|
I was a bit disappointed that there hasn't been more power creep on the monster end of the spectrum to compensate for the power of the PCs. In 3.5 I found that I was constantly having to beef up monsters to make them a challenge for PCs. In pathfinder I had been hoping that the designers would have seen this as an issue, and made more of an effort to give the monsters a bit of boost. I'm finding that I still have to modify them regularly, which takes significant session prep time that could easily be used for other things. If you run published adventures relatively RAW, I think most gms find that the PCs tend to steam roll a lot encounters that the designers seem to intend to be challenging. That being said, there are still plenty of deaths being reported on the obituaries thread, so maybe I'm overestimating this issue.
It's pretty group dependant. A CR = party level challenge is supposed to be easy for a party of four 15 point buy adventurers. If you've got 6 25+ point buy adventurers, it's going to be rough for the monsters. If you've got a bunch of combat optimized characters and you're running a low social high combat AP, again, things are going to be rough for the bad guys. Its been like that since day one though, so it isn't as much a power creep thing as a reflection of what level of difficulty the basic assumptions of the game are balanced to.
One of my big issues has always been the EL/CR system. Most encounters at CR end up being a joke. I find that encounters need to be at least CR+2 to provide somewhat of a challenge, and higher to significantly higher than that if I want make them really sweat. That's easy enough to do with low level PCs, but once PCs get to higher levels making those tougher encounters is more of an issue because it also means that the battles will take significantly longer. I don't mind long fights now and again, but sometimes it's nice to be able to do a quick battle that still makes the party sweat.
|
|
One of my big issues has always been the EL/CR system. Most encounters at CR end up being a joke. I find that encounters need to be at least CR+2 to provide somewhat of a challenge, and higher to significantly higher than that if I want make them really sweat. That's easy enough to do with low level PCs, but once PCs get to higher levels making those tougher encounters is more of an issue because it also means that the battles will take significantly longer. I don't mind long fights now and again, but sometimes it's nice to be able to do a quick battle that still makes the party sweat.
The thing is, the game is balanced for the PC's to win. That's actually an assumption of the system. So same CR critters are easy, CR+2 should be a challenge, etc. Unfortunately, the game is also balanced to a lower stat array than most groups actually run with, so even those guidelines end up being a little weak. We often end up giving enemies double hp or the quick Advanced Template.
This is getting off topic, but is there a place in the game where it specifically says that the game is balanced with 15 point build PCs in mind? I never knew if it was 15 or 20. For example, I got the Rise of Runelords hardback for Christmas and was looking for a place in it where it would tell me whether it was balanced for 15 or 20 point characters and couldn't find anything.
|
|
This is getting off topic, but is there a place in the game where it specifically says that the game is balanced with 15 point build PCs in mind? I never knew if it was 15 or 20. For example, I got the Rise of Runelords hardback for Christmas and was looking for a place in it where it would tell me whether it was balanced for 15 or 20 point characters and couldn't find anything.
I don't know that it mentions it in the book anywhere, but the devs have mentioned it on a number of occasions. They're balanced to a party of four 15 point buy characters.
I rate it against real life issues, such as feeding my kid and keeping a roof over our heads.
As far as I am concerned, it doesn't exist. I have yet to have a Pathfinder game broken on me, regardless of what we've brought in from the Ultimate books, and if something did seem off I would have no problem tweaking it behind my GM's screen without being offended nor worried in any way about it.
This is getting off topic, but is there a place in the game where it specifically says that the game is balanced with 15 point build PCs in mind? I never knew if it was 15 or 20. For example, I got the Rise of Runelords hardback for Christmas and was looking for a place in it where it would tell me whether it was balanced for 15 or 20 point characters and couldn't find anything.
They call the 15 point buy "standard fantasy", which seems to me to be pretty clear.
How does this guy reload? (Clearly I'm not much of an optimizer.)
Base: 3
Greater TWF grants: 3
Haste: 1
Rapid Shot: 1
2 Double Barreled Pistols: Shots Fired 8x2 = 16
Weapon cords? (I hate weapon cords).
|
Weapon cords? (I hate weapon cords).
