What's 2nd S&P? We skipped 2nd edition so I dont know anything about it.
I don't see how 3e's skill system could be counted as a major change, since by that point, D&D had already published many, completely different skill systems.
Right, including one with Skill Points, aka Skills & Powers.
So that answers Steve's question, 2nd S&P is Skills & Powers. Quite a bit different than 2nd. Some have called it 2.75.
Why is the Paladin not hurt by being MADer when using Cha?
Simply put, he gains a large boost to saves from Cha. He gets more benfit from Cha than the Fighter does: Better Diplomacy (or Intimidate, or whatever), and better saves.
See, the Paladin can actually safely dump Wis if he wants as far as saves go.
So it goes something like this (assuming Str based fighting build):
A Fighter needs Str > Con > Dex/Wis > Int > Cha to function as a class.
He gains a small benefit from Wis, little benefit from Cha besides skills, and minimal benefit from Int because his base skill points are so low he needs either hefty investment into Int, a specific Race/Archetype combo, his favored class bonus, or all of the above to get any appreciable benefit.
Meanwhile the Pally goes a bit like this:
Str > Cha > Dex > Con > Int > Wis.
Cha makes ALL of his saves better (making Dex and Wis benefit in that regard minimal), and he doesn't need as much Con either because he gets free healing to balance it out.
The Paladin is TECHNICALLY more MAD than the Fighter...but not really so much in practice. Hell, actually, in full plate it's more like Str > Cha -> Everything else since he only needs like a 12 in Dex and Con to be about as good as he can be before magic items and mithral armor come into play.
He gains a small benefit from Wis, little benefit from Cha besides skills, and minimal benefit from Int because his base skill points are so low he needs either hefty investment into Int, a specific Race/Archetype combo, his favored class bonus, or all of the above to get any appreciable benefit..
Ftr with 7 int gets 1 SkP, a Ftr with 12 Int has 3. That's two extra SkP per level.
Pally still needs some Wis, because Perp is *THE* most important skill in the game, and it really hurts to have a -2 in it. Mind you, yes a Pally can do with a 10 and a Ftr would like to have a 12.
And, yes, in FP a Pally can live happily with a 12 DEX, but then remember if a Ftr has more DEX in FP- he can actually use it.
I admit that there's a really stupid thing in PF, and that's being able to assign a 7 in point buy and get back 4 ability points , and yes, that -2 is only a -1 for FTR (or cleric) in Skill points. Bad design there.
I don't see how 3e's skill system could be counted as a major change, since by that point, D&D had already published many, completely different skill systems.Right, including one with Skill Points, aka Skills & Powers.
So that answers Steve's question, 2nd S&P is Skills & Powers. Quite a bit different than 2nd. Some have called it 2.75.
Thanks.
I love the way that when 3E unified a bunch of mechanics and differently scaling elements of the game that was just efficient, but when 4E did the same with the scaling of character abilities that was wrong, even though scaling discrepancies between the abilities of different classes are the most common thing 3.x/Pathfinder players complain about.
To the people saying the game is all combat, I disagree. In practice it ends up about combat, but that's because people ignore the rituals and the skill challenges.
When they first made 4E, they thought they were going to revolutionise non-combat encounters in D&D. Rather than being all role playing or luck of the dice, you'd make meaningful decisions, progress gradually and all contribute as a team.
In practice, the system they delivered was mathematically broken beyond usability, arbitrary, too difficult, too simplistic for what it was meant to do, overcomplicated for what it actually did and limiting rather than enabling.
They completely reworked the skill system at least twice and charged for one of the redesigned versions.
Rituals are 4E's primary source of non-combat spells. They have costly material components and long casting times rather than limited uses per day, you need feats and skills to take them, rather than general spellcasting abilities and the main casting classes usually get the prerequisites automatically.
Really it's not the game that's all about combat, it's the CLASSES. Non-class-specific abilities are usually non-combat, while class abilities are usually combat. Essentials changed this, by never mentioning rituals at all and giving its new classes non-combat powers in place of some combat powers.
To whoever was saying that stuff came in late, that's kinda my point. People looked at the core rulebooks, ditched the system and then continued complaining about problems even after they were mitigated.
I played 4th edition from the beginning. I don't like it, and my players too. There are a lot of nice things but my feeling is that they tried to balance something that cannot be balanced: An rpg game.
At that time i was reading on 4th edition forums and all i read was MIN/MAX, numbers, dpr, and a lot of one-trick pony pgs (for example the optimization of the at-will powers and all the trick for the nova round and so on..)
pathfinder
In my experience I think that numbers are numbers but the real gem of an rpg game are people and not numbers. That's why you read posts about how fighters and rogues are underpowered BUT a lot of people play them.
