|
It is wild to me to think that more people would buy someone else's stories than their rules. Is it just because all of Pathfinder's rules are free online, so they have to rely on selling the stuff that isn't free?
Considering they have sold out of four printings of the CRB, I don't think that is the case.
And it is not that more people buy the adventures, it is that the adventure products earn more revenue for Paizo than the rule products do. Because hardcovers cost more than softcovers after expenses.
The easiest way to tell if there is power creep is if existing adventures still work. I am just beginning a kingmaker game and had to up the power of most of the encounters.
False. I will explain in a moment...
Many of the old games need serious steroids to get the NPCs and monsters to even give the players a pause. So there is definitely creep in the level of damage that the players can pump out. a 1st level human fighter can get cleave and great sword and be pumping out 2D6+8 at two enemies a turn. In kingmaker the enemies didn't even register they where slaughtered so quick. I would say the synchro summoner is dangerous but a wizard with the right arcane heritage and metamagic feat can be just as bad.
If by "old" you mean you are using D&D 3.5 material, then yes... Pathfinder characters are far better than their 3.5 counterparts.
I would say characters are almost 50% more powerful. they hit twice the number of enemies, or more, with the right combo min maxed.
And here's the clincher... "with the right combo min-maxed..." That's called power gaming, and people have to realize that adventures are NOT written with power gaming in mind. They're written for the "average" so as to work for the broadest number of characters.
Not everyone power games, choosing the very best feat structure, spells and ability combos to maximize their statistical potential.
Would you really stop playing PF without regular new mechanics? Or just stop buying it?
Well, I stopped playing 3.5 and 4e (and AD&D for that matter). I'd probably give D&D Next another shot if they stopped expanding the Pathfinder rules...
|
Vic had a post somewhere laying it out, basically it costs a ton to make the hardcover books, so the margins are fairly thin, while it doesn't cost much at all to make the APs and modules, so the margins are fairly large.
Spitballing the numbers, if it costs 40 dollars a book to make something you sell for 50 dollars, that is a lot of risk for all the books you don't sell. 10 bucks a book needing to sell four books for every book you don't sell to break even. With a fairly small subcription base, meaning lots of guesswork at the size of the market.
However if something costs 5 dollars, you sell it for 20 and most of it is based on a known purchase subscription base, you make 15 dollars for every one you sell and every three you don't sell is offset by one that you do.
And again, you can get a good estimate of how many to print given a fixed subscription base.
So if I sell 10,000 core books I make 100,000 dollars. But for every one I don't sell I lose 40 dollars. an over run of 25% and I don't make any profit. More than that, I start losing money.
If I sell 1,000 AP I only make 15,000, but if I had the same 25% overrun I would still make 12,500 dollars.
Or something like that. Hopefully someone can find and link to Vic's post.
Design Manager
|
Also:
That's the rule zero fallacy. It's akin to say that a first level spell that cast nuclear bombs isn't overpowered because you can outlaw it. The fact that you have to outlaw it is a *proof* of its imbalance, not the other way around.I get the point. Maybe Im not seeing how broken it is. Sure a extra move is a good benefit. Not that game breaking. As for extra shirts all a DM has to do is limit it to one shirt or only one shirt. Or the sack holding the shirts gets burnt by fire or stolen by a rogue. Not to mention my monsters are going to be trageting the guy who keep switching in and out of shirts.
Ssalarn wrote:
As a 1/day item the Quickrunners Shirt isn't bad, but it's so cheap that there's no reason not to have a pack full of them in various cuts and styles.
They are cheap yet a DM can always outlaw the item from the game. Not to mention if a melee character wants to go around with a shawl wrapped around his armor I will give him a minus to his intimidate skill. Like a -3 to -5 just because he looks silly.
You jacked up your quotes and attributed the line "They are cheap yet a DM can always outlaw the item from the game. Not to mention if a melee character wants to go around with a shawl wrapped around his armor I will give him a minus to his intimidate skill. Like a -3 to -5 just because he looks silly" to me. Please be careful about putting words in people's mouths.
|
Design Manager
|
Would you really stop playing PF without regular new mechanics? Or just stop buying it?Well, I stopped playing 3.5 and 4e (and AD&D for that matter). I'd probably give D&D Next another shot if they stopped expanding the Pathfinder rules...
Our migration from 4E to Pathfinder had a lot less to do with content release and a lot more to do with the fact that it was so much easier to create PF characters without using an online character builder. And the fact that the 3.5/PF system is just so much more customizable. I could probably go several years without another PF hardcover and be perfectly happy, though I'll admit I'm one of those people who tends to get a bit grumpy when the most recent book shows up in the mail and there's hardly any crunch to it.
