The best discussion I've ever seen on perfect Imbalance, which is what Pathfinder is supposed to be.Perfect Imbalance assumes that players can and do frequently change what they're playing to adapt to the playing field. A Pathfinder campaign usually does not have that option, nor should it.
Perfect Imbalance does not apply here. Applying the design principles of perfect imbalance to a static format (i.e. where you create your character and cannot reliably swap to a new one at every opportunity) results in something more like Monte Cook's 'ivory tower game design', one of the most monumental failings of 3.x.
I just meant in general. People complain because the wizard is powerful compared to other classes, but magic users SHOULD be powerful (there's a reason why BBEGs are often spellcasters, as they're more dangerous and fun to fight than other classes) and classes that can't do what a wizard does each still have unique mechanics, roles, and abilities that make them fun, good at taking on the great wizard, and impossible to arbitrarily 'balance.'
The only tweaking I think classes need is in the places where they aren't fun or unique. Thus, I'm in favor of making the rogue more fun by making him better at what he does and giving him a power boost, and I'm in favor of making the fighter more fun outside of combat by giving him more non-combat skill points, etc. I meant that I don't think Pathfinder should try and super-balance things like 4th ed did, but at the same time there was a reason why the Bard got such a big overhaul when 3rd edition moved to 3.5, and a reason the fighter got a big overhaul when 3.5 moved to Pathfinder, and I think if we ever move to Pathfinder 1.5, there's a few more things that need to be tweaked in the name of making sure every class is fun, full of options, and possessing of a unique place in the game.
I liked 2nd edition, where balance issues weren't really a problem (at least in my experience) and every class was unique. With the great versatility and character-building options of 3rd we got so many possibilities, but we also created a game that can and should be tweaked, and that isn't a problem, nor necessarily a move toward 4th.
But what I am saying is that gives a major boost to non-human classes and mutes one of the boosts of Half-elves and humans (being able to pick where your points go)I was speaking in general cases for all non-humans, not specific ones.The floating +2 is a major bonus though. If it were limited to either physical or mental (opposite of the other bonus) maybe.
I agree. Orcs get a -4 to intelligence, so a half-orc at -2 is relatively smart. I like the +2/-2 and floating +2 idea, though.
True, but they also do not get a penalty, and that bonus feat for humans is a big thing.
I liked 2nd edition, where balance issues weren't really a problem (at least in my experience) and every class was unique. With the great versatility and character-building options of 3rd we got so many possibilities, but we also created a game that can and should be tweaked, and that isn't a problem, nor necessarily a move toward 4th.
2nd edition was hideously imbalanced. Does anyone remember ogre darts? 4th is probably nearly as bad as 2nd, but disguises itself as balanced quite well. It has a very polished facade that persuades casual glances that it is 'too-balanced' when in fact it is very much the opposite.
|
I liked 2nd edition, where balance issues weren't really a problem (at least in my experience) and every class was unique. With the great versatility and character-building options of 3rd we got so many possibilities, but we also created a game that can and should be tweaked, and that isn't a problem, nor necessarily a move toward 4th.2nd edition was hideously imbalanced. Does anyone remember ogre darts? 4th is probably nearly as bad as 2nd, but disguises itself as balanced quite well. It has a very polished facade that persuades casual glances that it is 'too-balanced' when in fact it is very much the opposite.
Got any link to some concise description of 4E's imbalance? I'm still seeing the facade and wouldn't mind to read on what's underneath.
I don't have any personally, but it comes from talking to 4e players. They get accused of playing an 'overbalanced' game and usually respond that while this was true in the core book, since then the balance has been shot to hell.
Some searching could probably dig up relevant information.
Edit: After some brief perusals of forums, I found people making 1st level characters that could not die.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things I'd like to see, and I think could be done with a supplement, without needing a new edition :
1) Archetypes or rules that convert memorized caster classes to spontaneous classes (honestly, it's not that hard, but I'd much more like the feel of a spontaneous magus or a spontaneous druid).
2) Archetypes to let each class have a skill-monkey version (including Rogues, yes, the ultimate skill monkey with 10 skill points per level). I absolutely loathe the idea that anyone who swings a sword is too dumb to have skills. I'd like to see an archetype for each class that raises the SPL by at least 2. There's some out there, there needs to be more. I like playing intelligent characters, regardless of class.