Pretty sure retrieving a weapon via weapon cord is a swift action (i.e., just one). So shoot 2-by-2, drop one, reload the other ... then? I'm sure I'm missing something (I'm not kidding about not being an optimizer), but I dunno what.
I do know that if I saw one of my players working toward something like this, I'd laugh in his or her face.
Weapon cords? (I hate weapon cords).Pretty sure retrieving a weapon via weapon cord is a swift action (i.e., just one). So shoot 2-by-2, drop one, reload the other ... then? I'm sure I'm missing something (I'm not kidding about not being an optimizer), but I dunno what.
I do know that if I saw one of my players working toward something like this, I'd laugh in his or her face.
Yeah, weapon cords would only speed the process up a bit. Some sort of reloading hands shenanigans?
Quick draw and a ton of extra pistols?
some of the PF power creep is miss understanding the rules (summoner)
some is poor implimentation of a class that is either useless or overpowered (gun slinger)
and others is breaking previous balance rules (some archery feats like clustered shots)
but for the most part its very easy for a GM to pick what works and ban what doesnt. thus I would say Pathfinder power creep exists but is manageable.
That's ok.
You're right, it's easy to stop that stuff getting into your game. After all, it's more effort to hunt something down than it is to stick to the couple of books in front of you.
I have to wonder if using the CRB as your whitelist represents the best play experience, though. I mean, it's got most of the most powerful classes in it and bigger power gaps between classes than the rest of the PRD.Out of curiosity, what are some major things you never allow? Guns? The Summoner? Ninjas?
Trust me, play experience may be a totally different thing. Hell, the CRB may be power light. But I'm of the opinion that it is poor design if it is. The CRB should be the baseline of any system. If you want something better, one should give up something of equal mathmatical value given general situations. Otherwise there is power creep, at least by my definition.
I do not allow Summoner. I WILL allow guns and gunslingers in my upcoming campaign that starts Saturday, but I will not allow players to START with gunslinger. An optomized gunslinger does concern me. A ninja does not concern me as much as it does everyone else apparently. And a monk in the base system is not nearly as underpowered as some on here believe that it is. I ran Legacy of Fire with a monk. As a matter of fact he was the only PC to survive the whole AP from 1st level. He dominated. Which surprised the heck out of me and the biggest optomizer in town.
But to answer your question more directly... I allow CRB and APG. Any supplemental that is designed for the AP I run I allow pretty much everything for that AP. But EVERYTHING else I need to pre-approve.
Example, someone asked me about all the combat talents added for the rogue in UC. I evaluated them all on their mathmatical advantages. I banned 2. I approved 3 with the condition that it depended on the power level of the party, the depth of the AP they had reached at that point, and/or how they would react with abilities the PC already had.
The base chassis for anything powerful still comes from core. People fall back to screaming "core only" far too often not letting their players explore and mature as gamers. If you swallow your pride and "roll over" on your players, and let them squash things like bugs, you'll find they get sick of it pretty quick, and soon get jealous of the rogue/druid/bard-multiclass-club throwing-profession (pearldiver) who seems to be having much more fun and more time role playing with you and might try to, oh say, grow up and actually play the game. Trying to treat people like kids and screaming "don't touch that!" is just a bad idea with things like power attack, deadly aim, rapid shot/manyshot, wish, miracle, haste, time stop and most of the other really really potent spells and abilities still residing in core. Quit worrying and learn to love the atomic bomb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glutton: Translating your post from Arrogantlish to English it comes out something like this:
"Play like I do or you're immature, playing the game wrong and treating your players like children."
See how much easier and faster that was? :)
AD I've watched you post a long time and I have yet to see a constructive or nice post from you. Can you dial it down?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AD I've watched you post a long time and I have yet to see a constructive or nice post from you. Can you dial it down?
LOL, YOU post a message calling anyone who plays different from you stupid, immature, badwrongfun and condescending to their players and you want ME to dial it down?