Our migration from 4E to Pathfinder had a lot less to do with content release and a lot more to do with the fact that it was so much easier to create PF characters without using an online character builder.
Tangent--I never once used the online character builder and still think making 4e characters is significantly easier than making Pathfinder characters--which was a small contribution towards me not loving 4e ;)
|
Design Manager
|
Tangent--I never once used the online character builder and still think making 4e characters is significantly easier than making Pathfinder characters--which was a small contribution towards me not loving 4e ;)
Really? I thought transcribing those obnoxious power cards was the most annoying and time consuming thing in the world. I can bust out a PF character in like 2 minutes. Maybe I'm just more used to that style of character generation. Oddly, the 4E Essentials line that everyone seemed to hate so much was actually one of the thigns that managed to keep me going with 4E for as long as I played it.
But that's a little off subject.You mentioned that you're not big on campaign and story type material from Paizo, what do you think about additions like their upcoming Ultimate Campaign, where they're giving us material like the kingdom building rules from Kingmaker divorced from the campaign? I'm kind of excited to see it, since that's a lot of solid crunch that should be pretty much inarguably power creep free.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
power creep does not exist because as a gm i have the power to limit you( the player) to what i deem fits within the confines of my world.
if you play PFS well you're boned, and cant fully control what characters are played at the table.
also, no one should feel sick or be upset about powerful aditions to the game. because once again you have the option to play with what material you want. whether it be some super powered demi god, or a underpowered commoner with a pitchfork you have those options and those options should be available to all players...
well unless you gm says no.
The rules aren't the primary revenue stream. The Adventure Paths and Modules are.
The margins are so much higher for the APs and Modules vs the hardcovers it is not even funny.
Now this interests me. Do you have evidence for that (I'm not doubting you--just really intrigued)?
I've literally never purchased a module or AP for any RPG ever, in 20 years. I can tell my own stories, I don't need someone else's. In fact, if a book does not have new mechanics in it (expanded rules, new character resources, etc.), I have zero interest in it.
It is wild to me to think that more people would buy someone else's stories than their rules. Is it just because all of Pathfinder's rules are free online, so they have to rely on selling the stuff that isn't free?
I don't know, if there weren't new mechanics being released, I doubt I'd keep playing Pathfinder...
Not everyone has the time (or skill) to easily craft adventures every week. Although new to the game, the AP material has been a godsend to me.
Also from some of the earlier posts, I am not sure you can really judge power creep by comparing how well a group goes through an AP. For one, AP's are not designed as meat grinders....a capable party should be able to get through without heavy character mortality. Secondly, The APs are for the most part designed to be playable for different levels of players and for a wide variety of party compositions. They are not designed necessarily just for heavy character optimizers
|
Design Manager
|
power creep does not exist because as a gm i have the power to limit you( the player) to what i deem fits within the confines of my world.
if you play PFS well you're boned, and cant fully control what characters are played at the table.
also, no one should feel sick or be upset about powerful aditions to the game. because once again you have the option to play with what material you want. whether it be some super powered demi god, or a underpowered commoner with a pitchfork you have those options and those options should be available to all players...
well unless you gm says no.
GM fiat has no bearing on whether or not power creep exists. Power creep is dictated by the options in print. If you feel the need to cull stuff out, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change what exists in print, or how that compares to the options presented in the CRB.
|
Design Manager
|
Not everyone has the time (or skill) to easily craft adventures every week. Although new to the game, the AP material has been a godsend to me.
Also from some of the earlier posts, I am not sure you can really judge power creep by comparing how well a group goes through an AP. For one, AP's are not designed as meat grinders....a capable party should be able to get through without heavy character mortality. Secondly, The APs are for the most part designed to be playable for different levels of players and for a wide variety of party compositions. They are not designed necessarily just for heavy character optimizers
In fact, quite the opposite, AP's are designed for non-optimizing, low point buy parties of 4. So you've got a game that's already balanced in the players favor (it really is designed for the players to win), and AP's are designed to set that bar even lower so that they're accessible to the widest possible audience. If you've got a group of optimized players playing with a more-than-15-point-buy build, AP's are just going to get crushed unless you kick the encounter level up a few notches. When my players feel like pulling out their best builds, if I'm going to run an AP one of the first things I do is apply the Advanced simple template to everything in the book.
