|
I'd have to say just about none of the above 5 points bothers me if my players are on the same wavelength as me.
I do wish to state that the Summoner as a class really shouldn't exist because there is supposed to be a specialist Wizard who summons. So why do we need a Specialist specialist wizard who has more hp, better skill and other choices, a better and long duration means of summoning creatures than said specialist wizard and a better spell list with regards to buffing?
If it IS needed then why don't we also have a Specialist specialist Necromancer with all the same benefits plus an undead pet and free animate deads. Plus a spell list that buffs everyone?
Or a Specialist specialist Evoker who has bonus free evocations plus an elemental as a pet. And a spell list that buffs everyone .. and so on.
Secondly I really wish that the designers had thought hard about where they wanted the different classes to be during each level. Specifically the magically impaired like the Fighter, Cavalier and Barbarian.
Really as some one mentioned above these 3 should be THE choice for melee Battle field control and constant general DPR. No summoned pet, construct, animal companion, shapeshifted druid etc etc should be even 1/2 as effective in this role at an equal level.
Paladins and Rangers can do this job at a pinch but they shouldn't be quite as 'tough' (although if you are truly enforcing the LG play of a paladin then include them in the above 3)
Rogues should have been #1 for burst DPR and be the masters of battlefield mobility along with the monk.
Thirdly either remove Pounce from the game or give it to everyone for free. I see too many builds based on developing a character to get Pounce.
Actually maybe give pounce as a Class feature of the Fighter and Rogue only and remove it from everything else (yes including pets/companions)
There thats my 5 copper. YMMV and all that but I think class balance is probably more of an issue than the other 5.
|
Whenever a character gains a level
in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1
skill rank.Every time you gain a level in your favored class (Sorcerer) or get 1 hit point or 1 skill rank.
Favord class bonuses don't work that way. You already figured in 11 skill ranks. A level 11 character can have no more than 11 ranks in a given skill, no matter if he got them as part of his regular allotment or as a bonus from his favored class. This is not a skill bonus, these are simply additional ranks to spend.
On the other hand a fetchling rogue has the option to take as the bonus for his favored class a +1/2 bonus to his Stealth and Sleight of Hand skills each level (rule from ARG).
From the CRB:
Favored Class
Each character begins play with a single favored class of
his choosing—typically, this is the same class as the one
he chooses at 1st level. Whenever a character gains a level
in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1
skill rank. The choice of favored class cannot be changed
once the character is created, and the choice of gaining a
hit point or a skill rank each time a character gains a level
(including his first level) cannot be changed once made
for a particular level. Prestige classes (see Chapter
11) can never be a favored class.
That is how it works.
Edit: Nevermind, I see what you are saying. You can never have more ranks in a skill than you do hit dice so I wouldn't be able to put those bonus skill points into something I already have 11 ranks in.
I didn't anyway so me adding the + 11 to the current Stealth wouldn't work.
|
|
I'd have to say just about none of the above 5 points bothers me if my players are on the same wavelength as me.
I do wish to state that the Summoner as a class really shouldn't exist because there is supposed to be a specialist Wizard who summons. So why do we need a Specialist specialist wizard who has more hp, better skill and other choices, a better and long duration means of summoning creatures than said specialist wizard and a better spell list with regards to buffing?
If it IS needed then why don't we also have a Specialist specialist Necromancer with all the same benefits plus an undead pet and free animate deads. Plus a spell list that buffs everyone?
Or a Specialist specialist Evoker who has bonus free evocations plus an elemental as a pet. And a spell list that buffs everyone .. and so on.Secondly I really wish that the designers had thought hard about where they wanted the different classes to be during each level. Specifically the magically impaired like the Fighter, Cavalier and Barbarian.
Really as some one mentioned above these 3 should be THE choice for melee Battle field control and constant general DPR. No summoned pet, construct, animal companion, shapeshifted druid etc etc should be even 1/2 as effective in this role at an equal level.
Paladins and Rangers can do this job at a pinch but they shouldn't be quite as 'tough' (although if you are truly enforcing the LG play of a paladin then include them in the above 3)
Rogues should have been #1 for burst DPR and be the masters of battlefield mobility along with the monk.Thirdly either remove Pounce from the game or give it to everyone for free. I see too many builds based on developing a character to get Pounce.
Actually maybe give pounce as a Class feature of the Fighter and Rogue only and remove it from everything else (yes including pets/companions)There thats my 5 copper. YMMV and all that but I think class balance is probably more of an issue than the other 5.
I would say make Pounce a feat chain and bring back Robilar's Gambit as a feat.
|
|
Acquiring SkillsEach level, your character gains a number of skill ranks dependent upon your class plus your Intelligence modifier. Investing a rank in a skill represents a measure of training in that skill. You can never have more ranks in a skill than your total number of Hit Dice. In addition, each class has a number of favored skills, called class skills. It is easier for your character to become more proficient in these skills, as they represent part of his professional training and constant practice. You gain a +3 bonus on all class skills that you put ranks into. If you have more than one class and both grant you a class skill bonus, these bonuses do not stack.
