| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm going to try to do is to take a new approach in presenting an argument for why some classes contribute more meaningfully than others in Pathfinder and D&D (and a laundry list of other RPG's). And while there is already an ongoing thread dedicated to comparing fighters and wizards, the poster children for such arguments, my argument doesn't really belong there for two reasons. The first is that my argument is an approach to game balance that extends beyond the argument of magic and mundane. The second is that the baggage associated with those classes causes people to lose focus very quickly. So to help convey my point, we are going to discuss a fictional RPG: Cupcake Crusades.
Imagine for a moment that you have just purchased a brand new TTRPG: the aforementioned Cupcake Crusades. The concept is that the players are siblings who inherit a run down bakery. The object of the game is to take the bakery from a lesser known local bakery to a world renowned brand name. The players have a small number of choices they get to make at character creation. They select a class, pick some skills and talents, make some aesthetic choices, and then they're done.
Now flipping through the players guide one of the classes you come across is the Brand Manager. The Brand Manager can scout, hire and manage employees. He can sabotage competitors and run smear campaigns. But his primary focus is to market and promote the products. And as he continues to level up his ability to do things that aren't related to marketing and promoting the brand begins to diminish. But man can he promote the hell out of some cupcakes.
You continue to flip through the classes, passing by a few, until one catches your eye. It's the Pastry Pope. He gains the ability to scout, hire and manage employees; sabotage the competition and run smear campaigns; market and promote the brand; represent the brand in competition; and of course to design and bake delicious treats.
Cupcake Crusades is not a game that has any semblance of class balance. Even if the Brand Manager is better than the Pastry Pope at managing brands, as long as the Pastry Pope has the ability to participate in the marketing and promoting aspect of the game and succeed at level appropriate challenges and participate in aspects of the game that the Brand Manager has NO meaningful way to participate in, than the Pastry Pope will continue to be a more useful class.
This will remain true even if you put limitations on the Pastry Pope like having his abilities fueled by Red Bull which he gets a limited, daily amount of. Because despite this limitation, he can participate AT ALL and the Brand Manager cannot.
Now lets say that Cupcake Crusades was handed to me personally and I was asked to fix it. My design goals are to re-balance the classes, constantly engage the players, and to give everyone a fair time to shine.
The first thought many of you had was to nerf the pastry pope. But that has a serious problem. You see every time a character is participating in an aspect of the game that another character cannot there is a PLAYER who is not playing. That isn't very engaging. It may solve the balance issues but and it may SEEM like it grants everyone a time to shine, but the truth is that you have simply become a one dimensional character who waits for his turn to do anything at all.
Instead, every single class needs to participate in every single aspect of the game. Right now there are some of you who are thinking that this means that everyone can do everything. But that isn't the case. Because each aspect of the game will be divided into many subcategories and the way your character will interact with those elements will be different from another characters. It's okay that the Brand manager only know how to wash fruits and vegetables and peal potatoes, as long as he gets to participate in the cooking mini-game at all. The same goes for the Pastry Pope, it's okay that the way he promotes the brand is just by being super polite and like-able to the customers so that they want to come back and occasionally appearing in a commercial that the Brand Manager set up. As long as he has a way to remain engaged and his participation has a meaningful impact.
And that brings us back to Pathfinder and D&D. As long as some classes are excluded from certain aspects of the game, they are going to continue to be flawed classes that are overshadowed by the Pastry Pope. But martial classes aren't even the only ones with this problem. All classes need to have ways to participate in each aspect of PF/D&D. The method in which the character interacts with that element has to be meaningful. But it doesn't have to be equal. When players are able to give noticeable contributions to overcoming the challenges the party faces, they are more likely to be engaged and interested, even if it isn't their time to shine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think classes should be balanced. It can be fun to play less powerful classes too.
Too much balance makes everything bland imo.
I don't think classes should be balanced. It can be fun to play less powerful classes too.
Too much balance makes everything bland imo.
Blandness is almost the polar opposite of balance.
Bland means that while you have balanced each class against each other, you have not balanced all of the classes against the world, and you have effectively homogenized people, which is less balance and more...de-choiceification.
While playing the weaker classes may be fun, unless you are doing the equivalent of a challenge run, you picked that class because it had fun mechanics, not because it was weaker. Making the class stronger to compete with the stronger classes does not mean taking away the mechanics that make it fun, it means either boosting those mechanics, giving them more variety in their use, or simply giving him new things to do that allow them to participate in new areas of the game.