For flavour.. what changes a rogue in a Rogue is the player who play him and the GM. Fighters are under critic but i see a lot of people playing them?? so why??
My friend is a GM of a group where the only caster is a bard :)
Spellcasters are full of options and their power grow up with levels a lot .. I remember when i played in a party with my brother: he play always barbarians :) I play usually wizards.. sometimes he cried for my options and for the reason but when i asked him to play a wizard too he laughs at me saying 'too boring'.
As GM now, i know a lot of things thanks for experience and to all your post with numbers, impressions, tactics and i know that my rogue player cant do the damage of the fighter BUT my rogue player is not interested in numbers. Is the GM that balance everything:
Take the rogue and the fighter: if you are an optimized fighter you probably dump INT.. games are not only combats and mine too. In a session sometimes can happen that we fight once and the fighter shine sometimes.. but this happens only if he can full attack the mob.. if he cant move easy, if you set up a good environment the fighter cries and the rogue with rapid attack is happy.
This wouldnt be an analisy of the tactical playing. I think that non caster classes could be simplified a bit with the fusion of a lot of feats to give them options.
About magic: Magic will be always atop normal human possibilities because.. it's MAGIC!! :) but a GM can manage all the options of a caster easily without boring them with 'Immune - Immune - you cant - antimagic zone'. Wizards (my favourite class) is crazy about options in play but you have not all the options together and you number of spells is restricted. If I can always sleep and recharge all my big guns it's easy to play, but what about a 'you have 1 day to do your mission or the BBEG destroy the world??' if you run out of your best spells you are less less powerful. That's why groups are necessary.. i can teleport you at the cost of power, then the fighter can kill the mob easily and i can use my spells for something else. Divination is meneageble whit the assumtion that BBEG are not stupid and, at high levels, they can protect them from it, they can think forward and use divination of the players against the players too.. They can have wizards followers, they could be a wizards too. Wizards are intelligent: think intelligent and know what you have in your hands.
Sorry for the digression. I want to say with all these examples that i dont think that 'number balance' should be the priority (4th edition is a good example of boring failure).. the real balance is probably impossible so why lose time for that?? give option to characters, give something to do for melee characters more than 'full-attacks' and dont optimize you fighter with dump stat :) play them!
With a good gm and good players the goal of and rpg game is easy to get:
FLAVOUR, fun for players and for the gm too. Fun is the thing that let you play your 'probably underwpowered' pg at lvl 20.. min max for combat will probably end your fun with this game at mid level.
See, Rafim, I get your opinions, I really do, but I don't share them on any level.
You talk about people still playing fighters and barbarians while crying that they're underpowered as though that proves those people wrong. All that means is they have a kind of character they like to play, and they feel like they're getting shafted for liking the wrong class. That's not cool on any level.
If the game charges people power for taking the flavour they want, it's punishing them for having fun. When your brother was "crying for your options" he was frustrated that the game wasn't set up to reward doing what he enjoyed. That's the absolute antithesis of good design.
Yes, some people say they like it when the martials and skill monkeys are underpowered compared to the casters, but most of us emphatically don't.
The game is built on the assumption that casters will be very roughly equal in power and absolutely equal in significance. Heroic characters of equal level are meant to be comparable. The Fighter is not meant to be the Warrior.
Also, all your examples of how magic is easy to handle are wrong. They're only examples of how magic is POSSIBLE to handle. You still have to completely change your perspective in non-obvious ways to accommodate high level magic.
As for the absurd assumption that an rpg cannot be balanced, what about Fate, Paranoia and Dogs in the Vineyard?
4e has its flaws, but it is more mathematically balanced than pathfinder, even when you include all the expansion stuff that expanded it beyond it initially very limited scope.
It has had some weak monsters (many of which have been re-done in essentials), a handful of weak essentials classes (most of which have pre-essentials alternatives with identical fluff), and some broken builds (most of which have since been errated). Everything else is pretty damn minor. That's not a lot of imbalance.
|
In constrast to "1"? I dont see much non combat stuff in AD&D/0E.
Yeah, it's almost like they expected you to work that stuff out with roleplaying. Back when roleplaying meant actually playing a role, instead of rolling a d20 and adding in a modifier from a "social" skill.
Crazy bastards! I'm glad that 3e expunged all that "roleplaying" nonsense from my RPGs.
:P
PF has a few 4th ed isms in it such as at will spells and racial stats look very similar to 4th eds PHB.