3) Generic Element spells : As in, Elemental Dart - Works like acid arrow, but you pick the element when you pray for the spell, or learn the spell, or buy the scroll to scribe in your spell book or feed it to your familiar. So not something you do at casting time, but at learning/gaining time. Same with elemental blast (fireball, static burst, freezebomb, acid eruption). Could slim down the spells list quite a bit on the evocation side. Right now, it's like each spell has to be different, in mechanics. I'd like a nice set of generic evocation spells that just work.
over all changes
1 rework perception so its not the most used skill in the game. Either that or give it to everybody without any att bonus. Wis based casters shouldnt be the most perceptive people in the game by default.
Yet perception IS linked to wisdom, whichever way you look at it. Besides, it's one of the few things monks are good at...
2. combat needs tweaking. Standing there and hitting someone shouldn't be the best tactic for over 80% of martials. certain must have feats should be combat options. power attack, and combat expertise come to mind. Maybe fold all manuevers into 1 allowing you to pick which you're using instead of such heavy specialization.
Don't forget Weapon Finesse either.
I think combat should have more of an 'ebb and flow' feel. Thinking about it, whoever scores the most damage in an exchange should be pushed back 5', or if they do not take a penalty to AC. This will make combat 'move' more.
3. natural attacks should follow iterative rules
I disagree - or at least, in some cases pairs of weapons like claws should certainly not follow this trend.
4. put the big 6 effects as level abilities so the christmas tree affect goes away
That would be a very major overhaul in the game. Certainly would be a nice optional rule though.
5 give ever class 2 floating skill choices
See below.
6 get rid of traits or actually make them all useful instead of seeing the same 3 or 4 traits over and over
Now call me strange, but I do not see this. I see traits often used to provide extra class skills...
7 archetype abilities should be mix and match. If you pick an archetype you dont have to take all its powers instead you can choose to keep certain powers from the base class.
I think certain abilities should mix and match as standard rather than in archetypes, making all the classes more flexible. I think there is still room for some archetypes, but these will be major changes from the norm, not small edits. For example, a fighter having the option to use the Armour Training (for heavy armour) or gain the Free Hand Fighter's dodge bonus.
8 allow feats kinda like the psionic feats that allow non spellcasters almost supernatural abilites without spoiling the flavor of martials for those that don't want flying fighters.
I liked the dragonmark abilities in Eberron that allowed this.
tried that in 1E, Unearthed Arcana. Didn't work out so well.
==Aelryinth
not sure why it reprinted the thread i wanted to post to, but why remake the game at all. most of these changes you could impliment in any game you run as a group and try them out. i have been gaming 20+ years and every group i have been in have done this.
A lot of the gamers I know have issues with things being "Official". The whole idea of house rules seems to bug some people. So they wish and try to make their house rules into "official" rules.
I agree that many of the 'fixes" are just house rules and could remain as such.
Repeating myself from old posts, but I would....
Give the Barbarian better rage powers in core
Give the Fighter Perception as a class skill, and I would change their "bonus feat" to a "fighter talent" every other level. Fighter-only feats would become "fighter talents" and other new talents would be added, and the fighter would still also be able to swap out taking a talent for a combat feat if he wished.
Rewrite the monk's fluff to match what the monk does (the fluff description does not match the class as written) and as the OP notes, I would give the monk an ability to enhance his to-hit with unarmed attacks. I would also make the flurry of blows wording clearer (or otherwise eliminate it for something with a cleaner mechanic).
I would give the rogue weapon finesse for free, and allow him to use his Dexterity bonus in Combat Maneuvers for Disarm, Steal, and Dirty Trick. I would make some more interesting and consistently written rogue talents, since a lot of what they have that is unique is in those talents.
Not gonna address the splat base classes because I don't know them as well.
I would make the new combat maneuvers from the APG core.
I would make more feats simply scale with level or BAB increases, like TWF and Vital Strike.
I would eliminate the Combat Expertise and Power Attack prerequisite for combat maneuvers.
I'd love to revise spells and make descriptions shorter and simpler, but for a theoretical 1.5 revision I don't think that would be feasible.
not sure why it reprinted the thread i wanted to post to, but why remake the game at all. most of these changes you could impliment in any game you run as a group and try them out. i have been gaming 20+ years and every group i have been in have done this.
The same reason we're not all still playing 1st edition with millions of houserules. Besides, with things like Pathfinder Society, a set of standard, cross-table rules is a must have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this isn't going to happen (or be popular) but I think Paladin (and maybe Samurai - I don't know enough about that class though) should be a prestige class of Cavalier.
