multiclassed with rogue for a few levels.
The combination of Cav/Rog has the potential for being unbalanced. In the game that I run, the player began as with 1 level Cav, then went for 5 levels Rog, and is now moving back to Cav class. The PC gets a solid BAB, Fort saves, plus some nifty teamwork/challenge/order abilities. Then there are the skills added by the ROG, Ref saves, sneak attacks, rogue talents. The extra Rogue talent feat (APG160)helps out in the build.
Rogue Talent: Combat trick (bonus combat feat, selected TWF)
Extra Rogue Talent feat: Rogue Talent: Minor magic -
Rogue talent (major magic -shield)
Sneak att. 3d6
Tactician Team Feat (Prec Strike)1d6 stackable with sneak attack.
Two Weapon Defense feat
Trapfinding
Evasion
Trap Sense
Uncanny Dodge
Order of the Dragon