|
The games that I play in have always been extremely RAW affairs for the most part and we've found things to remain very balanced for years we've been playing it.
One of the reasons we love Pathfinder so much and had enjoyed D&D for so long is that the rules themselves are very functional and robust. There usually is some system in place to let us do interesting and fun things in the game or give us a basis for what to do for the rare times we wonder outside of the rules boundaries. It works well if we want to play on a grid, use a tape measure, or even just free form things in and out of combat.
It does all that while presenting interesting and varied character classes which don't all do the same thing which makes it more fun and offers up a lot of potential for what kind of characters you can make.
Why is it that I have an image in my head of a fighter in full plate (with armour spikes) tightrope walking across a chasm using his two-handed sword to stay steady, proclaiming "is this what you mean by balance?"
I do not question whether something that has been around a long time may have balance issues. I know better than that.
Then that is my fault. I was being unclear.
What I meant to say is this: I do not assume that just because something has been around a long time, that it is impossible for it to have balance issues. I know better than that.
I'm not implying that. I'm saying it is a pivot of balance. If everyone was as good at fighting as the fighter why would you play a fighter? If everyone was as good at flash-bang and control as the wizards, why would you play the wizard. If everyone had the skill-set of the rogue, why would you play the rogue?
You know two of those three things come up on the boards all the time. I actually don't see "Why play wizard" Often myself. Probably for the best.
Fighter is good at full attacking, but not so good at overcoming obstacles in combat. If just smacking things was the entirety of combat he would be the best(outside of situational circumstances). I don't see a big reason to play the fighter, and I don't think he is the best at combat. In fact I think he's one of the worst because combat is much more than just full attacking. There are other classes that do almost as well, fill his job, and do other things outside of his area of expertise. I would be okay with this idea, but I feel like the fighter is actually incompetent outside of combat.
Rogues are outskilled. There's a thread atm about how many people can replace him and asking how useless a pure skill monkey rogue is that's extraordinarily long and has changed subjects and what aspects it looks at several times. He doesn't get the most skill points, he doesn't get the most options out of combat or in, and he tends to fall a bit behind in combat. A variety of obstacles stand in the rogues way as part of his design(sneak attack, lookin' at chu'). Similarly to fighters, there are classes that fill his niche+. And again, its not that rogues aren't fun, but it is a question of whether they could use a boost or not because it feels as though they are replaceable. Trapfinding in particular feels like a relic that actually hurts the game.
Wizards are for some reason expected to buff or they are selfish by some posters. I don't think its a bad thing that they buff, but the expectation is a little off sometimes. At higher levels they can create planes of existence, call in armies to do their bidding, and with a single save force someone under their will. Coupled with abilities like flying, and spells that provide greater protection and problem sovling skills than non casters, you really wonder why you need someone else sometime. Understandably that doesn't make everyone else useless, but it is something to talk about.
Why play a fighter or rogue is actually something I do ask myself and other at times, and similarly I ask myself why not wizard. The truth is I like gish play style best, which is what I go for in most games if I have the choice, however I feel like going straight caster is superior, and my job becomes trying to fill multiple niches that others are not.
If everyone had the skill-set of the rogue, why would you play the rogue?
I'm not trying to be mean or insult you, but I found that kind of amusing as it is a reoccurring discussion on these boards asking just that question: "why would you play the rogue?"... and there never really seems to be a good answer.
Stephen, to point to an example, the Rogue
The Rogue's niche is skill points and attacking from surprise
Yet, the cost of magic items which grant skill points is dirt cheap.
The rogue's surprise attacks are fully eclipsed by the Ninja.
The ninja is an alternate type of rogue, that is more focused on sneaky. The reason for that is, well frankly, it's fricken' ninja.
Skill points are not dirt cheap, bonuses to skill checks are. It's a subtle distinction, and yes I would love to have a better bonus economy in the game, but I'm designing for a living game that is not really malleable to foundational changes, so I just live with that fact.
Both of these are points of balance. Yes, the ninja is good at sneaking up and stabbing you in the neck. The rogue is good at it too, but it is also better at finding and removing traps. Much better, which traditionally has been very important to the rogue, and the ninja just chuckles silently and in the shadows.