That's friggin' hilarious Glutton.
Maybe my tone was indeed aggravated but it was fueled by self reflection, as I spent a good 5 years irritating my friends with monster power builds and leading to all sorts of player versus DM situations.
But point aside, you need to take a look at your posting history and review it with unclouded eyes sir. It's quite distressing.
That's not a flame by the way, I just hope you can realize how you come across on the internet. Someone i knew lost a job and several friends because the way he talked online was so much more aggressive than who he really was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe my tone was indeed aggravated but it was fueled by self reflection, as I spent a good 5 years irritating my friends with monster power builds and leading to all sorts of player versus DM situations.
But point aside, you need to take a look at your posting history and review it with unclouded eyes sir. It's quite distressing.
LOL, it's the Interwebz Glutton. As far as my posting history is concerned my general tendency is exactly what is going on here. Someone posts something rude and I call them out on it. This time it's you.
So yeah, your tone was way out of line. Nice to see that you recognize that.
People play the game the way they like. Not allowing certain material into the game is not due to immaturity, pride or simple lack of understanding. It's just a play style.
I apologize for making you see what you said and how it came across to others.
People play the game the way they like. Not allowing certain material into the game is not due to immaturity, pride or simple lack of understanding. It's just a play style.
Except in cases where it is due to immaturity, pride or simple lack of understanding. Just because it may be a playstyle for some GM's who have fully thought it over and decided not to allow expansions into the game, that doesn't mean there aren't GM's who do exactly that.
"It does what? Yeah, not happening in my games."
A knee jerk reaction like that can be entirely possible, and I would say it could certainly fall into one of those categories. I understand for some GM's it is a valid choice of playstyle, after everything is considered. On the other hand though, it just as easily may not be.
More on topic though, I'm personally of the opinion that power creep in PF is pretty minimal. As new content is released, it's obviously going to happen, since as more options come out, more combinations and possibilities are open to the players. I don't think that's really a bad thing. The only alternative I could see is to not release new content at all.
I don't think that any particular thing is upsetting game balance though. While some classes, items, feats, etc. might be better than others in most cases, I wouldn't say any of them are terribly so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darkwolf, yes, it is possible that someone could be making gaming decisions based on immaturity, pride or simple lack of understanding.
But accusing everyone who does it of those things is still not wise.
I personally have the following rules for my games:
I allow the core books, the APG, and will probably allow anything from any book published by Paizo, but I want to look at anything else first.
I have not yet banned anything. I have a summoner with a hyped up fire-proof eidolon and a paladin at level 8 whose combat AC is usually about 35 or so. So I'm definitely not too worried about "overpowered" characters.
But nobody has yet wanted to play a gunslinger.
That will probably be my big test.
Not because I think gunslingers are game breakingly overpowered, but because, and I am a bit embarrassed to admit it, but here it is, I don't like gunslingers because I don't think they fit in my fantasy world.
And after all, it's MY fantasy world, I've been running campaigns in it for 30 years. Why should I suddenly have to create gun technology in a world I have carefully balanced and written notebooks full of backstory and history just because Paizo thought a little steampunk might pull in a younger crowd?
As I said, nobody has wanted to play one yet, and I have not told anyone they can't. When that day comes, I'll have a difficult decision to make.
I think it is hardly noticable. I still play mostly core classes and feats, and haven't suffered preformance wise compared to others yet.
@ AD: And that is perfectly reasonable. If you don't like how something fits into your fantasy world, you're certainly free to say you don't want it in there. It's a valid playstyle (or setting style sorta), and it certainly sounds like you've put enough thought into it to that you're not doing it lightly.
In a thread dealing with Power Creep though, where there have been plenty of comparisons between Core and Expanded material, to which a lot of them have suggested new material is upsetting game balance, it seems fair to consider that at least some people restrict them without that much forethought.
Is it within their rights to do so? Sure. Does it seem like it might not have been thought out fully when they do? Well, as I already said, I personally don't think the new material features much power creep, so I may be biased on this point.