|
|
GM fiat has no bearing on whether or not power creep exists. Power creep is dictated by the options in print. If you feel the need to cull stuff out, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change what exists in print, or how that compares to the options presented in the CRB.power creep does not exist because as a gm i have the power to limit you( the player) to what i deem fits within the confines of my world.
if you play PFS well you're boned, and cant fully control what characters are played at the table.
also, no one should feel sick or be upset about powerful aditions to the game. because once again you have the option to play with what material you want. whether it be some super powered demi god, or a underpowered commoner with a pitchfork you have those options and those options should be available to all players...
well unless you gm says no.
its not "power creep" (a vey bad term imo) if the crb is still relivent. and it is. powercreep by definition means that older content is underpowered, but as power attack proves that isnt the case.
and every game is dictated by gm fiat , this isn't a video game.
Really? I thought transcribing those obnoxious power cards was the most annoying and time consuming thing in the world. I can bust out a PF character in like 2 minutes.
When you make a 4e character, your feats are almost chosen for you, and you make one power choice every level from a short list, for which there are extremely obviously "best" choices. Writing out a power in 4e, I found, to be much less time consuming than writing out a spell (or even a feat), and you only got one per level after level 1, instead of entire spell levels worth.
Maybe I'm just more used to that style of character generation. Oddly, the 4E Essentials line that everyone seemed to hate so much was actually one of the thigns that managed to keep me going with 4E for as long as I played it.
I also liked Essentials just fine.
You mentioned that you're not big on campaign and story type material from Paizo, what do you think about additions like their upcoming Ultimate Campaign, where they're giving us material like the kingdom building rules from Kingmaker divorced from the campaign? I'm kind of excited to see it, since that's a lot of solid crunch that should be pretty much inarguably power creep free.
I will read through it, but I'm not especially excited. I never read Kingmaker (remember, not a fan of pre-made stories), so I don't know exactly what to expect, but from what I've heard about it, I won't really be interested.
I guess I shouldn't be so extreme in my "I won't play Pathfinder anymore if they stop adding mechanics" statements. I'll play Pathfinder if someone else runs it--but I won't be interested in running it if they stop adding new stuff. I'd already rather run Savage Worlds, so taking away the new stuff would probably be the end of it for me.
|
Design Manager
|
its not "power creep" (a vey bad term imo) if the crb is still relivent. and it is. powercreep by definition means that older content is underpowered, but as power attack proves that isnt the case.
and every game is dictated by gm fiat , this isn't a video game.
No one was saying it was a video game. But you can't use GM fiat as a gauge for power creep. If options in new print material either a) noticeably increase the power level of the options presented in the CRB above what they could otherwise accomplish or b)presents new options that do something similar to an existing option but do it demonstrably better, you've experienced power creep. It's not always bad, it's not always good, and you don't have to use it, but it is there and it does exist.
I personally don't think PF has had a terribly large amount of power creep, and I think a reasonable portion of it can be classified as "good" power creep, but you can't say "Power creep doesn't exist because I can just outlaw the stuff I don't like". The options still exist in the game as a whole, even they don't exist at your table.An example of power creep for you, Bracers of Archery, Lesser, are a core item granting you proficiency in bows and a +1 to hit, at the cost of 5000 gold. Bracers of Falcon's Aim meanwhile, were introduced in Ultimate Equipment and for 4000 gold give you the same +1 to hit, a +3 to perception checks, and increase the crit rating on your bow to 19-20 x3.
At a glance, these bracers are balanced because one grants proficiency and the other grants a skill bonus and a weapon property. In practice, the people who were using the bracers of archery before were generally already proficient in the use of bows and now for a cheaper investment they get not only their +1 to hit, but a skill bonus and a powerful weapon enhancement. So we've seen a little bit of creep there.
Even if you choose to outlaw Bracers of Falcon's Aim in your games, it doesn't change the fact that the option exists in the print materials for the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you can't use GM fiat as a gauge for power creep.
Well you could, it might not be a very good measure, but you could look at the proportion of new material that you decide to ban from your game group. If the proportion is rising (e.g. first I only banned about 10% of a new game book, now I find myself only allowing about 10% of the material from new books), probably power creep is happening.
|
Design Manager
|
But you can't use GM fiat as a gauge for power creep.Well you could, it might not be a very good measure, but you could look at the proportion of new material that you decide to ban from your game group. If the proportion is rising (e.g. first I only banned about 10% of a new game book, now I find myself only allowing about 10% of the material from new books), probably power creep is happening.