I'm kind of writing a PF 2.0 for my own group and re are mostly rewriting the classes and nerfing spells but we're using more ideas from AD&D than 4th ed. My new PF Druif and Cleric for example will only have level 7 spells and no level 8 or 9 spells and the PF spell list is going to be broken into spheres and ability scores and spell DCs will be capped along with a massive boost to saves. It is more of an AD&D/PF hybrid than a 4th ed one though.
In constrast to "1"? I dont see much non combat stuff in AD&D/0E.Yeah, it's almost like they expected you to work that stuff out with roleplaying. Back when roleplaying meant actually playing a role, instead of rolling a d20 and adding in a modifier from a "social" skill.
Crazy bastards! I'm glad that 3e expunged all that "roleplaying" nonsense from my RPGs.
:P
Cute.
When a game system presents rules for situations, it encourages a player to try those rules. The MM is an example I cited before, but I remember being in grade 7 and sculpting a series of underground cities based around the ecologies presented in the MM. I remember running campaigns where the druid became the brief star of the party as they were trying to make him the Grand Heirophant.
What was frustrating in those days was figuring out mechanics for a murder mystery, dealing with the fact that charisma was THE dump stat and that rules for convincing a guard/duke/dragon of anything was based upon charm spells and GM fiat. Unless you natural 20ed a charisma check, you probably weren't getting something advantageous out of anyone through talking, because the mechanics made it so.
The diplomancer of 3.0 was a product of the rules. It was also the first time I remember D&D providing a truly OP non-combat character. This was a great thing as far as I was concerned.
4e, however, took ecology for granted, so budding GMs lost that crutch in the text, and really removed any edge the skillmonkey had in niche work and took away the utility spell. A pacifist mage was really off the table. In fact, all characters were "good in combat", so noone had to try to make their character shine elsewhere, which was the lot of theives, druids and non-blaster mages of the editions of old.
The skill system encouraged more non-combat RP, in my experience, even though AOOs and summoning spams made combat more intricate.
4e's rituals did little to mitigate the combat focus on the game. They are powered by gold pieces, which come from combat. Skill challenges did little to mitigate the combat focus of the game. When it came down to it, they added more rolls without adding much more in the way of choices. So you rolled the dice a few times and that was that. It had nothing near the complexity and tactical choice of combat. 4e's class design did little to mitigate the combat focus of the game. Since all the classes were designed to be fairly equivalent in combat, they were also fairly equivalent out of combat, which meant almost any noncombat challenge was going to be easy from any angle.
I came to 4e late; I was a slow adopter, as I realized early on it wasn't going to scratch my itch. I bought up the books when I could get them cheap. I didn't refuse to have anything to do with it; it's still better than a lot of games that aren't D&D. The design focus was in a direction I didn't like; I didn't like the aesthetics; and the design was rushed into production, such that two years later they were still patching the rules with corespansions.
You can tell me why I should like 4e, but at the end of the day, I just don't like 4e. I don't like the way Force Cage works in 4e. Maybe the way it worked in 3.5 wasn't perfect, but at least it worked. In 4e, it lasts a few rounds. It might as well be a net. "Behold, as I trap you in this impenetrable cage of force... for about twelve seconds." Succubi require handwaving to charm the Duke's minister. That gives you a lot of flexibility, but that means you have to invent the relevant mechanics every time it comes up. For a game like D&D, that means the system isn't helping.
I'm not gleeful about 4e's relatively poor performance. I think it hurt the brand, and that hurts the hobby. I don't like that Wizards abandoned the OGL. That turned into an opportunity for Paizo, but it fractured the base. Further, it cast the community in the role of passive consumer, rather than fan-based producers. But it's not really fair to through the split of the D&D fan base solely on designs made at Wizards. Given how much some people like 4e, and how much some people dislike it, I think it's likely the base was dividing anyway, according to focus and interest. The market for "buy and play" RPGs is growing; I'm not sure stuff like FFG's Warhammer Fantasy and Star Wars would even have been a thing twenty years ago. How you feel about 4e Force Cage probably says a lot about whether you prefer 3e or 4e. Is it more important that classes be "balanced" or that a witch can actually turn someone into a toad?
years later they were still patching the rules with corespansions.
You can tell me why I should like 4e, but at the end of the day, I just don't like 4e. I don't like the way Force Cage works in 4e. Maybe the way it worked in 3.5 wasn't perfect, but at least it worked. In 4e, it lasts a few rounds. It might as well be a net. "Behold, as I trap you in this impenetrable cage of force... for about twelve seconds." Succubi require handwaving to charm the Duke's minister. That gives you a lot of flexibility, but that means you have to invent the relevant mechanics every time it comes up. For a game like D&D, that means the system isn't helping.