For example, take humble "Sword Using Guy X". Sword Using Guy X is mostly geared towards combat, to the expense of all else, which makes him get a smidge bored outside of combat, but he gets really cool abilities in combat (like a flash step or ranged melee attacks). Now let's say Sword Using Guy X gets a small buff to make him more usable outside of combat, by expanding his class skill list to include Scare People S$@!less and See Things Real Good, as well as giving him the ability to unlock doors by slicing their locks off (gently, and at a higher difficulty than the Unlock This Blasted Thing skill). While none of this makes him as good as Party Face McMakefriendslots at social interactions, or Guy Who Creeps Around And Unlocks Things at unlocking doors, it still gives him much more use and flexibility outside of combat than he had before, which is also a good thing.
I don't think classes should be balanced. It can be fun to play less powerful classes too.
Too much balance makes everything bland imo.
Blandness is almost the polar opposite of balance.
Bland means that while you have balanced each class against each other, you have not balanced all of the classes against the world, and you have effectively homogenized people, which is less balance and more...de-choiceification.
While playing the weaker classes may be fun, unless you are doing the equivalent of a challenge run, you picked that class because it had fun mechanics, not because it was weaker. Making the class stronger to compete with the stronger classes does not mean taking away the mechanics that make it fun, it means either boosting those mechanics, giving them more variety in their use, or simply giving him new things to do that allow them to participate in new areas of the game.
For example, take humble "Sword Using Guy X". Sword Using Guy X is mostly geared towards combat, to the expense of all else, which makes him get a smidge bored outside of combat, but he gets really cool abilities in combat (like a flash step or ranged melee attacks). Now let's say Sword Using Guy X gets a small buff to make him more usable outside of combat, by expanding his class skill list to include Scare People S*&&less and See Things Real Good, as well as giving him the ability to unlock doors by slicing their locks off (gently, and at a higher difficulty than the Unlock This Blasted Thing skill). While none of this makes him as good as Party Face McMakefriendslots at social interactions, or Guy Who Creeps Around And Unlocks Things at unlocking doors, it still gives him much more use and flexibility outside of combat than he had before, which is also a good thing.
I disagree with you. I think your current Sword using guy x is plenty fun outside of combat too just as he is. In fact I think the game is already too balanced
I disagree with you. I think your current Sword using guy x is plenty fun outside of combat too just as he is.
I don't see how when Sword Using Guy X as he is in my analogy has absolutely no non-combat use. This imaginary class is a combat beast, but we'll say gets no skill ranks whatsoever and can't make checks untrained. Make sense?
In fact I think the game is already too balanced
1.) Lolwut
2.) There's no such thing as "too balanced". There's "poorly balanced" (which can be either too many or too few balanced options) and "well balanced" but there is no "too balanced".
Using the Cupcake Crusades game as an example again. The best way to balance the classes would be to not have a class called Brand Manager which has a name with expectations that subconsciously promotes exclusion. Instead, you make sure all the siblings can cook and design tasty treats. That is the combat equivalent of Cupcake Crusades. And each of the Pastry Chefs need to be able to have contributions in building and promoting the brand in other ways even if that isn't their main strength. It does need to be meaningful. But it doesn't need to be equal.
The important part is what you define as balance. If you define balance as removing all options except for small scale skirmish options and homogenizing all the classes and limited the number of available effects, and having challenges scale vertically, you can do that. 4e will be the result. I'll pass on that thanks.
But if you define balance as players being able to always be engaged and meaningfully participate in a game that expects the challenges to grow horizontally and vertically, than there is any number of possible directions open to you to take in which to facilitate this. 4e would not be a possible outcome however.
Also...skill challenges are retarded. I said MEANINGFUL not FICTIONAL. If you're just b++!%@@~ting everything than you aren't doing anything.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes don't contribute meaningfully in Pathfinder or D&D, players do.
It doesn't matter how boringly similar and balanced or crazily dissimilar and unbalanced you build the classes, in the end of the day the only really important thing for group contribution are the people playing the game.
Also why wasn't this thread about ponies? Blasted cupcake lure...I was tricked! ;)
Is there an archetype for the Brand Manager where I can just like take a few skill points in Write: (Email) and then essentially just get GP for doing practically nothing else but maybe like playing some Farmville and checking out reddit from time to time
Also, until there is an equation where like fun + rp / cats * social interaction + friends = game to the nth power than I think this just basically is not a thing that is all that important to do.
Just thinking about it as potentially important kind of makes this whole thing into something it shouldn't really be for 99% of us who don't have the word Paizo on our linkedin profiles...
...work.
Classes don't contribute meaningfully in Pathfinder or D&D, players do.