There are things that looking back, I would change about the ninja. They are not drastic, but it would have helped balance it a little better. That being said, I'm happy that those folks who are playing a ninja are enjoying it and hopefully they are not playing is the same group with a rogue who wants to be a ninja. Because that's going to be one sad panda unless they go up against a lot of traps, preferably of the magical nature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If everyone had the skill-set of the rogue, why would you play the rogue?I'm not trying to be mean or insult you, but I found that kind of amusing as it is a reoccurring discussion on these boards asking just that question: "why would you play the rogue?"... and there never really seems to be a good answer.
The best reason should be "because I like playing a rogue." I see enough rogues on the table where that accounts for something.
The best reason should be "because I like playing a rogue." I see enough rogues on the table where that accounts for something.
I know guys who like playing commoners in games. That's great for them, but it doesn't have much to do with game balance. Fun is always a plus though.
Stephen, to point to an example, the Rogue
The Rogue's niche is skill points and attacking from surprise
Yet, the cost of magic items which grant skill points is dirt cheap.
The rogue's surprise attacks are fully eclipsed by the Ninja and, to a not inconsiderable degree, the Vivesectionist.
Except that the ninja is a kind of rogue. The idea that the ninja 'eclipses' the rogue is a big part of why its hard to balance the game in the first place. How can you bring weaker options into balance with stronger ones, if the moment you do so, people cry power creep.
I know guys who like playing commoners in games.Seriously? I mean, I throw it out as an example sometimes, but I've never seen anyone sit down at character generation and say 'I'll be a Commoner'.
Only time I've seen someone play a commoner was in a variant game where we were all allowed a 'level 0' where we could take an NPC class level.
I know guys who like playing commoners in games.Seriously? I mean, I throw it out as an example sometimes, but I've never seen anyone sit down at character generation and say 'I'll be a Commoner'.
I have had at least 3 sit at tables I've run myself say they would like to play a commoner. Its for a variety of reasons. Though sometimes its more jokingly than others, sometimes they want to prove something, they would like to have a challenge, or they would like to role play the common man in an adventure.
I've had one game total with a commoner. That was interesting. Guy was freaking out and trying to find out of the box solutions to everything. You know when someone tries to pile drive a four armed monster from a rooftop... well that was pretty awesome really. Most of the time he couldn't handle situations though. Just find abstract ways around it. We had a cool GM for it.
Another time it was a zombie game with everyone playing as commoners, but if we worked really hard we would get class levels in other classes.
Great, so what do you think of that 10 hd pit fiend?
I think it has problems. I think in this case its deserves more parring down. It's caster level 8, but has at least one caster level 9 spell-like ability, and probably a number more that you should shed (for balance sake), and 10 HD deserve more than chopping off the ability scores by 1. The Bestiary has the numbers that are appropriate for a 10 HD creature, and while you can stray a little bit from them, that should be your guiding principle in creating a 10-HD pit fiend simulacrum.
|
|
I have had at least 3 sit at tables I've run myself say they would like to play a commoner. Its for a variety of reasons. Though sometimes its more jokingly than others, sometimes they want to prove something, they would like to have a challenge, or they would like to role play the common man in an adventure.
Wow, it's like people play the game using characters with personality and depth rather then just using static classes or something.
I have had at least 3 sit at tables I've run myself say they would like to play a commoner. Its for a variety of reasons. Though sometimes its more jokingly than others, sometimes they want to prove something, they would like to have a challenge, or they would like to role play the common man in an adventure.Wow, it's like people play the game using characters with personality and depth rather then just using static classes or something.
and... your point? He could do the same thing as a ranger. Only better. I didn't say it was a bad thing, but I did say it had little to do with game balance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
your post here is pretty derogatory and I think does not help discussionI take it this is an inside joke?
I didn't take it as such, and in that light, he's right -- I wanted to get down in a concise manner what balance in Pathfinder looks like from the standpoint of a consumer who does care a lot about class balance. I think I captured that, but I totally failed to do so in a socially-acceptable manner conducive to further discussion, so I owe an apology -- and agree that it was a counterproductive effort on my part.
|
|
and... your point?