Just thought it was worth mentioning though that, while plenty of people may have thought it through fully, there's probably plenty that haven't as well.
@ AD: And that is perfectly reasonable. If you don't like how something fits into your fantasy world, you're certainly free to say you don't want it in there. It's a valid playstyle (or setting style sorta), and it certainly sounds like you've put enough thought into it to that you're not doing it lightly.
In a thread dealing with Power Creep though, where there have been plenty of comparisons between Core and Expanded material, to which a lot of them have suggested new material is upsetting game balance, it seems fair to consider that at least some people restrict them without that much forethought.
Is it within their rights to do so? Sure. Does it seem like it might not have been thought out fully when they do? Well, as I already said, I personally don't think the new material features much power creep, so I may be biased on this point.
Just thought it was worth mentioning though that, while plenty of people may have thought it through fully, there's probably plenty that haven't as well.
Indeed, DW, indeed.
They tried to introduce new classes, feats, Prestige Classes, etc. to spice things up, and ultimately ended up making the classes from their own PHB incapable of competing with all the crazy new characters in town, like the Swashbuckler and Favored Soul, or the warlock and warmage.
Actually, the power gamers and the optimisers laugh at the swashbuckler (except as a dip since it gets some good stuff up front), consider the warmage significantly weaker than all the core full casters and insist the warlock is perfectly reasonable. As for the favoured soul, it's just a cleric but different. Slightly weaker, I'm told.
There were some crazy things out there, but most of the new classes they created weren't more powerful.Even the infamous book of 9 swords isn't really power creep. When they wrote it, they knew it was stronger than the classes it was based on. Everybody was meant to understand that and use it only if they thought melee should be more impressive. It didn't even make them as good as the cleric or druid.
Short version: The new options for existing classes had power creep, but the new classes largely seem not to.
A book that makes the weakest core class obsolete (again, all the other classes already did that originally), isn't exactly a system wide power creep, just saying.
|
|
The Book of Nine Swords is not overpowered in the least imo. The only people in the hobby that complained about the book were those who liked playing casters. Since it make the fighter in 3.5 a worthy class to play again. The arguments basically boiled down to "how dare you make the fighter as good as the wizard again! It's just not done and fair! It's broken and power creep!".
Oh, Pathfinder has plenty of power creep, only that it is splashed all over the different classes, so it is not as noticeable. It also has tons of really mediocre new options, too, though.
Something I am not sure how to feel about is the trend of new classes which rely on "I rock for X fights/rounds per day, then I suck" mechanics. You know, every class released since the APG.
Not exactly a move away from the 15 minute adventuring day, IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems clear that there are at least three completely different definitions of "power creep".
1. When new classes, races, feats, items, enchantments or other mechanical elements of the game are introduced through new content and some significant portion of the new content is demonstrably better than existing mechanical elements.
2. Only when the very most powerful elements in the game are superseded by new content. Increasing the power of existing elements that are not the most powerful is viewed as "improving balance".
3. Only when newly introduced content immediately becomes the default "must have" option for any character concept AND that newly introduced content "breaks" generally accepted encounter balance.
I am in camp 1. If new content comes out and makes martial classes obviously more powerful, but does not make them more powerful than caster classes, that is still "power creep".
"Power creep" in and of itself is not necessarily bad. The current rogue could use some power creep, for example.
I suppose any of the above definitions is defensible. I would say that any of them are problematical for GMs who have already adjusted their games to deal with existing imbalance issues. I would also say that as far as I am concerned, martial and caster imbalance is a FEATURE not a BUG. It beggars verisimilitude for me in the current game system with the sorts of cosmic reality altering god-like powers of spellcasters, for dudes who beat on things with sticks to be as powerful as casters. So I'm fine with that. And I don't always play casters. I don't play the game to be Superman, and I'm actually fine playing Batman in the Justice League. But I recognize that some players find it unfair if their character isn't able to shine as brightly as any other character.
In my opinion, using definition 1 above, PF has experienced significant and steady power creep. Entire classes have been superseded by new classes. Feats, items, enchantments and spells have been introduced that totally obsolete existing content.