LOL! You make a very valid and amusing point.
its not "power creep" (a vey bad term imo) if the crb is still relivent. and it is. powercreep by definition means that older content is underpowered, but as power attack proves that isnt the case.GM fiat has no bearing on whether or not power creep exists. Power creep is dictated by the options in print. If you feel the need to cull stuff out, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change what exists in print, or how that compares to the options presented in the CRB.power creep does not exist because as a gm i have the power to limit you( the player) to what i deem fits within the confines of my world.
if you play PFS well you're boned, and cant fully control what characters are played at the table.
also, no one should feel sick or be upset about powerful aditions to the game. because once again you have the option to play with what material you want. whether it be some super powered demi god, or a underpowered commoner with a pitchfork you have those options and those options should be available to all players...
well unless you gm says no.
Power creep does not mean EVERYTHING in core is obsolete. Whatever rulebooks are out, you'll still roll hit points for example.
Powercreep is when some feats are obviuosly better than some others. They don't need to be better than every single feat in existence. For example, "reach" pretty much makes "enlarge" obsolete. Even if it does not make obsolet Power Attack, or Skill Focus (stealth), it doesn't mean it is not power creep.
and every game is dictated by gm fiat , this isn't a video game.
Your DM banning Reach Spell does not change the fact taht Reach Spell is a power creep over Enlarge Spell.
It's debatable if it is good power creep (giving an improvement to a poor feat) or bad creep (giving extra options to the already best classes in the game, such as full spellcasters). But it's power creep|
|
An example of power creep for you, Bracers of Archery, Lesser, are a core item granting you proficiency in bows and a +1 to hit, at the cost of 5000 gold. Bracers of Falcon's Aim meanwhile, were introduced in Ultimate Equipment and for 4000 gold give you the same +1 to hit, a +3 to perception checks, and increase the crit rating on your bow to 19-20 x3.
WHile I get this -- and, I'll be honest, bracers of falcon's aim seem way too good for 4000 gp -- it's not quite that simple. Did anybody really use lesser bracers of archery? I've never seen anybody use them, ever. They'd rather have the 2500 gp for selling them.
Now that doesn't invalidate the idea that the first item is significantly more powerful for less cost, but "power creep" does have a negative connotation, and just making something more powerful for less cost isn't necessarily negative. (Or, as you called it, "good power creep.")
In other words, if bracers of falcon's aim were more powerful than lesser bracers of archery, but less powerful than they were actually written up, I personally would say that they'd made a correction to something that was under-powered.
|
Design Manager
|
WHile I get this -- and, I'll be honest, bracers of falcon's aim seem way too good for 4000 gp -- it's not quite that simple. Did anybody really use lesser bracers of archery? I've never seen anybody use them, ever. They'd rather have the 2500 gp for selling them.
Now that doesn't invalidate the idea that the first item is significantly more powerful for less cost, but "power creep" does have a negative connotation, and just making something more powerful for less cost isn't necessarily negative. (Or, as you called it, "good power creep.")
In other words, if bracers of falcon's aim were more powerful than lesser bracers of archery, but less powerful than they were actually written up, I personally would say that they'd made a correction to something that was under-powered.
Bracers of Archery, Lesser were kind of in the domain of "we got this in the loot, do you wanna wear these until you get something better for that slot since you use a bow?", but BoFA were a bit overkill. They functionally gave you the equivalent of a slotless Keen property (normally 2000 gold per weapon you wanted it on) that works with any bow you pick up, the +1 to hit that archers were previously paying 5000 gold for, and a +3 bonus to one of the most essential skills in the game. That +3 bonus is a little harder to quantify, but if you stack up to the Boots of Elvenkind that sell for 2500 and grant a +5 bonus to Stealth, you've got to feel like it's worth at least 1250. I would say a 4000 gold item that gives you bonuses you would have previously needed to spend around 8250 gold for counts as a decent example of power creep.
I personally think Bracers of Archery, Lesser were pretty crappy, but seeing as how they're more or less completely invalidated by BoFA... The creep is there.Or maybe the Devs felt like those items are serving two completely different types of character. Maybe Bracers of Archery were intended for characters that wouldn't have a decent ranged option otherwise, while BoFA were intended to be a buff that they thought ranged characters had a need for. In that case it's just "positive creep" filling up the holes in the system I guess.