Was missed it seems. I was using your players as an example of how useless the whole "Can we replace X" concept is. You play the game with a character which is much more then just the classes you pick to represent it.
My bit of snarky annoyance which wasn't anything negative towards you or them at all.
and... your point?Was missed it seems. I was using your players as an example of how useless the whole "Can we replace X" concept is. You play the game with a character which is much more then just the classes you pick to represent it.
My bit of snarky annoyance which wasn't anything negative towards you or them at all.
Okay... which has nothing to do with balance.
I do like balance to a degree, but consistency is even more important, so rules don't end up contradicting or ignoring each other.
I personally think Pathfinder is quite balanced compared to games where there really are balance issues.
I've run games from low level to high and I have never seen a problem with Balance except for rogue at high levels. The way I judge balance is at any point where one type of character become literally useless. I haven't found this PF, the fighter is just as effective at high level as they were at low level. Sure the caster are pulling off amazing stunts but they don't make the fighter useless.
Now I've played game systems where casters do exactly that. They make the mundane martial classes completely useless once the characters get to certain level of power. Shadow Run is like that for example.
Now you can complain about what fighter is capable of doing compared to what Wizard is. But never at any point is what the fighter does useless. The fighter can still pound and enemy down same as always. The wizard just gets better way to deal with the enemy that what they had to start with. The only issue with this that I can see is you might get bored doing the same thing for 20 levels as fighter. The casters get new things to do with each higher level of spell casting. It's something to explore. Swing a sword with new feat isn't much of change really.
|
Nope! I actually think wish should not be a spell you can just learn, it should be more special, such as a storyline event.
Just curious, do you think a 7th level spell should grant access to such a thing?
So how would you 'fix' simulacrum, as I am assuming you would let efreeti keep their iconic ability despite not being a spell in your game?
Maybe the bestiary should be the guiding principle, but right now it definitely is not.
I don't know. In my mind--and bear with me, I might be a wild eyed idealist here--but this game is not a computer game with rigid code and commands with no bends or common sense. It is a storytelling game with a rather complex matrix for combat and some less complex matrices for other things that have a final adjudicator in a thinking, rational, and creative person.
What should be the guiding principle, is what defiantly is the guiding principle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how would you 'fix' simulacrum
I would think a general rule, "there is no way to use a lower-level spell to gain access to a higher-level spell, no matter what permutations or intermediaries are involved," would be a start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
things that have a final adjudicator in a thinking, rational, and creative person.
What should be the guiding principle, is what defiantly is the guiding principle.
Maybe that's what the disconnect boils down to right there? I suspect a lot of the people who complain so much would rather it were phrased, "things have a final adjudicator in a cooperative group of thinking, rational, and creative people." In other words, a philosphy overtly founded on the newer emphasis on group solutions rather than the default "authoritarian DM is needed" that Gygax seemed so enamored with. Or maybe I'm wandering way off-topic there, but it seems to me that a lot of the emphasis on class balance is part and parcel of the desire for a more egalitarian group.
So how would you 'fix' simulacrum, as I am assuming you would let efreeti keep their iconic ability despite not being a spell in your game?Nope! I actually think wish should not be a spell you can just learn, it should be more special, such as a storyline event.
Just curious, do you think a 7th level spell should grant access to such a thing?
If your GM thinks an efreeti of half HD having wish is not appropriate then they don't as per the wording of the spell.
There is no 'fix' needed for simulacrum.
The best reason should be "because I like playing a rogue." I see enough rogues on the table where that accounts for something.If everyone had the skill-set of the rogue, why would you play the rogue?I'm not trying to be mean or insult you, but I found that kind of amusing as it is a reoccurring discussion on these boards asking just that question: "why would you play the rogue?"... and there never really seems to be a good answer.