Bold is my emphasis. Sorry to disagree with you SS, but it does tie the max skill level to your Hit die.
[Edit] Darn - got ninja'ed
|
|
Bold is my emphasis. Sorry to disagree with you SS, but it does tie the max skill level to your Hit die.
Acquiring SkillsEach level, your character gains a number of skill ranks dependent upon your class plus your Intelligence modifier. Investing a rank in a skill represents a measure of training in that skill. You can never have more ranks in a skill than your total number of Hit Dice. In addition, each class has a number of favored skills, called class skills. It is easier for your character to become more proficient in these skills, as they represent part of his professional training and constant practice. You gain a +3 bonus on all class skills that you put ranks into. If you have more than one class and both grant you a class skill bonus, these bonuses do not stack.
Yeah I caught it after I posted and edited my post.
I didn't add it to Stealth anyway so my total score is still a + 43.
Concerning the favoured class bonus: the +1 skill rank does not change the rule that you cannot have more skill ranks in any individual skill than your total character level. It just means what you quote: Namely you get the +1 extra point to put into your skills... nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
Concerning the favoured class bonus: the +1 skill rank does not change the rule that you cannot have more skill ranks in any individual skill than your total character level. It just means what you quote: Namely you get the +1 extra point to put into your skills... nothing more, nothing less.
Yeah, it's great for when you don't have quite enough skills points to put into a skill you really want so it's like getting an extra set of skill points that can't stack after your max.
ta but I think this is where my confusion lies:
before any spells are cast such as Invisibility or any other Stealth enhancing ability.
Surley the skill focus, stealthy feat and equipment bonuses are classed a stealth enhancing abilites as they add to the skill score?
Maybe better wording on the post might have helped there I think
But then +43 is not really that difficult as you could add belts of dex etc so yes its easy to get over +43
So by default if you went with what you said in the post and not use and spells or stealth enhanced abilties then your'e score would be:
+11, +3,+5 and +2 for a total of +21
I think this is a case of number 4 on the list the wording of some things is not clear......
|
|
ta but I think this is where my confusion lies:
before any spells are cast such as Invisibility or any other Stealth enhancing ability.
Surley the skill focus, stealthy feat and equipment bonuses are classed a stealth enhancing abilites as they add to the skill score?
Maybe better wording on the post might have helped there I think
But then +43 is not really that difficult as you could add belts of dex etc so yes its easy to get over +43
So by default if you went with what you said in the post and not use and spells or stealth enhanced abilties then your'e score would be:
+11, +3,+5 and +2 for a total of +21
I think this is a case of number 4 on the list the wording of some things is not clear......
Replace "ability" with "spell". That was what I meant to put.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. I don't really have much issue with WBL or Magic Items in general. Class disparity, while I agree exists, is pretty subjective, and 10 different people asked will give 5 - 10 different issues with it. One person will go off of spreadsheet theorycraft, another character optimization builds/guides, another their gaming experience, and yet another what the internet says, and no one will agree what the issues are, much less how to fix it.
So, can I just say this struck a "pet peeve" nerve for me? I agree that you will receive 10 different answers, but not all 10 are equally valid.
For example, the personal experience answer is wrong unless the personal experience is objectively recorded (not just remembered, as various forms of cognitive bias will distort it) and extensive (since small sample sizes offer very little in terms of predictability).
The optimization and build/guide answer are based on theorycrafting anyway (which doesn't require spreadsheets, by the way), and what the internet says will most likely be based on the guides which are on the internet.
So, if you ask 10 different people, you will get 10 different answers, but you can take the ones that came from a valid place and see that it is pretty obvious what classes are stronger, and the answer is simpler than one might think:
More magic > less magic > no magic and full BAB > no magic and less than full BAB
Anyone with 9th level spells (which includes the Summoner who gets early entry into some 9th levels) is better than anyone with 6th levels. They, in turn, are better than those with 4th levels who are better than those with no spells. Among those with no spells, full BAB classes are better than the non full BAB classes. Very simple.
I'm not a fan of this, but fixing it requires a totally different game. I was hoping 5th edition might be it, and the first playtest was promising and awesome, but every one since has disappointed me more and more. For the moment, until the RPG I am writing is complete, I will make do with this situation, as the game is still fun despite this glaring issue.
|
That was kind of my point. To you optimization boards and guides are more along the lines of your view. It doesn't make them more right or valid though, just something you agree with over others.
Some people, like myself, will take personal experience (and I mean that in the sense of playing with a lot of different people and different groups for a long while, not just my "home group") will always show what the others fail to take int concideration, don't account for <or outright ignore at times>, or only focus on one "right way" of playing the game.
That is just "to me", though, and that doesn't make it better. I use guides and CO boards, too, I just don't always agree with their advice.