I would prefer to do the opposite and blend prestige classes into base classes, by making existing base classes more 'modular' with more options. The main reason that prestige classes like the eldritch knight were effectively made into base classes like the magus is because people want to play their concept from level one, not wait until level six or eight and get a few session's playing before the campaign ends or goes on hold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer to do the opposite and blend prestige classes into base classes
It's always interesting to see the differing perspectives we all have. Personally, I'd rather prestige classes be moved for use solely as Epic rules, i.e. levels 21-30 and archetypes be the mainstay for class options pre-21.
I would prefer to do the opposite and blend prestige classes into base classesIt's always interesting to see the differing perspectives we all have. Personally, I'd rather prestige classes be moved for use solely as Epic rules, i.e. levels 21-30 and archetypes be the mainstay for class options pre-21.
I could go either way depending on the specific prestige class we were speaking of. Some would make great optional ideas for a base class and some would work better as they are: Add ons for higher level play.
Agreed. I'm fairly flexible. Overall, many prestige classes are so simple they can just be converted to archetypes; others would make a better base or alternate class; others still are as you say: high level play.
Ultimately, I'd like to see the prestige part of prestige class be meaningful.
I agree with both Dabbler and Da'ath. Concepts should either be available from level 1, or should be designed for high, epic level play. Nothing's worse than playing those first 5 levels before you finally get the prestige class you designed your character around.
I agree with both Dabbler and Da'ath. Concepts should either be available from level 1, or should be designed for high, epic level play. Nothing's worse than playing those first 5 levels before you finally get the prestige class you designed your character around.
You're right on the money. That is precisely what I hate about prestige classes.
I am with you on this one. I love the Paladin's LG alignment requirement, but why can't other gods have Paladins? I know that in the Realms, Sune has CG Paladins; I'd love to see Paladins of Lathander or even Kelemvor.
Not quite. Sune's Paladins are still LG; they're just the one exception (or one of two, there's a supplement that gives an exception for Selune Paladins who are part of an order between her and the dwarf god Clangeddin working together) that gets to ignore the one-step rule and be an LG divine caster with a CG patron.
And Lathander (NG) and Kelemvor (LN) can and do both have Paladins thanks to the one-step rule.
I agree with both Dabbler and Da'ath. Concepts should either be available from level 1, or should be designed for high, epic level play. Nothing's worse than playing those first 5 levels before you finally get the prestige class you designed your character around.You're right on the money. That is precisely what I hate about prestige classes.
It's why a lot of people did. On the flip side, sometimes they can be used to enhance rather than be a target. I'm toying with the idea of my monk taking a few levels of Duelist to get a flat bonus to his Snake Style damage, as well as a few extra points to AC from his intelligence.
|
not sure why it reprinted the thread i wanted to post to, but why remake the game at all. most of these changes you could impliment in any game you run as a group and try them out. i have been gaming 20+ years and every group i have been in have done this.
Same reason Pathfinder came out when 3.5 was killed, you want material that supports the game you are playing. And you want the game you are playing to be the best possible game.
|
|
Agreed.
Honestly, I consider pre splat book 3.5 and Pathfinder to be equal gaming systems, each with some benefits and drawbacks, but Pathfinder is a living system with new content and an interactive, often responsive company. I'm here for the fluff!
And the fact is Paizo is a fluff company. They make much, much more money on fluff than on crunch.
|
|
Monks are fine, if you want to increase their unarmed attack bonus just Flurry (flurry = max possible two-weapon fighting for the lvl based on fighter BAB). If you complain about the melee power of monks you dont know how to play a monk, PERIOD end of story!
When you add enhancements to unarmed attacks like you can to swords, at comparable cost to TWF, sure.
Monks are fine, if you want to increase their unarmed attack bonus just Flurry (flurry = max possible two-weapon fighting for the lvl based on fighter BAB). If you complain about the melee power of monks you dont know how to play a monk, PERIOD end of story!
Neither theory-crafting nor practical experience of game-play bear out this statement, I am afraid. At lower levels (around 3-6) the monk is just about on a par with other melee classes, but they start to fall behind by 7th, and by 10th they start to suffer.
Of course if you have some secret we don't know we'd love to hear it. How do you play your monks? How do they achieve this melee power you speak of? Show us a build, please!
|
|
Monks are fine, if you want to increase their unarmed attack bonus just Flurry (flurry = max possible two-weapon fighting for the lvl based on fighter BAB). If you complain about the melee power of monks you dont know how to play a monk, PERIOD end of story!