You must really dislike PF's force cage as it only lasts a few rounds as well (since it is now able to be damaged and high level people can deal a lot of damage)
You must really dislike PF's force cage as it only lasts a few rounds as well (since it is now able to be damaged and high level people can deal a lot of damage)years later they were still patching the rules with corespansions.
You can tell me why I should like 4e, but at the end of the day, I just don't like 4e. I don't like the way Force Cage works in 4e. Maybe the way it worked in 3.5 wasn't perfect, but at least it worked. In 4e, it lasts a few rounds. It might as well be a net. "Behold, as I trap you in this impenetrable cage of force... for about twelve seconds." Succubi require handwaving to charm the Duke's minister. That gives you a lot of flexibility, but that means you have to invent the relevant mechanics every time it comes up. For a game like D&D, that means the system isn't helping.
I am sure you have a reason for saying something so incomprehensible, but no, I don't dislike PF's force cage. It's quite nice.
my feeling is that they tried to balance something that cannot be balanced: An rpg game.
Why can't you balance an RPG game?
I agree with you Mortuum :) 4ed is more balanced in numbers (but I dont like it) and every character has the same number of power (more or less) except for rituals (usual) I think that martial characters need options!! in combat and out of it! this is what i mean with the idea that balance should be in options and not in numbers. I never compare casters with martials cause it's impossibile. I play a wizard and my dpr in very low cause i love to control things and environments.. with my abilities i help martials doing their work better, i divide enemies and reduce their attacks to the fighter. With magic martials get options and this is why they play well together. I dont know if this is good or not, but with the idea of the tipical fighter and mage, even in the fantasy literature, i never read of a big fighter that teleport himself.. this is the iconic wizard's job. We can change this, for sure. But in a fight all the damage of my group is done by melee. They have fun doing that, they do that very well and, when the enviroment or the situation is bad for them magic helps in their job. The problem is all the other things and this is the point. I'm happy when i create a demiplane, or when i summon things from other planes. Some people is not interested in this. I never say 'i full attack' or smile for a critic that crushes a mob: i'm not interested in that and i dont cry for that cause is not on of my options. In the other group when i play my barbarian i'm happy to play him, even if his options are lesser.
I agree with you about the story of my brother. In 3.5 and in pathfinder martials need options that's for sure. But i dont think that a 20th fighter could be comparable with a 20th wizard. It's impossibile
When I think about magic, or a magical things, i think about something inusual that breaks the ordinary laws of physics. This is magic. Even the idea of calling a fireball is beyond the normal things that a non magic player can do. Fly.. and everything in the spellist is magic. Even magic items are magic! without that the disparity from a martial and a caster will be bigger i think :) but at the same time you are right with the idea that in a game two 20th lvl PGs should be almost comparable in numbers or in options. we can get the way of the 4th edition arent' we? In my first post i said that 4edition has something interesting and i trust this idea. Non casters need some 'martial powers' that let a martial pg do something exceptional.. every class should have something incredible that grows in power tied to their job and atm they lack this.
This is where i'll try to focus my jobs if i would be a game designer. at the moment i'm a player that play with a lot of fun..
You say that 4th edition is balanced, and it probably could be, but so WHY a lot of people dont like it? Why it was an epic fail?? why wotc in dnd next changed everything coming back with a lot of things near the 3.5 rules??
I read the d&d next playtest and i played sometimes.. have you ever read about wizards and clerics :)? they are more and more powerful with the option of studying the daily spells and then choosing from their daily spellslist as a sorcerer :) they create options for martials too, and i think that are interesting. Why did they come back from the 4ed rules and plans? There is only a reason: money - They tried to create a game for a different target of players (probably) the MMORPG users. RPG players are different!! But even in those game classes are not balanced. Enter a forum and read !! i played wow for a lot of years and everyupdate some class was happy and some class cried. Even is the 4th edition, where balance should be prior, this never happened. It's impossible to balance and rpg game, this is not absurd :) this is my personal idea and this is what i see in everygame, videogame, board game (characters in talisman for example), card game and everything i've played.
The most balanced game i've played was FFX where you have potentially the same abilities for every player.. but Yuna had summons :) So Tidus should cry for the unbalance cause summons are too much good :) (i'm joking). So this is why i was speaking about players and Gms. Starting from the point that the game is not perfect for sure, and that martials need something, the unbalance is sizeble by GMs. GMs are the real gem of a game like this. If you create a very intesting adventure, where people have fun and occasionally everybody shines with his abilities, people dont perceive this 'unbalancment' (this is my personal experience) or perceive is a lesser way.