None of these (or other) methods is in any way more true, better, or more valid than others. One is not more factual than the others. They are all opninions, nothing more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if you ask 10 different people, you will get 10 different answers, but you can take the ones that came from a valid place and see that it is pretty obvious what classes are stronger, and the answer is simpler than one might think:More magic > less magic > no magic and full BAB > no magic and less than full BAB
Anyone with 9th level spells (which includes the Summoner who gets early entry into some 9th levels) is better than anyone with 6th levels. They, in turn, are better than those with 4th levels who are better than those with no spells. Among those with no spells, full BAB classes are better than the non full BAB classes. Very simple.
I'm not a fan of this, but fixing it requires a totally different game. I was hoping 5th edition might be it, and the first playtest was promising and awesome, but every one since has disappointed me more and more. For the moment, until the RPG I am writing is...
Sure, no doubt, everyone knows that D&D has quadratic wizards and linear warriors. The tier system, while hardly fool-proof, is generally correct. But also note that at low levels, the poor wizard is well outclassed by the warrior classes. And- how much playing do you do at 2nd level as opposed to 19th? I have had only one D20 game go into Epic. Most stall out or end at level 15 or lower.
But as you said to fix this (and 4th ed sorta fixed it), it requires a totally different game. The fact that spellcasters start weak and get super powerful at higher levels is PART of D&D. There's nothing to 'fix". It's like saying "I want to take all that nasty magic out of D&D" (which some DM's more or less do, sadly).
There are scads of other RPGs out there, and even FRPGs, and some are better balanced. None are as good, however. (Mind you all can be fun, I have had some great times playing T&T, which is very silly at higher levels).
Mind you, Paizo has leveled the playing field a little, what with getting rid of empty levels, and nerfing some of the most abused spells, and that's great. But to me- there's nothing to "fix" as it's part of the game. I WANT a 1st level wizard to be a little pathetic and then be gawdlike when he gets to 20.
The OP does not seem to realize this. Since he has never written a game before, he doesnt realize how difficult it is to "make things clear" to everyone. He also complains about stuff that he things are "bugs" but are actually "features".
I wish you all the best luck in writing your own game. I found it very hard.
|
|
So, if you ask 10 different people, you will get 10 different answers, but you can take the ones that came from a valid place and see that it is pretty obvious what classes are stronger, and the answer is simpler than one might think:More magic > less magic > no magic and full BAB > no magic and less than full BAB
Anyone with 9th level spells (which includes the Summoner who gets early entry into some 9th levels) is better than anyone with 6th levels. They, in turn, are better than those with 4th levels who are better than those with no spells. Among those with no spells, full BAB classes are better than the non full BAB classes. Very simple.
I'm not a fan of this, but fixing it requires a totally different game. I was hoping 5th edition might be it, and the first playtest was promising and awesome, but every one since has disappointed me more and more. For the moment, until the RPG I am writing is...
Sure, no doubt, everyone knows that D&D has quadratic wizards and linear warriors. The tier system, while hardly fool-proof, is generally correct. But also note that at low levels, the poor wizard is well outclassed by the warrior classes. And- how much playing do you do at 2nd level as opposed to 19th? I have had only one D20 game go into Epic. Most stall out or end at level 15 or lower.
But as you said to fix this (and 4th ed sorta fixed it), it requires a totally different game. The fact that spellcasters start weak and get super powerful at higher levels is PART of D&D. There's nothing to 'fix". It's like saying "I want to take all that nasty magic out of D&D" (which some DM's more or less do, sadly).
There are scads of other RPGs out there, and even FRPGs, and some are better balanced. None are as good, however. (Mind you all can be fun, I have had some great times playing T&T, which is very silly at higher levels).
Mind you, Paizo has leveled the playing field a little, what with getting rid of empty levels, and nerfing some of the most...
Actually I have co-written a game years ago.
You don't quite get what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for another game, I am looking for the current and obvious errors to be fixed which actually can be done without writing a whole new game. It doesn't take an expert to see this. I'm not really sure where you get this notion that we need a whole new game just to fix the current problems it has.
The game has not reached the max to where the next step is a new game. If this is what you believe then I can put your fears to rest and inform you that the game has plenty of room for improvement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ DrDeth: I think you've hit the nail on the head with the passing 4e reference - perfectly balanced classes does not a great game/experience make. Personally, I'm in the camp that doesn't have any huge issues with the 4e system, but simply hated the fluff changes. I still played the game, but we turned to homebrew over our (previously) favourite settings.
For whatever reason, we just didn't have as much fun with 4e as we did with PF.
4e was, IMO, designed in a much tighter, balanced, and sleek way than PF.
Many (most?) didn't enjoy 4e more than PF.
This leads me to the conclusion that many (most?) players aren't concerned with the perfection/balance of a system as much as they are the flavour, fluff, setting design, and other "unquantifiable" aspects of the game that may or may not be built into the system, which PF does very, very well.
Maybe, as you say, these things (unbalanced classes etc) are design features that people enjoy, rather than design errors.