An example of power creep for you, Bracers of Archery, Lesser, are a core item granting you proficiency in bows and a +1 to hit, at the cost of 5000 gold. Bracers of Falcon's Aim meanwhile, were introduced in Ultimate Equipment and for 4000 gold give you the same +1 to hit, a +3 to perception checks, and increase the crit rating on your bow to 19-20 x3.WHile I get this -- and, I'll be honest, bracers of falcon's aim seem way too good for 4000 gp -- it's not quite that simple. Did anybody really use lesser bracers of archery? I've never seen anybody use them, ever. They'd rather have the 2500 gp for selling them.
I have seen people using the Bracer of archery just for the +1 to hit. With a +3 to the best skill in the game, and free "keen" property, it's a no brainer.
To put it bluntly: if I could get a bracer that gives me keen (only that), for 4000g, I'd do. With a free +3 to perception and +1 circumstance bonus to hit, it's a steal.
They functionally gave you the equivalent of a slotless Keen property (normally 2000 gold per weapon you wanted it on)
It's not 2000. To give "keen" to a +5 weapon cost 22.000gp At the very least, you need to improve a +1 weapon to a +2 weapon, and that's 6000g
|
Design Manager
|
They functionally gave you the equivalent of a slotless Keen property (normally 2000 gold per weapon you wanted it on)It's not 2000. To give "keen" to a +5 weapon cost 22.000gp At the very least, you need to improve a +1 weapon to a +2 weapon, and that's 6000g
Sorry, I was referring to the base cost of a +1 bonus, applied in the same way you might apply a property to an Amulet of Mighty Fists, the only other item aware of that applies a weapon enchantment independant of the weapon being used. But you are correct, functionally it is substantially more than 2000 gold for someone to get their hands on a Keen weapon. I didn't price it out like a +1 weapon with Keen because you aren't getting the benefit of a +1 enhancement bonus in the same package as the Keen property (although really, you're getting more). Bracers of Falcon's Aim even goes beyond that, in that it may functionally allow you to exceed the normal +10 total enhancement bonus ceiling on a weapon, since you could have a +5 Holy Speed Composite Longbow that also is getting the benefit of the Keen property.
Ok, so it is obvious that Bracers of Falcon's Aim are better than Lesser Bracers of Archery (because evidently nobody used them for free proficiency in the bow--something that could be extremely valuable to a non-elven, non-martial weapon getting character starting at a higher level that still wanted to play an archer).
However, why are we calling that "power creep" rather than something like a "stealthy rebalancing?"
Since nobody was using it for the proficiency, it was overpriced, so they made something for the same kind of character that was more appealing.
Not to mention that it just copies the spell Eyes of the Falcon.
Oh, and they have a slotless item that grants Keen. It's called the Scabbard of Keen Edges and it costs 8k (Edit: to make--it costs 8k to make).
Oh man, all the cool peeps be in General Discussion!
I've been in self-imposed exile in OTD for so long, I'd forgotten that this is a game company's messageboard!
On topic--I think Paizo has done a pretty good job of balancing new content as to be lateral rather than vertical creep. There are clearly some powerful options, but I've felt they've done more to bring classes up to par (Barbarian options in APG, for example) than to tip scales. Exceptions abound, as have been enumerated in this thread already.
I also think their overall quality is higher. Like, the WotC 3.5 model was lots and lots of crap, real fast, 99% useless rubbish but with one horribly overpowered trick that crept through. With the exception of the 18,000 monk-specific feats in Ultimate Combat *glare* I think that has overwhelmingly been the polar opposite of Paizo's modus operandi.
Also, Scabbard of Keen Edges is 16k. I TOTALLY need those other bracers for my archer /skeet.
*doffs cap*
I like how you pick 17th instead of 18th where you get another point from Guarded Stance, but...
I picked 17th because you mentioned you'd have your Core barbarian rage-cycling and that's the first level that a Core barbarian can do that. And because I find 20th level comparisons not always very useful. However, if you wanted to take it to 20th they'd both go up by one point and the difference would stay the same, so I don't think there is very much substance to this objection.
Guarded Stance is available immediately, whereas the Beast totem armor bonus is not available until 6th level and requires the investment of the initial power in the chain. Guarded Stance shouldn't be as powerful, because it is a lower level ability, and is very useful early levels.
Not being available at level 1 does not mean it isn't power creep when it is available. The Core power is clearly intended to be used at high levels, thus the bonus that scales with level. The APG power is available at those levels, and in the levels where they coexist it is better in nearly every respect than the Core power.
Superstition, on the other hand, probably does far more to help a barbarian (and his party) survive at high levels than a natural armor bonus he could likely obtain from a low level party buff, and is in the CRB.