In the group where i'm GM i have some guy at their first experience with the game. They sometimes read forums for good tricks and build but i try to teach them about the game as an rpg way. In this group there's a girl who plays a battle oracle with low strength.. she miss a lot, and other guys do more and more damage but she's the best of this newplayer about her pg creation, interpretation and all these things. I play very well with her cause i want a lot of rpg and i created a personal goal for her tied to what she likes. When a session ends the goal of the game is FUN.. and they everybody have fun. The barbarian is happy cause is the combat he does better then the other, the wizard is happy cause his spells helped a lot for the game, and so the other classes if u PLAY with them and nobody is crying for the other player options. Player abilities are resources for a dm and not something to fight against.
This is why i dont see any problem with the divination, the teleports and the other things we were speaking in the previous posts. If the game is unbalanced you can alter the perception of this things, or can use some house rules (i use something) meanwhile some game-designer try to balance these things. In the next games in the next years unbalancing will always be if you let people perceive it. Trust me. It's impossibile to create something balanced and good for thousands of player.
If the rogue has a lot of thing to do and he has fun with that, he will never be unsatisfied from the game, he will be happy that the wizard teleport everybody to the main chamber and help them a lot. If people are engaged with the story and the cleric calls an extraplanar hero to fight with them a group should think 'great, we are more powerful now' and not 'o F**k i dont have planar ally'..
my feeling is that they tried to balance something that cannot be balanced: An rpg game.Why can't you balance an RPG game?
Because you can't balance the players or the referees without reducing the game to tapioca and random chance.
4E wasn't even well balanced. Humans were a garbage race.
More creative players and more systems masters will excel at the game leaving the "in the box" casual gamers behind. Like in any board game. Unless it's snakes and ladders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because you can't balance the players or the referees without reducing the game to tapioca and random chance.my feeling is that they tried to balance something that cannot be balanced: An rpg game.Why can't you balance an RPG game?
So instead we should throw balance out the window? You can definitely keep a relative balance. I certainly don't want to turn a game into "x and friends" because one class or race is the go to.
my feeling is that they tried to balance something that cannot be balanced: An rpg game.Why can't you balance an RPG game?Because you can't balance the players or the referees without reducing the game to tapioca and random chance.
4E wasn't even well balanced. Humans were a garbage race.
More creative players and more systems masters will excel at the game leaving the "in the box" casual gamers behind. Like in any board game. Unless it's snakes and ladders.
Humans weren't garbage; they were decent, but not exceptional, at pretty much everything. There were reasons to play them, but there were reasons to play other races too. To use the Treantmonk scale, they were pretty much high-tier green but not quite blue at every class, which is I think where they should be. Not automatic Highest-tier at everything like in 3.5/PF.
And there definitely was a gap in power between optimizers and non-optimizers, but it is very difficult to make a character who does not do what their supposed to do at least adequately if not effectively, unless you're actively trying to make a character to be incompetent. You can argue many points about 4e, be it homogeneity or a lack of Out-of-Combat options, but for balance, both between classes and between high and low-op, it did its' job.
That has nothing to do with the game, you know.Because you can't balance the players or the referees without reducing the game to tapioca and random chance.my feeling is that they tried to balance something that cannot be balanced: An rpg game.Why can't you balance an RPG game?
What? The players and referees are the game. The fact that the game was not designed for min/maxxers and there is an assumed DM fiat going on behind many of the rules is exactly why you can't build a balanced RPG.
GM 1 may allow wishing for wishes, GM 2 may not. GM 1 may follow WPL very strictly, GM2 may not. GM1 may choose scenarios that allow rogues and monks to shine, GM2 may choose scenarios that favour spellcasters.
The GM will determine game balance through simple choices like those. And let's not even get started about allowing backwards compatibility debates.
Then, put player 1 and player 2 in games with the different GMs. Player 2 might be a fine fighter in GM 1's game, but then look seriously underpowered in GM2's. Likewise player 1 might be a valuable cleric in GM 1's game but be CODzilla in player 2's.
And then they come on the forums and complain. Players in GM2's game complain that the fighter is nerfed and clerics rule all and player's in GM1's complain that GM2 is doing it wrong, even though they aren't, and the Rogue in GM2's game has system mastery, so he keeps up with CODzilla, but the rogue in GM1's decided that having a spiked chain was a big deal and dropped skill focus into appraise item, because he wanted to be indiana jones with a spiked chain.
And then the game is unbalanced by playstyle.
Can the rules mitigate this? Sometimes.
Is balance in the rules a holy grail? Certainly, in the sense that it's a quixotic endeavour that will leave you weaker than when you started.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole argument being decried by the OP reminds me of this one:
"The only way to fly is by having flapping wings.