I don't expect perfect balance but magic s a bit much in PF. Its not the only offender but there is a reason why PF tends to fall apart at higher level. Not all of of it is magic fault though.
Spell DCs being to high and various spells like Timestop, Black Tentacles etc tend to wreck games.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
4e was definitely not balanced, it was just homogenized.
Wizards were still the best class overall and Seekers were the worst. Rangers were the best Strikers while Warlocks were the worst. There was definitely a hierarchy.
The problem was not balance, it was sameness. Using the same mechanics for everything may have theoretically made balance easier, but they didn't actually follow through on that. Meanwhile, having different mechanics does not make balance impossible, so I'd rather pursue it in that context.
I think, ultimately, my problem is that I want the entire game to be like it is at low levels, but I still want to increase levels and gain new abilities, but in 3rd edition, gaining levels fundamentally alters how the world functions. There was an article I saw a while ago about how D&D "accurately" models the world until about level 5, then gets insane. E6 is pretty well balanced after all.
I can appreciate that, but ultimately, I hate that so many cool, and totally mundane abilities are locked behind that level 6 curtain.
I wasn't saying balance was the issue.
But just to clarify, are you saying that 4e making all classes follow a linear progression rather than having some quadratic/some linear didn't make the system more balanced than 3.x?
I wasn't suggesting it was perfectly balanced, but it was definitely more balanced.
And having tried to make that point, I tried to make the point that more balance doesn't necessarily mean more fun.
And I think most PF players don't really care too much that the classes are unbalanced. An opinion, but there it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But just to clarify, are you saying that 4e making all classes follow a linear progression rather than having some quadratic/some linear didn't make the system more balanced than 3.x?
4e's structure made it easier to balance, but Wizards still played the nonsense "good roleplayers don't care about balance card" and so did nothing of the sort when making classes and powers.
Basically, they had a way to definitively balance the system--assigning value to damage, damage types, conditions, etc. They could have basically built powers formulaically and it would have been fair.
However, when confronted and asked about their formula, the developers basically said, "What? Are you high? We don't use a formula, we just make crap up on the spot and eyeball it! Duh!"
So, it remained totally unbalanced. Every level for every class had one or maybe two "best power(s)," some classes universally had better powers, some striker mechanics were just better than others, etc.
They set things up to help them balance, then just chose not to.
I wasn't suggesting it was perfectly balanced, but it was definitely more balanced.
Sort of. There was no martial/caster divide, but Rangers were still a hell of a lot stronger than Rogues, and that started at level 1. Play in a party with a Tactical Warlord (my favorite class in 4e) and then play in one without and see how ridiculously easier it was with the Taclord.
To be honest, I would suggest that while the power of classes in Pathfinder are clearly tiered, within a given tier, the classes are extremely well balanced. Wizards and Clerics, for example, are pretty damn well balanced against each other, as are, say, Bards and Inquisitors.
You can't balance between tiers, which sucks, but there is balance there. There was only the illusion of balance in 4e.
And having tried to make that point, I tried to make the point that more balance doesn't necessarily mean more fun.
I know, and by pointing out that 4e was actually not balanced, despite having more opportunity to be balanced, I am disputing your claim and suggesting that "balance" had nothing to do with 4e's (lack of) success.
And I think most PF players don't really care too much that the classes are unbalanced. An opinion, but there it is.
I think most RPG players in general don't care if a game is balanced, but that doesn't make a game that is not balanced better. That's suggesting most people don't care what color their car is, therefore red cars are best.
A balanced game is objectively better because the people that don't care about balance will like balanced and unbalanced games equally, while people that care about balance will like the balanced ones better, thus leading to more customers overall.
Um, I think you may have misread me. I'm definitely not saying that the lack of balance between PF classes is what makes it fun, and I'm also definitely not saying that the lesser disparity between classes in 4e made it less fun.
What I'm saying is that balance between classes is irrelevant to most players. That's pretty much it. Because of that, Paizo doesn't stress about it too much. Edit: I'd also suggest that the percentage of players that are bothered by the class imbalance is so small that fixing it would cost more than they would recoup in sales.
Not saying it's right or wrong. Just describing it as I see it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm saying is that balance between classes is irrelevant to most players. That's pretty much it. Because of that, Paizo doesn't stress about it too much.
I agree with that statement, but do not like that it is true.
What I'm saying is that balance between classes is irrelevant to most players. That's pretty much it. Because of that, Paizo doesn't stress about it too much.I agree with that statement, but do not like that it is true.
And I agree that better balanced classes would be a good thing, even though it doesn't personally bother me much.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4: The wording of some things are just not clear.
I sometimes get bogged down a bit in a rules clarification looking for wording. Do I expect a FAQ, reprint or update for every word or game term in the rules? Obviously not.
Overall I disagree that the topics presented by the OP are flaws.
1: The Magic Item Creation system.