Also in my opinion, using definition 2 above, I would say that there has been significant, but not as steady, power creep. This has primarily been in the area of feats, items and spells, since those are the areas that impact existing full casters.
But using definition 3 above, I would say that there has been low to moderate power creep. Maybe closer to "low". I have not had to make major adjustments to my game to deal with "game breaking" things in Pathfinder. I have not yet had to outright ban entire books, classes or builds.
Having said that, I still find it sometimes irritating to have to deal with the power creep in #1 and #2. Things like "bracers of the falcon" which absolutely obsolete existing long-time standard content that was perfectly fine already (and cost less too!) just sort of rub me the wrong way because it creates situations where I as a GM have to figure out whether to, and then how to, "fix" existing characters in the games to deal with the new stuff. It's a bookkeeping annoyance, but it's still an annoyance.
|
Oh, Pathfinder has plenty of power creep, only that it is splashed all over the different classes, so it is not as noticeable. It also has tons of really mediocre new options, too, though.
Something I am not sure how to feel about is the trend of new classes which rely on "I rock for X fights/rounds per day, then I suck" mechanics. You know, every class released since the APG.
Not exactly a move away from the 15 minute adventuring day, IMHO.
How is Paizo responsible for GMs doing this kind of games ?
Last time a gal in our group played a magus, she carefully avoided running low on arcane points and spells, just in case something nasty would come up later in the day. The nova issue exists only if the GM makes a single encounter per day and allows you to rest without trouble.
The other thing about the Book of Nine Swords is that it didn't actually make martial characters "worthy" or anything--casters were still in a totally different league.
See, there were two things hampering martial classes in 3.5, and Book of Nine Swords only solved one of them.
Specifically, it fixed the necessity of the Full Attack action. Spellcasters get their full power in a Standard action--later spells don't take full rounds to cast, so they maintain their full maneuverability while casting (plus their spells tend to be long range anyway). Martial characters rely on Full Attacks to deliver their full payload of capability. A martial character limited to single attacks was a joke--they had to full attack (hence the proliferaton of Lion Totem Barbarians towards the end).
Book of Nine Swords essentially said, "Hey, wait a second--why can't martial characters deliver their full effectiveness in a Standard action too, thus retaining their mobility?" And the answer was "there is absolutely no reason at all except people with embedded interests who will see any named big attack as "anime" even though these sorts of moves were a part of Western culture as well."
So, hooray, martial adepts allowed non-magical characters to deliver their full payload in a standard action! That means they're equal to spellcasters, right?
Nope! Not yet! The problem was that even though the action economy was finally equal, the contents of those standard action were still miles apart. Martial Adepts pretty much just dealt damage--lots of damage, sure, and sometimes ability damage--but besides a small number of condition inflicting maneuvers, they were just hurting the other guy. Spellcasters, on the other hand, were bending reality.
"I did 58918471 damage!"
"Good for you, I just inhabited the body of the enemy and used him to kill all the others while putting myself in no danger."
"Er...well I can do 184687781 damage and some Con damage!"
"That's nice--I'm just going to be over here teleporting hundreds of miles then creating my own plane of existence."
The only martial adept maneuver that came close to narrowing the gap was Iron Heart Surge. Many people I know thought it was BS, but the truth is, it was sorely needed. Ignoring any effect is exactly what martials needed, and it wasn't beyond the realm of possibility for spells, after all. It also didn't have to feel magical--it could easily feel like tremendous effort by a huge badass to shake off whatever is affecting him. I can totally see Conan shaking off the Mind Control to punch out the sorcerer.
So, I guess it was (to use AD's numbers) #1 power creep, but I see it more as "a half-hearted attempt to balance the game that ultimately failed, but was pretty fun and cool anyway."
How is Paizo responsible for GMs doing this kind of games ?
Last time a gal in our group played a magus, she carefully avoided running low on arcane points and spells, just in case something nasty would come up later in the day. The nova issue exists only if the GM makes a single encounter per day and allows you to rest without trouble.