Attempts to build a flapping-wing ornithopter have always failed.
Therefore, planes and helicopters are impossible and cannot exist."
4e tried to balance classes by homogenization. Given the white-hot nerdrage attendant on the very mention of it, I guess the homogenization wasn't a big hit. At the end of the day, if my understanding is correct, they didn't succeed all that well at balancing them, either.
But just because you can't think of another method doesn't mean there isn't one. Indeed, take a quick look at Kirthfinder, which is somewhat better balanced, and not homogenized. Or look at Frank and K's Tomes stuff for 3.5e, which is extremely well-balanced and not at all homogenized. You might not like those systems, which is fine, they're not for everyone -- but they ARE examples of balancing without homogenization.
Race wasn't very important next to class, you can balance the players and it wouldn't matter even if you couldn't.
Balance isn't an all or nothing deal. It's impossible to get it perfect (look at chess) but the more the better.
3.0 is a great example of a system which unbalances players. It was deliberately designed to reward system mastery as much as possible and to make system mastery difficult to acquire. Monte Cook even wrote about deliberately making trap options to punish players who just wanted to take the cool looking stuff, reasoning that their criteria was a sign of a poor player and that failure would teach them to play "correctly". At the same time, the various options were written with specific purposes in mind, but those purposes were never explained, because they didn't think it was their place to tell you what to do with their product. Everybody's learned a lot since then.
4E is an excellent example of a system designed to do the opposite. It does its best to provide only sensible options where possible and tell you what works. The downside is it leads to choices so obvious they hardly feel like choices, but the antidote to that is more content; more correct choices. That's another reason why people misjudge the system if they look at core alone.
I am sure you have a reason for saying something so incomprehensible, but no, I don't dislike PF's force cage. It's quite nice.You must really dislike PF's force cage as it only lasts a few rounds as well (since it is now able to be damaged and high level people can deal a lot of damage)years later they were still patching the rules with corespansions.
You can tell me why I should like 4e, but at the end of the day, I just don't like 4e. I don't like the way Force Cage works in 4e. Maybe the way it worked in 3.5 wasn't perfect, but at least it worked. In 4e, it lasts a few rounds. It might as well be a net. "Behold, as I trap you in this impenetrable cage of force... for about twelve seconds." Succubi require handwaving to charm the Duke's minister. That gives you a lot of flexibility, but that means you have to invent the relevant mechanics every time it comes up. For a game like D&D, that means the system isn't helping.
But it works the same way..."Behold, as I trap you in this impenetrable cage of force... for about twelve seconds."
But it works the same way..."Behold, as I trap you in this impenetrable cage of force... for about twelve seconds."I am sure you have a reason for saying something so incomprehensible, but no, I don't dislike PF's force cage. It's quite nice.You must really dislike PF's force cage as it only lasts a few rounds as well (since it is now able to be damaged and high level people can deal a lot of damage)years later they were still patching the rules with corespansions.
You can tell me why I should like 4e, but at the end of the day, I just don't like 4e. I don't like the way Force Cage works in 4e. Maybe the way it worked in 3.5 wasn't perfect, but at least it worked. In 4e, it lasts a few rounds. It might as well be a net. "Behold, as I trap you in this impenetrable cage of force... for about twelve seconds." Succubi require handwaving to charm the Duke's minister. That gives you a lot of flexibility, but that means you have to invent the relevant mechanics every time it comes up. For a game like D&D, that means the system isn't helping.
The minimum duration for a forcecage in Pathfinder is 84 seconds.
Yes but the enemy spends his turn breaking it. It's not unreasonable to assume many level-appropriate foes can do that within the duration of the 4E cage, so for practical purposes it's usually about the same.
Why should I have a problem with that?
Table variance does not mean the game cannot be balanced.
Sure. Until table variance makes the game unbalanced and we get threads like: "The oracle is useless" and "All AP classes are OP". Contradictory and anecdotal and entirely stemming from table variance.
D&D has never been truly balanced. One class can out do another at some point. Magic has usually trumped all. 3e made it better and 4e threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Balance means different things to different people.
At 20th level, wish and miracle win. No class without them wins, because they can't alter reality.
This goes for the ability to deal with outsiders as well. Clerics and Wizards win.
Take away those powers and the game becomes weaker, because we expect clerics and wizards to be able to alter reality.
Only DM fiat can grant a fighter or a rogue those kinds of powers, usually through a quest or challenge or something, i.e. the god Blizblaz will grant you free passage through all the planes if you defeat him in single combat.
And of course, now the referee is balancing/unbalancing the game.