This is a tough one. Part of me wants to go back to oldskool--no magic item creation system at all, GM determines the requirements if it is possible to make a magic item. This of course a) opens things up to GMs being ridiculously unfair about item creation (which is their prerogative, but may not make the game very fun to play), and b) makes it harder for GMs whose strengths do not lie in winging systems, which is probably in fact most GMs (although that's my assumption).
Having some degree of guidelines are helpful, but the way magic items work is that there will always be exceptions to how the guidelines work and how pricing works, etc.
I think reasonable players and reasonable GMs can work with the current system to get something working within the guidelines provided, learning what rules to pay attention and which to ignore on a case by case basis, and otherwise right now you're SOL.
To do it right you'd really need a whole new version of the game, where a lot of stuff gets scrapped and rewritten from the ground up. This includes getting rid of magic items that are only present because they existed in D&D, and then you get rid of the problem of trying to shoehorn a new set of magic item creation rules into a pre-existing item concept. This will not make a lot of people happy if sacred cows are slaughtered, but sometimes it's time for an all-out barbecue.
2: Traits (Some are just too good).
I don't see this as much of a problem. The one truly problematic one is Rich Parents which probably should not have been included in the APG since it is neither allowable in PFS nor most home games. And even that could probably fixed by vastly lowing the amount of gold you start with (even 500 gp would be a generous starting allowance) and/or limiting the items which can be purchased
I do think some traits are inconsistently written, and some repeat other traits too often (i.e., one trait boosting/class skilling sense motive, another boosting/class skilling your choice of sense motive or diplomacy). Some repeats are fine, because it helps make sure you can get the skills or whatever you want to boost. But it's weird when you have like, ONLY one, alignment restricted way to get Perception as a class skill but have about 5 ways (I did not actually count so this is probably wrong) to get, say, Survival or Knowledge Nature. And I'd kill for a trait that makes Acrobatics a class skill (that isn't campaign or race specific). I don't even want the +1 boost, just make it a class skill. Of course I realize why that doesn't exist is Acrobatics is probably the most powerful skill in the game.
And THAT--that Acrobatics is the uber-skill--is its own balance/design issue--I realize to a degree some skills are always going to be more powerful/circumstantial, but Acrobatics is off the charts, and that indicates a problem. I was one of many people during the beta playtest who lobbied making Acrobatics a Balance/Tumble combo only (maybe also with Escape Artist folded in or just eliminated--in 12 years of playing d20, I have never seen anyone once make an Escape Artist check) and making Climb/Jump a Str-based "Athletics" skill (which also means Jumping would still be a class-skill based ability for Fighters and Rangers, something they lost from 3.x to Pathfinder). Having played Pathfinder actively for 4 years now, I've seen my concerns only confirmed, at least in my home games. Making Acrobatics work for Tumble and Jump just makes it too ridiculous, given how useful both those abilities are in game.
3: Spells such as Simulacrum, Charm Person, and Planar Binding just to name a few.
Curious as to the problems you see with these. Charm person I've never seen problematic. It requires an often easily makable saving throw, and even if the target does fail it, all it does is make them see you in a favorable light, within the circumstances. You can't make them do something against their nature or let your allies hurt them while they do nothing about it. It can be helpful without being ridiculously powerful.
Planar ally I guess is kind of a GM fiat spell... and otherwise can be too powerful if the GM DOESN'T think/roleplay out the requirements to fulfill the purpose of the spell. But most people who think the spell is too powerful don't consider/see/play out what should be its consequences. I'd like to see something like this in an alternate system be sort of a "ritual" rather than a spell. But that's blathering to occur for another time.
I admit I've never seen simulacrum in play, even in our high level campaign. It seems like a cool (no pun intended) effect, though I guess I can see the problem of the vagueness of this line:
but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).
How does the GM determine what are the "appropriate" special abilities for a creature of that level or HD? For the probably most argued example, if the original creature being duplicated has wish or its lesser variant as an SLA or similar ability, would the duplicate have it, or would that be inappropriate for a halved-hit-die version of the creature? I would say no, but I can see how that might start arguments.
That is an issue though often of, sometimes you just have to let the GM do their thing and make their call. Like with the magic item creation thing, getting too specific sometimes has its own unintended consequences and adds more confusion than clarity.
4: The wording of some things are just not clear.
Certainly true. A common problem in any publishing field is that there are too few editors and the ones that exist are not given enough time to do their job properly. That's a production scheduling/managing editorial issue that is harder to fix than explained, unfortunately, so I'm not going to wax verbose on it.
Specific to Paizo, I think some of this also would be avoided with more playtesting--open or not, although open is nice when they can do it. I know any time there's an open playtest, Jason Buhlman has to make several San checks, but maybe that's more an indication that how the playtests are run needs to change than that there should be fewer of them. But I've seen a lot of feat and archetype issues in particular that would probably have been ironed out in an open playtest, and easily at that (and I don't know how thoroughly tested they get in closed playtests. Not much, by the looks of it).
Although sometimes it seems even stuff that does get playtested still has massive clarity problems (see also: nearly every witch hex ever, but especially cackle, fortune, misfortune, and the combination thereof).