I see a lot rogues at my tables. The rogue is great class from level 1-12 but it's after the level that the problems with rogue appear and it is consistently the same problems. The is the rogue can't hit well enough, sure they land a couple of attacks but they put themselves at great risk to do so. This tends to leave them open to counter attacks that take them out do a lack of defenses. This tends to have two effects. The rogue avoids combat or they enter combat and die or get knocked into the negatives everytime. The ones that avoid combat focus UMD and spend their wealth become sudo wizards with piles of wands and scrolls. Never as good as Wizard of course about equal to wizard 5-6 level lower the APL of the party.
To fix this problem I added class feature called Sneak Percision at level 3, 7, 11, 15, 19. Each level grants the rogue a +1 to hit on Sneak Attacks. This applies to the Ninja as well. This make it more worthwhile getting into combat at the higher levels.
My issues with the rogue and fighter generally aren't combat-related, but more have to do with the tools they're directly (not) given to drive the story the way casters eventually can, as opposed to merely following a script.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I would like looked at are the powers that COMPLETELY NEGATE other classes, or are so powerful as to be 100% required to have the game even functionSuch as?
First, let me thank you for actually taking the time to ask. I'm going to use the poor poor Rogue as an example here and I'll try and capture my perspective on the situation as much as possible to allow anyone reading it to take into account.
From my perspective, the Rogue is intended to be a "skillmonkey", a scout, a trap finder and disabler, and be able to contribute some damage in a fight. I believe this is the case because Rogues have the highest base skills in the game at a whopping 8 and a sizable class skills list to match. Rogues also are the only class in the core book with ability to disarm magical traps with disable device and gets "trap sense" to help in this regard. Their Sneak Attack allows them to deal decent damage, but requires some set-up.
So what powers negate this role in Pathfinder? Lets start with skills. There are number of spells that can generally be used to either duplicate or obviate certain skills.
Stealth v. Invisibility - Now obviously, both of these have differing limitations, but on the whole Invisibility is much better tool for sneaking around especially since it actually gives a *significant* bonus to stealth. In this regard, a 3 Level Wizard who puts 1 rank into Stealth can have a +21 bonus without anything else, while a Rogue with a 20 Dex, 3 Ranks in stealth, and both skill feats is only going to manage a +16. Now to me, this seems problematic, but I wouldn't be overly concerned if this was just one of spell that happened to be really good for stealth. However, there's a few other skills that can be replaced by powers.
Disable Device v. Knock - Again these are not the same thing. Disable Device has more uses than Knock alone can cover and that fact is noted. However, for any lock that you might want to open Knock is generally going to be superior, though I admit that using the Level 3 example again, a Wizard will only have a +13 to beat the lock DC, while the Focused Rogue from before (using feats for disable device this time) will come out ahead with a +16. The take away here is more that casting of Knock allows duplication of this function with a lower investment.
Disable Device v. Dispel Magic - Once again, Disable Device is not limited to just being used by a Rogue to disable a magic trap, but Dispel Magic has additional utility as well that is being considered. Now in the best case scenario, the Dispel Magic can used to target the magical trap being dispelled and allow for a Caster Level Check v. 11+Caster Level. 1d20+Caster Level has a very good chance against lets say Glyph of Warding which will be 16 (if cast by a 5th level Cleric) versus the Rogues Disable Device DC of 28. Assuming both our examples are now 5th Level, the Focused Rogue will have +18 and need a 10 to deal with the Glyph, while the Wizard will need an 11 with no special investment. Admittedly, were the caster of the glyph high leveled, this would skew more than 1 number in the Rogue's favor. The take away here again is that the Wizard has invested no skills or feats to achieve "near" effect.
Charm Person v. Diplomacy - Each of these has situations in which the other is superior. Diplomacy takes 1 minute to influence attitude versus Charm Person's Standard Action, Diplomacy is generally capped at a 3 step shift, while Charm Person automatically sets the target at Friendly (4 step shift from Hostile), Diplomacy can't be used against people in combat or that plan to harm you, Charm Person has a Save DC. Which one is "better" would be very difficult to ascertain, but the comparison here is mostly that Charm Person (with no skill investments) can perform a similar function to Diplomacy.
Craft v. Masterwork Transformation - This breaks down to cheaper by 150/75/25 gold versus much faster and works in place of any craft. Here, the spell replaces not 1 but 3 skills for making things masterwork, though admittedly there is a cost benefit to Craft.