It doesn't matter how boringly similar and balanced or crazily dissimilar and unbalanced you build the classes, in the end of the day the only really important thing for group contribution are the people playing the game.
Also why wasn't this thread about ponies? Blasted cupcake lure...I was tricked! ;)
Correct. What we want, what hopefully any game is striving for is to have players contribute meaningfully to the game. For players to be actively engaged. Having classes that are balanced by participation and meaningful input facilitates this. It is the tool that grants players the ability to be able to do so at all.
Because Pinkie Pie is best Pony. She breaks 4ths walls and doesn't even class balance.
Soooo, we're basically saying every class needs to have spellcasting ability now or something?
I guess I'm just confused. I get the concept of "trying to balance things right" versus "blanket balance that makes everything boring" but I don't see a lot in the way of actual suggestions for how to implement this in Pathfinder.
Nope. That is a non-sequitor. Spells are simply a method for interacting with the various aspects of the game. Take combat for example. Everyone can participate in combat and have meaningful input and have their time to shine to the variety of combat challenges. Now ask yourself why that isn't try for the social aspect of the game? Or for ALL aspect of the game. Spells are only a single method of input. And for as long as there exists a method for one player to participate in aspects of the game that others cannot, there will continue to be aspects of the game where players are not engaged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well either you allow all classes to fill some sort of role in every situation or only certain classes should be able to meaningfully impact a situation.
The oft criticized rogue class suffers from the fact it fills few roles and its level of competence in such roles has steadily dwindled, not because of changes to the class itself but that other classes have the ability to perform as well or often better in situations that were once it's speciality. Improving other classes was essentially a nerf to the rogue.
Now you could fix the issue by allowing the rogue to accomplish the same things a wizard or cleric can. You could also just reduce the ability of those classes to perform in some of the rogues areas of expertise.
Balancing either approach is not easy, if all classes function equally in all situations distinctions become muddled and players miss out on their individual moments to shine. If classes have specialized roles how often do these roles come up and how much do they sacrifice in other situations within the game.
I myself agree that everyone should participate a majority of the time and that the game as is can be prohibitive to some players based on class selection. However moving to far towards all inclusive play and balance can also take away from the fun. No one wants to suck but everyone wants to be special is I guess my summary.
Also Pinkie Pie is best pony.
|
The oft criticized rogue class suffers from the fact it fills few roles and its level of competence in such roles has steadily dwindled, not because of changes to the class itself but that other classes have the ability to perform as well or often better in situations that were once it's speciality. Improving other classes was essentially a nerf to the rogue.
Now you could fix the issue by allowing the rogue to accomplish the same things a wizard or cleric can. You could also just reduce the ability of those classes to perform in some of the rogues areas of expertise.
Balancing either approach is not easy, if all classes function equally in all situations distinctions become muddled and players miss out on their individual moments to shine. If classes have specialized roles how often do these roles come up and how much do they sacrifice in other situations within the game.
This plus a few more -
Pull back on how much those who participate (casters) in other areas actually can. In other words - reduce their effectiveness, impact and control of those other areas. Being a scale back in power it will not fly in this thread or work with 3.5/PF thought process but I figure on putting it out here for consideration.
To complement these changes - non-casters should also be needed to help out when the caster makes the forays into those other "areas". Very few "methods of input" should be solo caster list of potential efforts and most should be revised to be cooperative.
Ex - Caster must be guarded by defenders when he casts a Gate spell, with a required show of force he can present to a Gated creature thus a greater chance he has of compelling it to do what he wants - and not have it kill him/take his soul. High level rogue with knowledge of magic helps set up the hedge/ward/trap for the creature, etc while the Fighter is there to challenge and threaten it. This forces others in the team to actually help pull off the spell successful and makes Gate a suicidal effort if undertaken without assistance.
And few other hundred changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The obsessive search for "class balance" is a fool's errand. The only way to do it in such a way that it will even be recognized as "balance" by even a slight majority of gamers is to do the 4e approach, which is to have every class effectively have the same mechanic and the same fundamental abilities. As 4e has proven, putting "fluff" into the game to try to disguise this simply won't pass the smell test, and eventually people will decide that they don't want to play a game where the only difference between "wizard" and "fighter" is some flowery prose and a stereotypical illustration.
The goal of the game should be to provide a story telling environment with game mechanics that allow people to express their desire to play in the game.
Pathfinder does that better than 4e, and the lack of obsessive pursuit of balance is, in fact, a key reason why.
|
|
And if the Mage casts an illusion of a heavily armed and armored party of badasses prior to casting the gate and the summoned entity fails its' Will save/Perception Check/What Have you?