If you believed that the rage power did not stack with Barkskin, you were in error. The rage power provides a natural armor bonus. The spell provides an enhancement bonus to your existing natural armor bonus. As such the Core spell does not in any way overlap the power of the APG ability.
You're just generally wrong here. The natural attack granted by Animal Fury is still a Primary Attack when it's the only attack you're making, just like the one from Fiend Totem.
That's how I would probably prefer to houserule it, but the text seems to suggest my interpretation. Perhaps the idea was that humanoid teeth aren't really a great natural weapon. There are a few other examples of always-secondary natural weapons, such as a horse's hooves. However, I would agree there is no very good reason beyond the rules text itself for it not to work as you describe.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. No escape is an off-turn ability that helps you prevent enemies from... escaping.
The Greater Beast Totem Power [...]
I think you kind of missed the point. One is a power that lets you prevent someone escaping by letting you move (by moving up to double your move) so you can still full-attack em after their escape attempt. The other is a power that lets you move (by charging up to... double your move) so you can still full attack them when they are escaping, and also a lot of other times.
It's not comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing "this apple" to "pretty much the same apple, and also it comes with a whole crate of free oranges."
The Greater Beast Totem Power is nice, and it certainly opens up additional builds for the Barbarian, but the damage you're getting isn't substantially greater than what a two-handed barbarian with the Vital Strike chain could accomplish
I admit that I am doubtful you could back this statement up. There aren't a ton of Core ways to make Vital Strike very sexy for normal weapons, and I have typically seen it shine on monsters with high dice natural attacks rather than on weapon-wielding PCs. If you can back it up, however, feel free to do so (likely on a different thread).
The Furious weapon property is certainly an improvement for the barbarian over the material listed in Core, but it's power scales hand in hand with the barbarian's and I don't see anything terribly wrong with that.
Not every example of power creep is necessarily bad, although as I said I am uncomfortable with the overall level.
Ultimately though, I don't think the APG should be counted separately from the CRB in accounting for power creep.
And likely this is why you balk at my statement that I have found a significant though tolerable level of power creep. I do count APG when I think about this, and I disagree that the APG doesn't count. But I will also freely admit to a generally conservative and suspicious attitude towards power creep overall, fostered by the excesses of 3.5, that likely colors my disinclination to give the APG a freebie when it presents material more powerful than Core stuff.
On a scale of 0 core rules to 10 (3.5 D&D with all splat books)...I would say we are at 2-3 ish.Totally agree with this assessment. It's almost to slight to be negligible. Once something pops up that's a bad combo, it's usually FAQd out of existence.
Paizo has this on lock.
"Bad combo" doesn't always mean overpowered; it can go the other way too. How long did it take to get a comfortable working version of the Monk class, after the Core Rulebook had been released? 3 years or something?
That said though, they do a pretty good job with everything else I've seen thus far, personal rules preferences aside.
*coughDiagonalReachRulescough*
|
Design Manager
|
Just going to address a couple of these, I don't want to derail this thread with too much abck and forth, but...
If you believed that the rage power did not stack with Barkskin, you were in error. The rage power provides a natural armor bonus. The spell provides an enhancement bonus to your existing natural armor bonus. As such the Core spell does not in any way overlap the power of the APG ability.
My point was that in comparing the power of abilities in the CRB to abilities in other books like the APG, the overall power levels were roughly the same. Superstition is a CRB power that nearly every Barbarian takes because of its ridiculous save bonuses.
You're just generally wrong here. The natural attack granted by Animal Fury is still a Primary Attack when it's the only attack you're making, just like the one from Fiend Totem.
That's how I would probably prefer to houserule it, but the text seems to suggest my interpretation. Perhaps the idea was that humanoid teeth aren't really a great natural...
You don't have to houserule anything, you just have to read the power. The only thing in the text of the power says it is a secondary ability "when used as part of a full attack". If it's the only attack you're making, it is still a primary attack with all appropriate bonuses. Same if you're using it in the manner intended, as part of a grapple.
|
Design Manager
|
On a scale of 0 core rules to 10 (3.5 D&D with all splat books)...I would say we are at 2-3 ish.Totally agree with this assessment. It's almost to slight to be negligible. Once something pops up that's a bad combo, it's usually FAQd out of existence.
Paizo has this on lock.
"Bad combo" doesn't always mean overpowered; it can go the other way too. How long did it take to get a comfortable working version of the Monk class, after the Core Rulebook had been released? 3 years or something?
That said though, they do a pretty good job with everything else I've seen thus far, personal rules preferences aside.
*coughDiagonalReachRulescough*
At least SKR chimed in and provided an (admittedly somewhat awkward) version of how the diagonal reach rules should work.