No, what I am saying is that the Pathfinder developers have only created classes which favor the 15 minute workday, because they all rely on limited charge power mechanics which significantly enhance their combat potential for a limited amount of times per day, meaning that if the group is composed of, say, a Cavalier, Alchemist, Witch and Inquisitor, it will be "powered out" of their major abilities after 3-4 encounters ( or less, depending on how nova they go ) and it is in their major interest to rest until they recover those powers.
A party composed of a Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer and Cleric would not run into that problem as fast, since those core classes have a "longer breath", so to say.
And I am not even saying that this is a wrong way to play the game, only that it seems strange that the developers have moved the game into that direction and it still feels new to me.
The only people in the hobby that complained about the book were those who liked playing casters.Why do some people make broad declarations like this? Have you interviewed every single person who liked and didn't like the class to verify your hypothesis that 100 percent of the people who didn't like it typically play casters?
Some of us, self included, thought Book of the Nine Swords was a goofy, Dragonball Z-esque system that totally changed the mechanics of the world and also made half the classes obselete by basically disguising magic classes as martial classes. Please allow me the courtesy of having a different opinion than you without feeling the need to generalize and subsequently dismiss that opinion. (The only people who don't agree with me just like casters)
I have to agree, balance aside, the book of 9 swords is very different thematically from what 'standard' dnd is. I happen to like it and think for the love of christ give the fighter something shiny to play with, BUT you have to be willing to accept the anime style or crouching tiger hidden fireballkick into your picture of a fantasy fighter. I find that fans of Kungfu Fantasy Films/TV/Novels tend to find the book of nine swords more appealing then those who prefer more down to earth fantasy like Game of thrones or Tolkiens work.
I dont think book of 9 swords is power creep though, because it was a deliberate attempt to make versions of relatively weaker classes (martials) in line with the powerful ones (casters). That isnt power creep thats balance. Funny thing is in my group i've allowed it in my last 2 pathfinder campaigns and players have chose PF classes instead. Which leads me to believe pathfinder has made the base classes far more appealing then in 3.5. Though Maybe one day I'll break it out again and try out a warblade...someday.
|
|
Weapon cords? (I hate weapon cords).Pretty sure retrieving a weapon via weapon cord is a swift action (i.e., just one). So shoot 2-by-2, drop one, reload the other ... then? I'm sure I'm missing something (I'm not kidding about not being an optimizer), but I dunno what.
I do know that if I saw one of my players working toward something like this, I'd laugh in his or her face.
A Glove of Storing is also a pretty common tool for these shenanigans since you can store and retrieve a weapon as a free action.
|
|
It seems clear that there are at least three completely different definitions of "power creep".
1. When new classes, races, feats, items, enchantments or other mechanical elements of the game are introduced through new content and some significant portion of the new content is demonstrably better than existing mechanical elements.
2. Only when the very most powerful elements in the game are superseded by new content. Increasing the power of existing elements that are not the most powerful is viewed as "improving balance".
3. Only when newly introduced content immediately becomes the default "must have" option for any character concept AND that newly introduced content "breaks" generally accepted encounter balance.
I am in camp 1. If new content comes out and makes martial classes obviously more powerful, but does not make them more powerful than caster classes, that is still "power creep".
"Power creep" in and of itself is not necessarily bad. The current rogue could use some power creep, for example.
***
+1
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that fans of Kungfu Fantasy Films/TV/Novels tend to find the book of nine swords more appealing then those who prefer more down to earth fantasy like Game of thrones or Tolkiens work.
Yeah, Tolkien was all about really static combat where people constantly stood in one place not moving and pressing the full-attack button because it was the only way to deal decent damage. Anything that wouldn't fit in Game of Thrones breaks my verisimilitude, also I cast time stop.
I think the problem with this crazy superhuman attacks vs down to earth fantasy is that down to earth fantasy makes no sense at high levels.
Once you're wading through lava and surviving falls from terminal velocity, you downright need to be able to do other over-the-top things for the sake of consistency, if nothing else.