Ex - Caster must be guarded by defenders when he casts a Gate spell, with a required show of force he can present to a Gated creature thus a greater chance he has of compelling it to do what he wants - and not have it kill him/take his soul. High level rogue with knowledge of magic helps set up the hedge/ward/trap for the creature, etc while the Fighter is there to challenge and threaten it. This forces others in the team to actually help pull off the spell successful and makes Gate a suicidal effort if...
If you give the mid to high level fighter a presence of force - a sort of level related fear/intimidate ability, then it won't matter. Unless the Demon is a dumbass he won't be scared. So right there I gave the fighter a non-supernatural ability that reflects how much of a badass he is and how he can instill terror in his foes. Sort of a Dirty Harry or Judge Dread intimidate punks and criminals by presence of force, reputation, etc
So while it may see an illusion of badasses, they do not exude badassery – which is just another hat tip to the Demon. If a wizard tries that stunt and it fails he will be bootstomped by the Demon faster and harder since he knows he has nothing and no-one to back him up. His magic won't be enought to keep it hedged.
Also – let's not have summon/gate be more than a two-line write up/MMO combat mechanic.
Have some detail as to how and why the creatures come, limitations and consequences (payment, retaliation if the creature dies, is deceived, etc). This is an RPG, not a board or video game – we have the luxury to apply as much or little detail as possible. We have seen the results of going with the minimal detail approach.
Edit: and you know what - if the wizard does pull it off by himself I'd still be ok with it. He: used multiple resources (illusions and other spells to complement the illusions), and he put himself a great risk of death/loss of soul.
If the force is illusionary the Demon is going to get multiple checks as it interacts with the wizard and goes about it's assigned tasks, so the caster in question is taking many risks, even if they are calculated ones, and I'm ok with that.
I disagree with you. I think your current Sword using guy x is plenty fun outside of combat too just as he is.I don't see how when Sword Using Guy X as he is in my analogy has absolutely no non-combat use. This imaginary class is a combat beast, but we'll say gets no skill ranks whatsoever and can't make checks untrained. Make sense?
In fact I think the game is already too balanced1.) Lolwut
2.) There's no such thing as "too balanced". There's "poorly balanced" (which can be either too many or too few balanced options) and "well balanced" but there is no "too balanced".
I think you're wrong again. You don't need skills or game mechanics to role play. You just role play.
There is too such a thing as too balanced. Nerfing spells from 3.5 saw to that. I't not too bad though, but this is why I would hate to see a new version of Pathfinder. Because I fear the only direction this hobby is headed if that happens is towards more balance......And I don't like balance.
.
Now you could fix the issue by allowing the rogue to accomplish the same things a wizard or cleric can. You could also just reduce the ability of those classes to perform in some of the rogues areas of expertise.
This has been thoroughly addressed but allow me to restate that it at any point where one player is engaged by participation and another is not, there is a player who is not engaged.
Rogues can be specialists and have abilities that allows them to excel and still participate meaningfully even when it is not there time to shine. But exclusion is a not a fix because it there is no way to know how much time it will take to negotiate with angels or battle hyrdas or whatever. And the player should be playing when those things are going on. Even if he isn't the best, he can still have a noticeable impact.
...if all classes function equally in all situations distinctions become muddled and players miss out on their individual moments to shine...
This is a false dichotomy. Having everyone participate in combat meaningfully doesn't make it so people are missing out on their time to shine because he's the "combat" guy. It means everyone has different chances to shine by adding something different to combat that has different applications for overcoming different challenges. If the party is negotiating with angels, everyone should have something meaningful to contribute to the scene in which the story is focused. And doing so will not remove any ones ability to have their moment.
Also Pinkie Pie is best pony.
You get plus one internets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's make an hypothesis.
Class A) has climb as class skill, and maybe some class feature to climb better.
Class B) can cast Spider Climb
Those two features are balanced, because Spider climb, although better, can only be cast once per day.
However, the next level, class A has more ranks in climb. While class b) learn Levitate. Either the classes weren't balanced befote, or tgey arent now. Next level class B gets fly. Then dimensional door, teleport and plane shift.
More interestingly, the focus of the game shifts. In the first levels, when the PC had to sneak into the orcs pallisade, or infiltrate in dungeons, climb was useful. But now, the challenges are flying monsters, evio wizards in pocket dimensions, and Dukes of Hell. It is not that climb is not as powerful as fly or plane shift. It is that climb is useless, and beynd certain point, all the skill ranks spent there, are lost.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is a loaded word.