5: WBL and how it works with some gaming styles and not others, including the default.
I think for me the problem is less WBL per se and more that WBL is based in part upon the combination of the challenge rating system and Big Six item reliance. A typical CR 8 encounter assumes you have a +2 weapon, an AC of a certain amount, a cloak of resistance +1-3, etc. etc. An experienced and observant GM may be able to adjust encounters better based on the equipment a party actually has as opposed to what the game system assumes they have, but that can be quite a challenge, and certainly not one that a new GM may be up to.
And yes, if you don't strictly follow a module or AP--or sometimes even if you do--it is hard to always put treasure in the game that makes sense that is of adequate value to the party. I've also noticed specific problems like--if you run an urban campaign and have PCs largely fight NPCs, and equip the NPCs to NPC design specifications, the PCs will never find items powerful enough to match their WBL. Of course you can leave other treasure elsewhere, but it is an issue.
And I think players b&$*#ing about being under WBL is the main thing that keeps me from wanting to run a campaign again (especially when they refuse to explore or take the risks necessary to gain the treasure they desire). Although that is not strictly the game's fault, but it, however unintentionally, creates an expectation that puts an additional burden upon the GM.
I think that's a hard balance of game design in general and of Pathfinder in particular -- putting in enough rules and clarifications to help the GM adjudicate the game, while leaving it open enough to interpretation and common sense that the GM can tailor to the players' needs and circumstances without creating too much extra work for the GM.
Not a fan of PF's magic item creation at all. Mostly, the tacked-on caster level requirement, that doesn't scale down with lesser version of an item(I'm rolling against CL 17+ for a 1st level Pearl of Power?), and the risk of rolling a 1 and seeing all the time and money invested in the item go POOF!
Look. I roll 1's... a lot. If I played 2e, I'd be a freakin demigod. So, regardless of any min/maxed Spellcraft skill bonus, I have a pretty high chance of rolling a 1 and seeing the item go up in smoke. No thank you.
Also, only 2 hours to brew a cheap potion(CLW, for example), but still only 1 magic item per day? Might as well have made it 8 hours.
I'd gladly trade the current MIC rules for 3.5e's, XP cost and all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing on this list I do really dislike is the trait system, but not for the same reason the OP does, I think.
It turns roleplaying elements into gameplay and statistic ones. Not EVERY SINGLE aspect of a character has to be expressed in a game mechanic. If a player wants to say his character was bullied as a kid, is fervently religious (without being a cleric),or is insatiably greedy, just make that backstory decision. We don't have to have quasi-feats on our character sheets to express every aspect of our backstories in gameplay terms that affect die rolls.
The only instance where I would allow something like this would be if a player wanted to have a character with a serious defect, like being a compulsive liar or a bibliophile, in which case I'd let them have a small bonus to one thing to offset the weakness they'd be taking on.
Not a fan of PF's magic item creation at all. Mostly, the tacked-on caster level requirement, that doesn't scale down with lesser version of an item(I'm rolling against CL 17+ for a 1st level Pearl of Power?), and the risk of rolling a 1 and seeing all the time and money invested in the item go POOF!
Look. I roll 1's... a lot. If I played 2e, I'd be a freakin demigod. So, regardless of any min/maxed Spellcraft skill bonus, I have a pretty high chance of rolling a 1 and seeing the item go up in smoke. No thank you.
Also, only 2 hours to brew a cheap potion(CLW, for example), but still only 1 magic item per day? Might as well have made it 8 hours.
I'd gladly trade the current MIC rules for 3.5e's, XP cost and all.
Item crafting is a skill check, so rolling a 1 isn't an auto-fail... Also, barring house rules, you're allowed to Take 10 to avoid failure.
I agree that some of the DCs are a little over the top (like that 1st level Pearl of Power), but in the cases where the CL doesn't actually affect the item, it's pretty reasonable to house rule for a lower CL, and thus lower DC.
If I don't have a chance for failure then I grow bored really quickly.
I'm fine with failing in the field. Failing to find a trap, failing to succeed on a saving throw, failing to win an encounter. But when it comes to doing something in a non-stressful, no dire urgency situation such as sitting for 8 hrs./day crafting an expensive item, possibly sinking a considerable chunk of adventuring wealth and time into making it, just to flub and fail that, no thank you.
If the system had always had the built-in fail chance, I would be used to it and probably not mind it. But to go from a point of no fail to a new chance of it, that stinks.
If someone is going to go through the trouble of house-ruling a lower caster level, why not just house-rule the rest back to the way it was?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I don't have a chance for failure then I grow bored really quickly.
Me too. I just think that failure is more interesting and compelling when it's stuff like obtaining the macguffin, or rescuing the princess, etc., rather than failing a single craft roll. Plus, losing a bunch of money for no gain when crafting will screw up the party's WBL. If you're worried about crafting putting players too far ahead on WBL, you should be just as worried about it causing them to fall behind.