Sure, a lot of people don't like that kind of thing, but the monsters and casters are doing it already.
The game itself has these two conflicting identities and something has to give if that conflict is to be resolved. Tome of battle presented one option, nerfing the living daylights out of casters and high cr monsters would be the other possibility and E6 and its variants seek to avoid the issue altogether. None of those options is perfect, but just living with the problem is pretty damn far from perfect too.
Many have read the book and found it unnecessary, badly implemented, or excessively complicated for something meant to improve on the only simple classes in the game.
That's the kind of objection which makes for fruitful discussion, good house rules and better books in the future.
Unfortunately I have encountered many more objectors who have apparently never read the book at all, or who skimmed it and failed to look past the names of some powers.
"It's Japanese stuff! That's not in the spirit of D&D!" they cry, apparently unaware that only one of the 3 adept classes doesn't default to being a European-style armoured knight. Also: The Monk has been around for decades and she's right there in their PHBs, frowning at them. Frustrating.
"Per-encounter resources are too abstract!", they cry, as though recovering strikes after 5 minutes rest is somehow different than recovering rage, bard song, smite or stunning fist after 8 hours rest. Adepts can't even run out of strikes for more than 6 seconds at a time anyway, so if anything they're more 'realistic' in that respect.
"It makes hitting people supernatural! That's silly!", they cry, as though they've never heard of Paladins, Duskblades and, again, Monks. The Warblade class can't do anything supernatural in the first place, the Crusader is a divine character and the Swordsage is meant to be a warrior/monk/mage mashup. There's nothing much new there.
Whether it's a work of genius or a pile of crap, the Tome surely qualifies as the most unfairly vilified book in 3.x D&D.
Back on topic, I think I'd go for the first of Adamantine's definitions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do some people make broad declarations like this? Have you interviewed every single person who liked and didn't like the class to verify your hypothesis that 100 percent of the people who didn't like it typically play casters?
Some of us, self included, thought Book of the Nine Swords was a goofy, Dragonball Z-esque system that totally changed the mechanics of the world and also made half the classes obselete by basically disguising magic classes as martial classes. Please allow me the courtesy of having a different opinion than you without feeling the need to generalize and subsequently dismiss that opinion. (The only people who don't agree with me just like casters)
Well from what I saw and read online and what was told to me in public it did seems like some (not all) who like i play casters did not like the book. I will correct myself in saying that not all disliked the book. Yet lets be honest some hated the books for the new nechanics and rules. And some because it tried to make fighters as useful as the spellcasters. Basically much of what Mortumm wrote in his Tome of Prattle spoile.
Back to the topic. I think that power creep is inevitable. Only so many times you can rewrite say Rage powers for a Barbarian before it becomes more of the same. The only reason it becomes a big issue is when Dms cant say no to players. Or that players insist on using book xyz in the current game because they bought the book and want to get their moeny worth. Power Creep will never go away. It is manageable though.
|
|
Power creep only occurs if you use books beyond the core rules. We use only core rules (with current errata) and Paizo's wonderful setting/adventure materials. We have been playing core rules so long now the game flows really well. We, out of curiosity, had a bash with the APG - but one alchemist latter and silly as silly witch we wrote that experiment off as a bad idea. The alchemist player just made a new PC but the witch player liked her character so much she just re-imaged it as a sorceress.
S.
@Stefan Hill
The problem with core only is the new adventures and paths use the expanded material. Shattered Star AP has multiple NPC encounters with non core stuff, including archetypes, witches, magus, alchemist...
As for your experience with the alchemists and witch, neither of those classes are what I would call more powerful than the core classes. The witch is on par with the wizard/cleric/druid high tier, but the alchemist is hardly a power character. Its a nova style character with limited use per day bombs and a bunch of skill points, with some hit or miss discoveries. If you put the same amount of optimization on the alchey or witch with the other core classes the core classes have similar power. They just work differently.