Usefulness is I think what we are all actually looking for. Coveting your neighbors awesomeness is only a problem when you lack awesomeness yourself.
I think the issue isn't that the classes should strive for equality, but for utility.
Arguably conceptually the casters were awesome and full of utility options, but also relatively fragile and limited by what they had available to cast at a given time.
The martials were tough but and powerful, but limited in utility.
The Martials were important, because they protected the glass cannon/egg project. They were needed. The casters were important because they could do things the martials could not.
This baseline seems to have been lost in some games. Sometimes intentionally, but it seems more often not intentionally.
It isn't a PvP game. It doesn't matter who can beat who.
Consider the A-Team. BA wins all fights, but he needs Face, Hannibal and Murdock. They are a team, they cover each others weaknesses and emphasise each others strengths.
But when you interpret the rules to de-emphisize weaknesses built into classes, you remove utility.
I would prefer the focus not be on how we get everyone to be "balanced" with someone else, but more back to how do we get classes on the fringes (the non 3/4 classes) to find value in something that they themselves can't provide.
|
|
Let's make an hypothesis.
Class A) has climb as class skill, and maybe some class feature to climb better.
Class B) can cast Spider Climb
Those two features are balanced, because Spider climb, although better, can only be cast once per day.
That is a horrible balancing mechanic if you are only focusing on use per day.
If the caster knows he needs it to get over an obstacle the day prior, then it trumps the ability to climb 100% in all aspects, we don't care about user per day because it was used in the one part the ability was needed. So if prepped ahead of time, use per day disappears as factor.
Spider Climb should just enhance natural climbing ability or give a very weak climbing ability to those who do not have it. So it never should have stepped on the toes and functioned as an replacement ability; this is bad game design if you have another class who handles these duties.
However, the next level, class A has more ranks in climb. While class b) learn Levitate. Either the classes weren't balanced befote, or tgey arent now. Next level class B gets fly. Then dimensional door, teleport and plane shift.
Which are unbalanced because those abilities have weak control mechanisms in place (risk, damage, etc). Not disagreeing with your argument, just pointing out why the imbalance occurs. It isn't because they can just do something - it's because they can do it whenever they want with no cost or risk.
More interestingly, the focus of the game shifts. In the first levels, when the PC had to sneak into the orcs pallisade, or infiltrate in dungeons, climb was useful. But now, the challenges are flying monsters, evio wizards in pocket dimensions, and Dukes of Hell. It is not that climb is not as powerful as fly or plane shift. It is that climb is useless, and beynd certain point, all the skill ranks spent there, are lost.
Agree with you on this one.
Maybe a heroic tier for climbing? As in, the rogue fast climbs onto the back of recently released Great Old One, while delivering sneak attack damage? It doesn't even have to be a supernatural ability, just a practical useful one that meshes with investment of skills and expected functionality at level.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why must everybody bring up 4E in every balance thread?
It's not even an unusually balanced game. They had to errata tons of stuff and characters weren't even matched against monsters correctly for much of the system's life.
That should be your clue that balance and similar power systems are not the same thing, or even related.
If 4E is more balanced than 3.5 D&D, that's purely because of specific lessons learned on a case-by-case, not homogeneousness.
What's frustrating to me is 4E really does have an answer to this problem:
The system was never supposed to be all combat all the time, it's just that everything else was meant to be largely divorced from class. Thus no class ever has to sit out or feel like a dead-weight.
That approach only became a problem because the player's handbook is mostly classes and combat rules, since those take up most space when done the 4E way (compare the page-count of any class other than the CRB full casters to its 4E equivalent some time) people didn't grok the new rituals and the DMG had some flat out terrible advice.
All that is superficial. There was almost a great all-rounder game there in spite of appearances, but sadly the skill system was broken beyond use and still leaves much to be desired.
4E is cupcake balanced, even if it's still as imbalanced as any game in terms of raw numerical oomph.
They just screwed up the implementation of most things between the fights, which is a separate issue.
Turning 4E into an argument against improving balance is an irrational, unimaginative and unhelpful response.
Every time somebody brings up balance, someone has to froth at the mouth or quake in their boots. "Not FAIRNESS! Somebody tried that once and the results were mixed! Nobody should ever do that again!"
tl;dr: Man up.
I'll second Mortuum's mention of 4E bashing to be unhelpful to this discussion. I understand that many don't like the game, that's OK. If I wanted 4E bashing I'd go to the D&DN forums. ;P
I nominate Fluttershy as the best pony, I mean she stared down a dragon after all!