That's the kind of post I was waiting for here :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do we really need D&D 3.875 ?
Short answer? Yes.
Longer answer? Pathfinder as a system is far from perfect, and no system should be left to stagnate just because some people are under the false belief that it is perfection itself and should never be touched in any way ever because it's already all that we needed. Paizo wouldn't need to even churn out new books if this was true, or to errata things, because if it truly was flawless nobody would ever touch any other system ever again.
|
|
Monks are fine, if you want to increase their unarmed attack bonus just Flurry (flurry = max possible two-weapon fighting for the lvl based on fighter BAB). If you complain about the melee power of monks you dont know how to play a monk, PERIOD end of story!That's the kind of post I was waiting for here :)
Go big or go home.
|
Do we really need D&D 3.875 ?Short answer? Yes.
Longer answer? Pathfinder as a system is far from perfect, and no system should be left to stagnate just because some people are under the false belief that it is perfection itself and should never be touched in any way ever because it's already all that we needed. Paizo wouldn't need to even churn out new books if this'd was true, or to errata things, because if it truly was flawless nobody would ever touch any other system ever again.
Actually, my point was that it has already had two major overhauls...maybe it's time to bite the bullet and buy a new engine, instead of continually trying to creak a few more miles out of the old one.
Actually, my point was that it has already had two major overhauls...maybe it's time to bite the bullet and buy a new engine, instead of continually trying to creak a few more miles out of the old one.Do we really need D&D 3.875 ?Short answer? Yes.
Longer answer? Pathfinder as a system is far from perfect, and no system should be left to stagnate just because some people are under the false belief that it is perfection itself and should never be touched in any way ever because it's already all that we needed. Paizo wouldn't need to even churn out new books if this'd was true, or to errata things, because if it truly was flawless nobody would ever touch any other system ever again.
Last time I saw a new engine (4e), I was hardly impressed.
If it's good, then make it better. That's how one of my favourite versions of 3.5e was made. And no, it's not Pathfinder.
|
|
Actually, my point was that it has already had two major overhauls...maybe it's time to bite the bullet and buy a new engine, instead of continually trying to creak a few more miles out of the old one.Do we really need D&D 3.875 ?Short answer? Yes.
Longer answer? Pathfinder as a system is far from perfect, and no system should be left to stagnate just because some people are under the false belief that it is perfection itself and should never be touched in any way ever because it's already all that we needed. Paizo wouldn't need to even churn out new books if this'd was true, or to errata things, because if it truly was flawless nobody would ever touch any other system ever again.
How did that work out with 4e?
|
|
How did that work out with 4e?I forgot that the only two RPG systems allowed by law were d20 and 4E.
How are the other ones doing, relatively speaking.
When you reinvent the wheel, you better hope people are willing to follow you if your buisness model is based on creating settings and having people play them.
If it ain't backwards compatible, you've just obsoleted your back catalog AND made your work force have to be completely retrained.
Which was as much the problem with 4e as the system itself.
For your issue its as simple as use monk weapons or a house rule that makes the Amulet of mighty fist cost the same as 2 weapons of the same enhancement and only works for unarmed attacks (not natural and unarmed since that is the only reason its more expensive).Monks are fine, if you want to increase their unarmed attack bonus just Flurry (flurry = max possible two-weapon fighting for the lvl based on fighter BAB). If you complain about the melee power of monks you dont know how to play a monk, PERIOD end of story!When you add enhancements to unarmed attacks like you can to swords, at comparable cost to TWF, sure.
The problem with the first option is that most monk weapons are pretty bad. As for the second, if everyone has to house-rule it then it's a problem that should be fixed, and we are back to why these threads exist.
I cannot help but note that you appear to have ignored my earlier post asking you to substantiate your first post with either a complete build or at least pointers at what the rest of us have somehow missed.
You say the monk is fine and if I can't make it work I just don't know how to make a monk work. My answer is, "Tell me how a monk works then?" I'm waiting.
I like Pathfinder as it is, but I guess will never play a non-full-caster with only one good save, because I don't like to miss to many fights completely. Exception: superstitious barbarian
So that's no fighter and no rogue. It's the only issue I have with playing a fighter, it's his biggest disadvantage. I have some other issues with the rogue, but never mind, no need for a new edition.