Table dynamic is THE most important balancing factor. Certainly some rules can get tweaked, but the GMs choice of treasure and encounters will overcome the rules any day, as will a player's system mastery and unconventional thinking.
Exactly. In Pathfinder, if the evil sorcerer casts Forcecage, he can get some proper cackling in. He could even use it to trap a less powerful character. There are level-appropriate countermeasures and that's a good thing. In 4e, it's just a "special move." It's called a forcecage but you can't actually use it to catch anything.
D&D has never been truly balanced. One class can out do another at some point. Magic has usually trumped all. 3e made it better and 4e threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Balance means different things to different people.
At 20th level, wish and miracle win. No class without them wins, because they can't alter reality.
This goes for the ability to deal with outsiders as well. Clerics and Wizards win.
Take away those powers and the game becomes weaker, because we expect clerics and wizards to be able to alter reality.
Magic trumps only at higher levels, and yes, no doubt, once the spellcasters get 9th level spells, their power wins out.
BUT, I have never played a PF game where the players had 9th level spells. And, only one 3.5 game.
OTOH, I have played many many times and hours at levels 1-4, where warrior types rule.
And- IMHO- that's how it should be. Wizards* rule @ 18-20, Fighters* at 1-4.
What is needed is for the middle levels, levels 5-17 to be more balanced. PF has done pretty good here. Not perfect, no, and a few tweaks are needed. But a martial class (which include Bbn, Ranger, Paladin, also, not just Ftr) does pretty good at the middle levels, they certainly contribute and can do a lot.
* taking "Wizards" here as full spellcasters and "Fighters" as full BAB classes.
Table variance does not mean the game cannot be balanced.Sure. Until table variance makes the game unbalanced and we get threads like: "The oracle is useless" and "All AP classes are OP". Contradictory and anecdotal and entirely stemming from table variance.
So logically 4E is cool because we can just include a bunch of house rules, or alternatively we could all play pretend* because the rules never mattered. Table variance changes a lot of things. If your going to talk about rules though we should probably just talk about the rules. I know plenty of people who play just RAW. I know people who just play PFS which is nothing but RAW.
So, how is it wrong to balance a game again?
* I should note I have nothing against pretend.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The good doctors argument sounds to me like "People will misuse our product so quality control is not necessary."
Or an inversion of "I houseruled it, therefore the rules are fine". In this case "People will houserule it, therefore it cannot(should not?) be fixed".
Table variance does not mean the game cannot be balanced.Sure. Until table variance makes the game unbalanced and we get threads like: "The oracle is useless" and "All AP classes are OP". Contradictory and anecdotal and entirely stemming from table variance.So logically 4E is cool because we can just include a bunch of house rules, or alternatively we could all play pretend* because the rules never mattered. Table variance changes a lot of things. If your going to talk about rules though we should probably just talk about the rules. I know plenty of people who play just RAW. I know people who just play PFS which is nothing but RAW.
So, how is it wrong to balance a game again?
* I should note I have nothing against pretend.
Because balance means different things to different people, and consensus is unlikely.
Make the game flavourful, functional and fun.
Tweaks to accomplish more of that are welcome.
But balance is quixotic.
I know the feeling. Apparently he has to an extent.
There's an old blog post somewhere with his name on it in which he discusses Timmy, one of the 3 Magic: The Gathering player psychographics (archetypal players defined by Magic designer Mark Rosewater to explain why different kinds of people play the game).
Timmy is the kind of player who is out to experience cool things. He builds decks full of whatever fun stuff he can get his hands on, plays it as soon as possible and watches the show. That's a good way to lose a game of magic, because big, resource intensive cards are historically quite poor.
Cook saw Timmy behaviour in D&D character building and set out to turn Timmy into a winner. He gave the 3.0 Toughness feat as an example, because it seemed like a great idea at level 1 but swiftly became pointless. That's how he thought you designed for timmy.
His mistake was to think that being a Timmy player is a bad thing. It's not. In Timmy's opinion, he's a winner so long as something jaw dropping happens. He just wants to have fun and defeating your opponents is only one kind. In fact, the typical Timmy already knows his builds are sub-optimal.
Monte Cook turned him into a loser on purpose, because from his perspective Timmy had been a loser all along but didn't realise it yet. He thought disappointing him would snap him out of it.
Balance is relative sure, but I don't see that as a reason to completely throw it out the window. 4E tried it through homogenization, which I'm entirely against because it makes things feel like they're all the same. You can create a fun game with lots of flavorful options and still retain a sense of balance I think. I definitely don't see it as a reason not to at least do a little bit to make sure no one feels left out.