It is not "4e bashing" to bring up 4e in a discussion of game balance since it is well known and well documented that "game balance" was a preeminent goal of that game system and it's mechanical attempts to achieve balance are well known. To suggest that similar attempts will have similar results is a perfectly valid thing to bring up in this context. I play 4e, there are things I like very much about 4e, some that I like more than Pathfinder, so when I bring up 4e don't assume I am doing so to "bash" the system. It's relevant.
I concur with Mortuum's mention of the ritual system in 4e. I think that was actually a step in the right direction. Certain spells like teleportation, divination, etc. can easily be "balanced" by removing them from combat but not removing them from the game. That allows combat to be divorced in part from the whole discussion of "class balance." And that's important since many people, when they talk about "balance" really mean "balance in combat." Things that occur outside of combat don't tend to generate nearly as much balance debate.
So, one way to pursue balance is to figure out which spells can be removed from combat simply by making them take too long to cast or ruling that they simply cannot be cast under the distractions of being attacked.
Many buff spells would benefit from this approach, if you added the simple mechanic that the target of the buff spell can, as a free action, trigger when the buff spell becomes active. The duration of the spell might be hours, but once triggered, the effect could last one round per level.
The more I think about the whole balance issue though, the more convinced I am that game balance, player expectations about spells avaialable, and Vancian casting are simply a combination that is nearly impossible to work with. To really balance out the classes you need a new magic system that isn't based on the notion of carrying ready-to-go spells in your head, or spontaneously casting something like "wish" on a whim.
Magic should simply be far more difficult to manage in combat, and any encounter-ending spell simply needs to be revised so that it is combat impacting, but not combat ending.
I dunno if gamers really want that radical of a change.
Change is scary!
We don't mind imbalance-in-participation of the kind the OP talks about. It's part of RPGing (the way we do it anyway). You all sit and watch when the thief does his scouting thing, or when the high charisma spokesman negotiates with the opposing faction.
Our pastry pope would avoid the brand manager's schtick as much as possible, I suspect.
|
|
The OP is making me realize why I always end up playing characters with lots of hybridization of purpose. Beatsticks with casting and disable device, casters with okay strength and polymorphing, and absolutely everyone has to have at least 4 skill points per level (preferably more).
Maybe I should (in my next campaign) try to force everyone to hybrid their character enough to participate meaningfully in combat, social and misc. This may require more effort for some than others. I guess that means I DM next :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet another arbitrary and unchallengeable thread movement... sigh... off to Siberia we go.
It is not "4e bashing" to bring up 4e in a discussion of game balance since it is well known and well documented that "game balance" was a preeminent goal of that game system and it's mechanical attempts to achieve balance are well known. To suggest that similar attempts will have similar results is a perfectly valid thing to bring up in this context. I play 4e, there are things I like very much about 4e, some that I like more than Pathfinder, so when I bring up 4e don't assume I am doing so to "bash" the system. It's relevant.
But the thing is, it's not a valid thing to bring up. "4e tried to balance the game, and 4e failed, therefore trying to balance the game is pointless and/or will make it end up like 4e" is a false dichotomy. Just because someone else did it wrong does not make it impossible, or even particularly difficult.
There's a right way and a wrong way to balance. Generally, the absolute wrong way is to straight up buff or nerf things, and/or homogenize them. From what I can tell, that's what 4e did.
Generally, the right way to balance things is to reduce power, but either increase versatility or make something situationally more powerful. We'll stick with the Spider Climb example since it's easiest.
So I think we can all agree that when it's available, Spider Climb obsoletes the Climb skill (we'll ignore Flying and Teleporting for now). Now, the wrong way to do it, imo, would be to either flat out remove Spider Climb, or nerf it into a mere skill check boost. That's just a flat nerf, and while it makes Climb relevant again, it also makes it much less likely that anyone would ever consider memorizing it.
Now, I think the right way to do it would be to make it skill dependent, but not essentially worthless for anyone without Climb ranks. Make it still give a Climb speed to those without one, but give a BETTER Climb speed to those with Climb ranks or a Climb speed already. Something like a base of 10, and then going up by 5 for every 5 ranks (maybe points of bonus instead?) in Climb. SO 10 ranks (points?) would give you that 20 Climb speed, and 20 ranks (points?) gives you a whole 30 foot Climb speed. If we're going with the bonus instead, this comes into play a lot earlier than level 10 for full effectiveness which may be better.
Does that make sense/sound good?
Now the thing is to balance spells with other class abilities, you'd either need to do that for every spell or bump up other class' abilities. Personally I think a little of both would be best. Bump up the more lackluster abilities of the more meh classes and bump down the more amazing spells.