At least SKR chimed in and provided an (admittedly somewhat awkward) version of how the diagonal reach rules should work.On a scale of 0 core rules to 10 (3.5 D&D with all splat books)...I would say we are at 2-3 ish.Totally agree with this assessment. It's almost to slight to be negligible. Once something pops up that's a bad combo, it's usually FAQd out of existence.
Paizo has this on lock.
"Bad combo" doesn't always mean overpowered; it can go the other way too. How long did it take to get a comfortable working version of the Monk class, after the Core Rulebook had been released? 3 years or something?
That said though, they do a pretty good job with everything else I've seen thus far, personal rules preferences aside.
*coughDiagonalReachRulescough*
Wow, I hadn't realized how f-ed up the diagonal rules were. I never purchased the CRB and so didn't realize that they hadn't put in diagrams to explain how things worked. I just assumed it was like the 3.5 rules. I see now that it is pretty bunked up. No wonder the people with the book seem to be inconsistent in how they treat the diagonals.
Excellent point, and the reason I think x/rounds per day is a bad mechanic.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.
Well, different opinion my own.
Expendable resources is a excelent way to make all classes interesting and unique. If I would make PF from scratch, I'd give all classes some kind of expendable stuff. Fighter-types would have something similar to the samurai "resolve" or the gunslinger "grit", and rogue-types will have something akin to monk and ninja's "ki", just name it different to dettach the oriental flavor. Calling it "adrenaline" or "focus" or "luck" or "wits" make for different feelings that fit in different classes.I'd even give spellcasters stuff similar to the "arcane pool" of the MAgus, and probably will base Metamagic on this pool.
|
|
I'm still not seeing how Bracers of Falconers Aim is broken. A pretty powerful item. Overpowered not in my book anyway. It's a proper priced item.
It a item that copies this: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/aspect-of-the-falcon
Keen is a +1 enhancement bonus for 2,000 gp
The +3 bonus to perception is good if you have the skill as part of your class. At high level that +3 is not going to do much untrained. And a +1 bonus to Ranged attacks. Good for low t o mid levels at high levels not so much.
It's a good item yet hardly game breaking unless everyone takes one. It's great for ranged specialists. Also decent for non ranged specialists too. That being said I'm a Fighter I'm not spending 4000 gp on the item. I'm buying items that boost my Will Saves and my ability to do damage and take more damage. I expected who knows what the way some were portraying the Bracers Of Falcons Aim. Not to mention I have to spend 4000 gp on a item I want my money worth.
That's the problem with Power Creep. Unless the majority and only the majority of the fanbase think something can be considered power creep than to me it's not imo. Even then I take anything the community says is broken or suffers from power creep with a galaxy sized grain of salt. After all were talking about some of the members who taught that the 3.0l. weapon focus and great weapon focus feats were poer creep because they listed the bonus for both as +2. Yet had no problem with the +1 bonus of both in 3.5 I guess it's even numbers.
So while there are somethings that are better than others in Pathfinder (which is true for most if not all rpgs) I'm not seeing the dreaded spectre of power creep that others are.
|
|
It is power creep because this basically replace a core item with and other item much more powerful and cheaper.
I guess my defination of Power Creep is much more different than most posters on this forum and elsewhere. Beyond the fact that it gives keen to any ranged weapon and I'm assuming as well as guns I don't know I just don't see camapaigns grinding to a halt. Almost everyone I know who who plays either frontline or ranged characters take Keen anyway. The rest a +3 bonus to a skill and a +1 bonus to hit. Again hardly game breaking. The bonus to Perception while useful is really a big bonus to someone trained in the skill. A extra +1 to hit meh not a huge difference iat high levels. Point Blank shot as a feat is a better choice even if the range is 30 ft.
keen is not 2000 gp, as people said before it is at least 6000 gp because you can not have a +0 keen sword.
I stand corrected with the cost. That being said I'm glad it is only 4000 gp. No way would I throw away and waste 6000 gp on that item. I rather save the money and buy a cloak of resistance +2 which is better value
at higher level when the weapon i better then the keen effect becomes a much better deal. For a +5 bow that +1 for keen would cost 22 gp. So definitely this is a item that remains good all levels.
It is a good item at all levels. I'm still not seeing how it can be considered a truly broken item. Poweful yes. Possibly a good buy for what it does. Yet to put it in the category of power creep is to me anyway laughable.