But as you said to fix this (and 4th ed sorta fixed it), it requires a totally different game. The fact that spellcasters start weak and get super powerful at higher levels is PART of D&D. There's nothing to 'fix". It's like saying "I want to take all that nasty magic out of D&D" (which some DM's more or less do, sadly).
There are scads of other RPGs out there, and even FRPGs, and some are better balanced. None are as good, however. (Mind you all can be fun, I have had some great times playing T&T, which is very silly at higher levels).
Mind you, Paizo has leveled the playing field a little, what with getting rid of empty levels, and
...Actually I have co-written a game years ago.
You don't quite get what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for another game, I am looking for the current and obvious errors to be fixed which actually can be done without writing a whole new game. It doesn't take an expert to see this. I'm not really sure where you get this notion that we need a whole new game just to fix the current problems it has.
What is the title? And was every paragraph perfectly understandable to all?
(I authored the Manual of Aurania and helped do Supergame!, and the answer is heck NO!)
Anyway, it seems like few agree on what are “the current and obvious errors to be fixed “, so it appears there are no biggies left. Mind you, there were some issues, which have been fixed, and there are a few other which have to await a new edition.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I don't have a chance for failure then I grow bored really quickly.I'm fine with failing in the field. Failing to find a trap, failing to succeed on a saving throw, failing to win an encounter. But when it comes to doing something in a non-stressful, no dire urgency situation such as sitting for 8 hrs./day crafting an expensive item, possibly sinking a considerable chunk of adventuring wealth and time into making it, just to flub and fail that, no thank you.
If the system had always had the built-in fail chance, I would be used to it and probably not mind it. But to go from a point of no fail to a new chance of it, that stinks.
If someone is going to go through the trouble of house-ruling a lower caster level, why not just house-rule the rest back to the way it was?
Who says that crafting a magic isn't stressful?
Why should the chance of failure be removed just because you sink a lot of resources into it?
|
|
But as you said to fix this (and 4th ed sorta fixed it), it requires a totally different game. The fact that spellcasters start weak and get super powerful at higher levels is PART of D&D. There's nothing to 'fix". It's like saying "I want to take all that nasty magic out of D&D" (which some DM's more or less do, sadly).
There are scads of other RPGs out there, and even FRPGs, and some are better balanced. None are as good, however. (Mind you all can be fun, I have had some great times playing T&T, which is very silly at higher levels).
Mind you, Paizo has leveled the playing field a little, what with getting rid of empty levels, and
...Actually I have co-written a game years ago.
You don't quite get what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for another game, I am looking for the current and obvious errors to be fixed which actually can be done without writing a whole new game. It doesn't take an expert to see this. I'm not really sure where you get this notion that we need a whole new game just to fix the current problems it has.
What is the title? And was every paragraph perfectly understandable to all?
(I authored the Manual of Aurania and helped do Supergame!, and the answer is heck NO!)
Anyway, it seems like few agree on what are “the current and obvious errors to be fixed “, so it appears there are no biggies left. Mind you, there were some issues, which have been fixed, and there are a few other which have to await a new edition.
Don't worry about what the title is. I don't disclose my personal life so you can forget that.
Actually it seems that a good many people do agree with some of things that are wrong with the game and there is nothing wrong with like minded people getting together to discuss it. If you don't like it then don't post here, it's plain and simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont really have a problem with the system as is as far as balance/brokenness/workability goes.
Nonetheless, if I were to be granted one wish, it would be that as many subsystems as possible would utilise essentially the same mechanics. The reason my group doesnt tend to play Pathfinder is that we find it too complicated for this time-poor phase of our life.
If I was to name one thing I considered a flaw, it would be how many different formulas there are when doing the same thing. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much could be taken away without me missing it.
I always thought it was really weird that when you're trying to hurt someone with a weapon YOU rolled a dice, but when you're trying to use a spell against someone THEY roll a dice. Unless the spell is like a beam, in which case YOU roll a dice again. This, admittedly, isn't that big a deal, especially since the "players roll all the dice" rule seems to be a really elegant fix.
I'd like to sort of get rid of the summoner. It would seem a lot of people feel the same way. The magus is a class I'm on the fence about: It's a beautifully designed class in terms of abilities for sure! But also the fluff information is "Some people use magic like a wizard but they also swing a sword." If you look in the player's guides for the Adventure Paths under "wizard", you'll get things like "In search for the arcane secrets, wizards..." but under magus it'll be like "Some people who love to combine swords and magic..." Which, forgive me, is a little bit lame.
I think we could do to fix firearms... Actually, we could do to fix ranged combat. I've found uses for [composite] longbows, slings/Sling staffs, and shuriken on a low level monk.. But every other ranged weapon seems to be completely worthless, which is unfortunate.
I'd like some character concepts to be playable at level 1. finesse fighters specifically. Getting rid of certain feat taxes would be a wonderful first step towards that.
Mostly though I want things to be better defined. Especially if they're very common archetypes. Right now the one that jumps to mind is all the rules about mounted combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.Actually I have co-written a game years ago.