Though I do think spellcasters need some love too. I think if you're willing to invest in it, blasting should be a decent option instead of like the third banana of spell selection.
I think you're wrong again. You don't need skills or game mechanics to role play. You just role play.
And all the roleplay in the world won't pass that Diplomacy check the game requires to move on if you don't have the ability to put ranks in it.
There is too such a thing as too balanced. Nerfing spells from 3.5 saw to that. I't not too bad though, but this is why I would hate to see a new version of Pathfinder. Because I fear the only direction this hobby is headed if that happens is towards more balance......And I don't like balance.
They don't look all that nerfed to me. And yes, it's very clear that you don't like balance, I get that, fine whatever. Now unless you have something more constructive to add besides "I dun like the topic of this thread"...
Edit: F*&!in' seriously? Why is it every time I like a thread it gets moved to the black hole of thread-dom? This happens on SPUF too "Hey I made this video and I'm glad everybody thinks it's AWESOME" *Moved to Community Contributions where it will never see the light of day again*
Rynjin, the reason 4e is relevant is because it was the result of a massive amount of research and development and the leading RPG company in the industry bet their product on it. So at that time the "best minds in the business" thought it was the best way to do it. So to suggest that it's somehow self-evident that it was the wrong way is simply not credible.
Now, you can either argue that 4e failed because it was the wrong approach (as you are doing) or you can argue that it failed because it was implemented wrong which is, imho, what the OP is suggesting, whether he realizes it or not.
Your approach is, imho, too restrictive and short-sighted. It doesn't really "balance" the game, it just amputates items you feel are sticking out too far. It's like you are trying to "balance" a hairstyle by hacking off all the longer hairs. Sure, you might get a "balanced" result, but I don't think too many people will rush to your barber chair.
I don't want to play a game where my "spider climb" just boosts my climb ability. I want to play a game where my "spider climb" allows me to climb, like a spider. If that means I temporarily outclimb the most skilled climber in the history of the world, well that's fine because that's what spiders do. Why? It's magic.
When you reduce magic to reproducing non-magical results, or vice versa (advance mundane to the same level as magical results) you are treading in part down the same path 4e took.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1.) No, that's not at all what I'm doing. As I said, this is just an example of what needs to be a MUCH larger suite of changes. It's not "cutting off longer hairs to make things fit", it's reducing them in one direction and expanding them in another.
2.) Did you miss the part where you still get a Climb speed? It's just enhanced by your skill at climbing, whereas the people who suck at it and/or have never climbed a day in their lives are slowpokes? It's still letting you climb like a spider, skilled climbers just climb better than you.
I want to play a game where my "spider climb" allows me to climb, like a spider. If that means I temporarily outclimb the most skilled climber in the history of the world, well that's fine because that's what spiders do. Why? It's magic.
I hate that approach, and that approach is what's wrong with the game currently. "It's MAGIC. THAT'S why it automatically has leave to be better than anything anyone else can do instantly!"
Magic like that is generally a sign of poor writing flavor-wise (which I can't say here since so far as I know, no explanation for WTF magic even is in Golarion has come out), and poor balancing mechanics-wise. What is the point of the Climb skill, the Disable Device skill, or the Swim skill when Spider Climb, Knock, and Water Walking/Water Breathing exist?
The fact that these spells exist has effectively obsoleted an entire suite of skills past like level 5. It reeks of waste, as in they wasted work by even writing up rules for those damn skills when low level spells can do it and do it BETTER 90% of the time. The only use they will ever find is when there is no caster in the group (all spell lists have at LEAST one of those I believe), which is A.) Probably never going to happen, and B.) If it does that kinda points in the direction I'm talking about.
I never realized before this moment exactly how much that pisses me off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The key to balance is not making everybody hpmogeneus. It is making everybody unique. If the rogue could do a few things that the wizard can't, then nobody would complain about the wizard being able to do things that the rogue isnt able to do.
If the rogue could climb to the Dragon's back, gaining a sneak attack position and being impossible to target by the dragon until he falls, it wouldnt matter if the wizard coupd fly, teleport, or plane shift.
But the problem is that tge rogue cant climb to the dragon.he can only climb walls (and not very slippery, for that matter). So being able to scale mundane regular non-slippery walls cant compete with overland fly, and even more important, it becomes absolutely useless once walls stop being challenges for the party. When the evil wizard does not have a tower, but a demiplane, climbing towers is irrelevant.