Summoner on the other hand, is really easy to optimize, almost comically so. Its also really easy for people to screw up, and GMs often don't know enough to catch it. Its not what I would call top end broken, meaning that the class at the very top end of optimization isn't any more silly than the existing core or other expanded classes. This of course doesn't stop it from being disruptive for some groups or GMs, and its understandably banned for some groups(though I don't agree, it's really not any more powerful than the big 4, wizard, cleric, druid, witch).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, power creep is a development. In the short term, I define it as releasing class abilities, feats, spells and equipment that increase the power of player who is optimizing reasonably beyond that which Core provides.
If Pathfinder had just been released and I was running Council of Thieves for a reasonably competent player, after a few levels she might build a Barbarian with high Strength, Power Attack, Cleave, a +2 Waraxe, +2 armor.
Now that more books have been released, if I take a new reasonably competent player and they build a character for my Council of Thieves game, she might build a Barbarian with high Strength, Power Attack, some feat that grants a free Trip once per round when an attack modified by Power Attack successfully hits, and a +1 Furious Waraxe (ie, a +3 weapon while raging), +2 armor.
Next year, who knows? Maybe they'll release a feat that lets you spend 5 rounds of Rage up-front to Rage for a full minute, and the Furious armor enchantment that improves the armor enhancement bonus by 2 while Raging, for a +1 modifier. And likely every character (Oracle, Wizard and Ninja included) I run will have their own version of these raising-the-bar effects, and I'll see my parties perform better and better against the same challenges. All of a sudden, I see the same level of skill and same amount of resources result in a character that's more powerful.
New APs start operating against these groups better and better compare to the old APs, since they use a small amount of the new material, they use some of the new Bestiary monsters which are hypothetically a little affected by power creep as well (but not as much -- that's a longer discussion), and most of all that they are written with the knowledge of what players have access to when the AP is released. Council of Thieves doesn't know about Alchemists; Shattered Star does, and that probably has subtle effects.
The characters level up -- 5th level, 10th level, and every time they get a choice in their character they take the best choice available and their character is pushed further ahead of the assumed characters. At this point, I have to make a decision about what kind of response this merits. Do I think it is okay for players to be generally extra effective, walking through a whole AP with effective power as if they were a whole level higher? Or do I want to preserve the same level of risk and challenge as before -- to still have encounters that are Easy, Average, Challenging, Hard and Epic?
If not, I have an easy time. I don't do anything, and the players go through the AP enjoying the benefits of their additional strengths, having that many more Easy encounters, and more encounters that would have been Epic but now are perhaps only Hard, probably only risking death with great amounts of bad luck or terrible decision-making. I probably have to work more at reading the AP, since they'll be able to burn through it faster than they would have, and the AP will probably end earlier than it would have.
If I do still want to preserve the challenge, then it's as much work as I want it to be. I might start applying Advanced or Giant to every creature before game or on the spot. Perhaps each encounter needs half again as many enemies. Maybe I need to start adding a class level to each enemy, or customizing their builds as much as the PCs customize theirs. Traps have to be upgraded as well, of course.
And all of a sudden, if one of the reasons I ran an AP was that it saved me time, then I'm seeing one of the reasons get smaller and smaller : /
It can be handled, but it's a chore. I like additional material that allows people to play concepts they wouldn't be able to before; I suppose I like material that makes a broken mechanic work. But to simply do something better than you could before, to expand your versatility, to expand your crucial limited resources -- these things change the nature of the game in ways I feel pressured to address if I want to present a challenge for my game.
The power creep I'm most watchful for in gaming is when those new-baselines are regarded as the average level of power, and future releases will release options just a little bit worse and just a little bit better. New baselines are established, new options that are just a little bit worse and better than that, etc. The creeping up of power. Let it go on long enough, and the end of a gameline looks nothing like the beginning.
Although as a player, I'd totally get excited about a feat that lets me spend a few rounds of Rage to get the benefit of a Rage power I don't actually have. So you have a conflict of interests driving these issues -- players totally want new powers, and some publishers totally want to give them new powers because it sells books. Bad powers don't sell books.