And you fighter example is weird to me. If I am playing a swicht hitter fighter level 9th. and I have a +1 bow then the bracers is a better deal than upgrading the bow to a +2 bow.
I simply dislike playing switch hitter fighters. Unless I see that the DM is using many flying creatures in his game I'm not wasting the money to buy ranged items beyond a decent bow. Or the feats for that matter. I sure as hell won't be wasting 4000 gp on a item I may never get any use for. At least a cloak of resistance is good all the time. I have never seen anyone really take those Bracers unless they play Fighters/Rangers who specialize in range. Most melee types rather buy better armor, weapons or even better utems that increase saves.
Dunno if creep is the right word.
Adding action economy makes things seem more powerful, but pet classes have always benefitted from this.
I'm still not seeing how Bracers of Falconers Aim is broken. A pretty powerful item. Overpowered not in my book anyway. It's a proper priced item.
It a item that copies this: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/aspect-of-the-falcon
Keen is a +1 enhancement bonus for 2,000 gp
The +3 bonus to perception is good if you have the skill as part of your class. At high level that +3 is not going to do much untrained. And a +1 bonus to Ranged attacks.
That's the problem. It's priced based on a spell. A short duration spell, made permanent. At 4000g you get pretty cheap stuff if you vo this route. For example, a permanent Shield brad r, gives you +4 shield bonus free handed, and inmunity to magic missile. For that price, you could have an item with permanent prot from evil, basically giving you +2 deflectio to AC, +2 resistance to saves, inmunity to mind control effects and to be attaced by summons. A bargain. Or you could make a "hat of enlarge person " for 1800, as the hat of disguise. And so on.
Items should be based on effect. +1 circunstance bonus to hit is like 2000. Keen is at least 6000. +3 to perception is 900. Pay 50% more for the aditional stuff and thats the price of the item. Around 10000
I guess my defination of Power Creep is much more different than most posters on this forum and elsewhere. Beyond the fact that it gives keen to any ranged weapon and I'm assuming as well as guns I don't know I just don't see camapaigns grinding to a halt.
It is power creep because this basically replace a core item with and other item much more powerful and cheaper.
I would guess this is the case. A common definition of "power creep" is options in later books that are more powerful than similar options in previous books. While there may be some overlap with "so utterly powerful that the game grinds to a halt" this is not necessarily (or commonly) the case.
The idea of "creep" is that the increase is somewhat incremental in its progress rather than necessarily going from 0 to 11 in one step.
There's a rash of 3/4 BAB in later-than-CRB books, actually. Oracles -- which are just divine Sorcerers, so how do THEY rate 3/4? Alchemists (which I do like) which don't REALLY seem like they deserve 3/4; they're lab techs with grenades, why do they qualify?
Eh.
Oracles are to Sorcerers as Clerics are to Wizards. The divine ones have d8's for hit dice and 3/4 BAB (along with druids). I tend to see divine casters as being expected to have some combat capability as well. Their arcane counterparts have d6 and 1/2 BAB. So, despite the Oracle being, quite literally, just a divine sorcerer, it makes sense for them to have 3/4, in my opinion. The witch, being a full arcane caster on the other hand gets stuck with the 1/2 (which also makes sense to me).
Between the mutagen and bombs, I can see the 3/4 BAB being reasonable on the alchemist as well, though it does seem a little more unusual. They are 6 level 'casters' though, not full, putting them pretty closely in line with the bard.
But prior to the summoner, pets were fairly lame.
Still don't get why they made that a 3/4 BaB class able to cast in armor.
Summoners, with 6 level spell progression, most similarly fall into place with the Bard, imo, hence why they have d8 and 3/4. I think they were built that way as to give the opportunity to go into melee with their eidolon, which is actually a pretty cool way to play them. Edit: Also, their similarity to a druid is pretty noticeable.
A lot of people play them as straight up casters though, for which I would see a 1/2 BAB making more sense. But again, as they are (with the 6 level spellcasting and possibility for joining in melee), I think 3/4 BAB seems logical.
So, they all make enough sense to me. Pretty much all of those classes are still in line with the core ones.
There's a rash of 3/4 BAB in later-than-CRB books, actually. Oracles -- which are just divine Sorcerers, so how do THEY rate 3/4? Alchemists (which I do like) which don't REALLY seem like they deserve 3/4; they're lab techs with grenades, why do they qualify?
Eh.
Oracles are spontaneous clerics. They have 3/4 because divine power, rightnous might, etc, don't work with a 1/2 BAB class. Alchemists have two versions: the bombers, and the mad Mr Hyde/hulk/vivisectionist.