Do you want classes to stay relevant? Give them unique perks. If the fighter is supposed to be tough and hard to kill, then either remove stoneskin, or give him something better than stoneskin.
|
|
Rynjin, the reason 4e is relevant is because it was the result of a massive amount of research and development and the leading RPG company in the industry bet their product on it. So at that time the "best minds in the business" thought it was the best way to do it. So to suggest that it's somehow self-evident that it was the wrong way is simply not credible.
Now, you can either argue that 4e failed because it was the wrong approach (as you are doing) or you can argue that it failed because it was implemented wrong which is, imho, what the OP is suggesting, whether he realizes it or not.
Your approach is, imho, too restrictive and short-sighted. It doesn't really "balance" the game, it just amputates items you feel are sticking out too far. It's like you are trying to "balance" a hairstyle by hacking off all the longer hairs. Sure, you might get a "balanced" result, but I don't think too many people will rush to your barber chair.
I don't want to play a game where my "spider climb" just boosts my climb ability. I want to play a game where my "spider climb" allows me to climb, like a spider. If that means I temporarily outclimb the most skilled climber in the history of the world, well that's fine because that's what spiders do. Why? It's magic.
When you reduce magic to reproducing non-magical results, or vice versa (advance mundane to the same level as magical results) you are treading in part down the same path 4e took.
I see Rynjin's post as attempting to define an approach and using a re-creation of Spider Climb as an example, not as attempting to take existing content and fix it. That may be misinterpretation on my part, however.
The idea I would have is that you should define an approach, use it, and observe the results. Homogeneity and the moving of non-combat stuff to outside the rules was what 4e tried, and it didn't work, so let's not try that.
Another approach would be to say "Given a common in-game situation, ensure everyone has some meaningful (if minor) way to contribute." Or, to put it another way, if you wish to add content for solving a type of situation, ensure that other classes get content related to that situation as well.
Say, for example, that the game starts with only "deal HP damage until it is dead". There are no damage types, no conditions, etc. Only HP. And let's assume all characters have different ways to help that. The bard boosts the damage everyone else deals, the wizard deals a little damage to all the things and the fighter deals a lot of damage to a single thing. All are contributing meaningfully.
Starting with that as a base-line, you add new situations one-by-one and ensure that, at each step, everyone has *something* to do.
One of the major things you have to do is ensure that you do not accidentally create a situation where, due to another class's abilities, a given class loses its ability to contribute via their class abilities. In the situation of Spider Climb you do this by making it so that those better at climbing receive more benefit, allowing the two solutions to synergize into something even better. This prevents the "spells" ability from making the "skills" ability more-or-less irrelevant.
Stabbity, I am pretty much in agreement with your comments here. My conclusion though is that the approach you are recommending will result in a complete redesign of the magic and combat system.
Which is fine, but I don't see Paizo doing it.
And I can agree with that statement as well, sadly. =/
It's not really a knock on Paizo there, that's just an acknowledgement that it's damn hard to build a game from the ground up, and even more so to modify something you're so attached to.
|
|
Stabbity, I am pretty much in agreement with your comments here. My conclusion though is that the approach you are recommending will result in a complete redesign of the magic and combat system.
Which is fine, but I don't see Paizo doing it.
I completely agree. There's no way Paizo would do such a redesign, especially given that the entire point of 3.P was to keep compatibility.
It's still a good conversation to have, though.
Too bad almost no-one will ever see it.
"3.P" Hah! First time I've seen that. I love it.
Consider the A-Team. BA wins all fights, but he needs Face, Hannibal and Murdock. They are a team, they cover each others weaknesses and emphasise each others strengths.
The problem is that you're talking about characters covering each other's weaknesses instead of classes.
Let me put it this way:
Bob wins all the fights, Jim does all the talking, and Steve is the group leader who comes up with all the best plans.
Which class(es) is/are Bob, Jim, and Steve? They could easily all be fighters, all rogues, all wizards, etc.
It looks like you're conflating party roles and class roles here. Let's say Class A can be great at role 1, ok at role 2 and 3, and terrible/non-participatory in role 4 and 5. Class B can be great at role 1, too, almost as good as Class A, but Class B can also be great at role 2, 3, 4, or 5.
In a party, if someone playing Class A is filling role 1, then most people won't know or care that Class B could have filled role 1 just as well, or that Class A can't fill role 2, 3, 4, or 5 as well as Class B.
The fact that most people don't know or care does not mean things are ok. It should not be acceptable that Class B contributes to five things while Class A contributes to one.
And am I the only one that likes Rainbow Dash? I mean, Pinkie Pie is the funniest, but that's not everything.
I like Twilight, but then again I only watched like 12 episodes.
Spiderpony is still best pony though.