....
Don't worry about what the title is. I don't disclose my personal life so you can forget that.
Nope, sorry. Look, either you can claim special expertise and experience, in which case you have to back it up, exactly like I did. Or you can stay mum.
No claiming extraordinary stuff then saying you won;t back it up.
So, either you co-authored a game and can disclose the title, or you didn't.
|
|
.Actually I have co-written a game years ago.
....
Don't worry about what the title is. I don't disclose my personal life so you can forget that.
Nope, sorry. Look, either you can claim special expertise and experience, in which case you have to back it up, exactly like I did. Or you can stay mum.
No claiming extraordinary stuff then saying you won;t back it up.
So, either you co-authored a game and can disclose the title, or you didn't.
I don't need to justify nor explain anything to somebody on the internet. My personal life and my personal details stay out of internet discussion forums.
I don't know who you think you are but you are can tell you that you are just another fish in thw sea known as the internet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do need to justify yourself if you want to use your supposed success to justify your arguments. Any shmuck can walk up and say he's accomplished something, but it always smells fishy when he suddenly gets evasive about the tiniest details.
|
|
You do need to justify yourself if you want to use your supposed success to justify your arguments. Any shmuck can walk up and say he's accomplished something, but it always smells fishy when he suddenly gets evasive about the tiniest details.
Never said it was a success. I contributed to writing a game, nothing more and nothing less.
I have already said that I don't include my personal life into the discussion such as my real life identity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I can respect that but IMO it's sort of an all or nothing type deal. If you mention something you must be prepared for people to ask you to elaborate on it. Once you crack the door open somebody's always going to stick their foot inside.
I just don't see why dropping the title is such a big deal though unless you're embarrassed to mention it (I know that feel, for sure =/).
But that's just me. I'm always flattered when people ask about me (what? It rarely happens.), so I've probably got a different perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin is right. Saying you have co-authored a book is completely irreverent unless we know what book. I completely understand the desire to remain anonymous. I myself am a published author. But bringing up your book in this discussion and in the context you did without giving a book to examine seems disingenuous.
Who says that crafting a magic isn't stressful?
Why should the chance of failure be removed just because you sink a lot of resources into it?
Because climbing a mountain also is stressful, yet you can take 10 on it. Only when you are being attacked while doing so you can't take 10.
|
|
Rynjin is right. Saying you have co-authored a book is completely irreverent unless we know what book. I completely understand the desire to remain anonymous. I myself am a published author. But bringing up your book in this discussion and in the context you did without giving a book to examine seems disingenuous.You do need to justify yourself if you want to use your supposed success to justify your arguments. Any shmuck can walk up and say he's accomplished something, but it always smells fishy when he suddenly gets evasive about the tiniest details.Never said it was a success. I contributed to writing a game, nothing more and nothing less.
I have already said that I don't include my personal life into the discussion such as my real life identity.
Actually no he isn't. I just mentioned that I have contributed to writing a game in the past and releasing the title will easily lead back to who I am so it's not happening.
Anyway, don't derail the thread.
|
|
Because climbing a mountain also is stressful, yet you can take 10 on it. Only when you are being attacked while doing so you can't take 10.Who says that crafting a magic isn't stressful?
Why should the chance of failure be removed just because you sink a lot of resources into it?
I have never liked taking 10.
Well actually if you co-authored it, as you said, it would easily lead back to 3-5 people, one of whom is you. Are you seriously afraid someone's going to track you down and murder you for your crimes of having differing opinions on the internet?
But yeah, this is off track either way. I still think you have a bit of a boner for making things more difficult than they need to be. Not everything needs to have a massive penalty for failure, especially not Craft checks and the like. That just increases tedium without creating any sort of tension.
I have never liked taking 10.Because climbing a mountain also is stressful, yet you can take 10 on it. Only when you are being attacked while doing so you can't take 10.Who says that crafting a magic isn't stressful?
Why should the chance of failure be removed just because you sink a lot of resources into it?
Well, that's a difference in philosophy, then, not much to do about it. :)
I have never liked taking 10.Because climbing a mountain also is stressful, yet you can take 10 on it. Only when you are being attacked while doing so you can't take 10.Who says that crafting a magic isn't stressful?
Why should the chance of failure be removed just because you sink a lot of resources into it?
I took ten when I did my last Everest ascent. Without Oxygen, of course. Backwards, with a blindfold, and carrying a Sherpa under each arm.
But, I don't include my personal life into the discussion .
|
|
I have never liked taking 10.Because climbing a mountain also is stressful, yet you can take 10 on it. Only when you are being attacked while doing so you can't take 10.Who says that crafting a magic isn't stressful?
Why should the chance of failure be removed just because you sink a lot of resources into it?
I took ten when I did my last Everest ascent. Without Oxygen, of course. Backwards, with a blindfold, and carrying a Sherpa under each arm.
But, I don't include my personal life into the discussion .
So you're a big kid now?