3.5 was another beast than pathfinder, and monks, truenamers, and soulknives would feel really useless in a lot of groups for various reasons. A bit of balance probably wouldn't have hurt.
Table variance does not mean the game cannot be balanced.Sure. Until table variance makes the game unbalanced and we get threads like: "The oracle is useless" and "All AP classes are OP". Contradictory and anecdotal and entirely stemming from table variance.So logically 4E is cool because we can just include a bunch of house rules, or alternatively we could all play pretend* because the rules never mattered. Table variance changes a lot of things. If your going to talk about rules though we should probably just talk about the rules. I know plenty of people who play just RAW. I know people who just play PFS which is nothing but RAW.
So, how is it wrong to balance a game again?
* I should note I have nothing against pretend.
Because balance means different things to different people, and consensus is unlikely.
Make the game flavourful, functional and fun.
Tweaks to accomplish more of that are welcome.
But balance is quixotic.
The problem is that theres a difference between "balanced" and "more balanced"; similar to the difference between "fair" and "more fair"; equity, equality and egalitarianism are all different ways to try to capture the concept "fair" and they will all disagree, in some cases quite furiously. However, on many cases of "more fair" they will agree. The same can be said for balance.
The good doctors argument sounds to me like "People will misuse our product so quality control is not necessary."
Or an inversion of "I houseruled it, therefore the rules are fine". In this case "People will houserule it, therefore it cannot(should not?) be fixed".
I haven't touched on houserules at all.
Many of the balance issues come from playstyles. Some builds are more OP in certain playstyles. Some are less.
If your GM is stingy with handing spells out as magic items and loves villains with antimagic fields everywhere, then your wizard will be nerfed.
If your GM loves letting you go to the local magic item shop and lets you sleep after every encounter, your wizard will rule.
This is RAW. Both examples, but they greatly impact balance.
Again, modify rules for flavour, fun and functionality. Balance is a GM's job.
Table variance does not mean the game cannot be balanced.Sure. Until table variance makes the game unbalanced and we get threads like: "The oracle is useless" and "All AP classes are OP". Contradictory and anecdotal and entirely stemming from table variance.
I haven't touched on houserules at all.The good doctors argument sounds to me like "People will misuse our product so quality control is not necessary."
Or an inversion of "I houseruled it, therefore the rules are fine". In this case "People will houserule it, therefore it cannot(should not?) be fixed".
Replace the word house rules with table variance maybe? or vice versa.
Speaking of which, one of the nice things about setting things up for per encounter rather than encounters per day, is the flexibility it provides me. I hate having to base my plot around "How much do I have to stress this guy" and "What happens if he blows all his spells here".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll throw in my opinions on this one.
Changes made to 4E that was different from previous editions.
No more Vancing spellcasting - this was huge from a spellcasting perspecting (or alternately all classes had Vancian power structure).
Different rules for different classes - Back in early days, fighters had to hit, thieves rolled percentile and casters had spells in funky charts. Even in third there was major mechanical difference between a rogue and a wizard - the skill system was the same, but spells and rogue talents were very different, with different rules. That mechanical differentiation went away.
Saving throws were gone - there were defenses now. Given 3E changed what the saving throws where, but there will still saving throws as an active roll to see if a spell actually affected you.
So I can see why some could easily see that 4E had a huge change when 3.x didn't - getting rid of vancianing magic as solely for the spellcaster really did that all by itself.
As to the rules themselves - my opinion was the change of approach. The game and balance was encounter balanced (not adventure) and was much more game than world building. 3rd was a world builder's dream - it's rules were designed that they were sorta the physics of the world. 4E were not - they were the rules to the game. In 3E an NPC/Monster and a PC with monster and levels were built the same way, and had the same abilities. In 4E vastly different systems were used and they were not the same character (as role of PC and Opponent led to differing builds). Heck a monster could have three write ups and never change what it actually was, frex an Orc Commander might be a Solo when characters are very low level, a normal at mid level, and a minion when the characters are high level - same beasty (might even be the same person) but with different mechanics depend on relationship to party level. This was the inverse of 3.x approach.
I prefer the 3.x/Pathfinder approach (obviously that is the game I play). But to try and incorporate some elements of 4E could really kill the Pathfinder way of doing things - say different write ups for the same creature depending on level of party when the creature itself doesn't change - this would hurt the "rules are world building" that is behind a lot of the game as it stands.
So I don't mind seeing some 4E elements in PF (Heck the Dreamscarred guys made a couple of Leader Role classes that are very 4E - but using 3rd rules, and they have the "magic" of psionics behind the healing and motivation, but they would play very Warlord) - as long as they are not core structural changes.