Craft v. Fabricate - I was sticking to low level spells, but the comparison here is so lopsided it needed mentioned. Fabricate is hands down superior to Craft due how much faster it is (and it is SO MUCH faster). Admittedly, there is a DC that needs to be hit (20 for Masterwork), but Crafter's Fortune + Wizard INT bonus should suffice.
I'm doing to deviate very briefly from my Wizard power comparison to talk about another Power.
Bluff v. Glibness - Again, bluff has other uses but for convincing other people that you are telling the truth, Bluff is massively outplayed. The focused specialist Rogue even assuming a high charisma is generally not going to be able to beat out +20 to Bluff AND protection from spells and abilities that detect lies or force you speak the truth. Admittedly this spell only shows up on one list, but that list is the Bard, who is a prime contender for the skill monkey position the Rogue hopes to fill.
I'm going to stop there (mostly cause this is becoming a wall of text). Many thanks to everyone who took the time the read this and special thanks to Stephen Radney-MacFarland for expressing interest in this topic.
The best reason should be "because I like playing a rogue." I see enough rogues on the table where that accounts for something.If everyone had the skill-set of the rogue, why would you play the rogue?I'm not trying to be mean or insult you, but I found that kind of amusing as it is a reoccurring discussion on these boards asking just that question: "why would you play the rogue?"... and there never really seems to be a good answer.
Except "I like it" doesn't mean "It's balanced and therefore shouldn't be changed".
Re-balancing the class to be a worthwhile addition to a party (since all of its class features are redundant among other classes, even barring archetypes, except the dubious benefit of Trapfinding) will not suddenly make people like it less.
Why can't you change the spell so there is no "should"?
Because people won't let them. If you, as a player, knew what a spell could do, you wouldn't need an all-powerful DM to tell you what it does. And I don't think this attitude is the designers' fault at all -- I think it's the overall will of most of the fanbase, as misguided as it may seem.
I would probably say you can only make copies of yourself at half hd, or a willing monster/character, instead of just requiring a spell component pouch, you have to half the monster there all 12 hours.
I want to point out that you can't carry around an ice carving of a creature in a spell component pouch - unless you have a refrigerated variant pouch ;)
I think that requiring that the ice carving be an accurate representation of the creature in question (DC 30 Craft check, +5 if you don't have an accurate model to carve from - or purchase it for a moderate amount of gold) would alleviate a lot of it.
Serious question: Simulacrum does not mention that the creature gets any spells, spell-like abilities, etc. It says that it gets the creature's "special abilities" - which (on the pit fiend for example) is a specific section.
So does Simulacrum actually grant you everything the creature has, or is "special abilities" referring only to those abilities specifically enumerated in the Special Abilities section of the creature's stat block?
If it's the latter, then that significantly reduces the power of many creatures copied using Simulacrum.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the spell is fine if I know what it should say? Why can't you change the spell so there is no "should"?
The spell does say, it just does not say it as explicitly as you would like it to. It says you make a creature with half the hit dice. Hit dice keys on many things in monster design, including the DC range and the rough number of special abilities (based more on president than a matrix, believe it or not, there are parts of the Pathfinder game that rely on president rather than strict matrixes...as the RPG Superstar contestants find out every year). Monster design has a fair amount of science, but it also has a fair amount of art. We do that for a reason...so we can make interesting and balanced monsters that are just not churns of the same design over and over again.
PC design by comparison is much more rigid...but has more concrete options with involved in that rigid structure.
Typically this is done because we trust the GM more to create challenges that are appropriate to their gaming group. I would take that into account when making a simulacrum, and when you make it into a monster with half the HD, the GM gets to design it. Monster design is in the GM purview after all.
This is another balance point of the game. While not explicitly said in the rules, most people know it and take it for granted. We definitely design with these assumptions in mind.
Which if your GM decided a half HD anything loses all special abilities outside of class features, well that is entirely up to what the GM considers appropriate.
Like planar binding, simulacrum can be brokenly good, completely useless, or something in-between, and it is entirely up to your GM and requires no house-rules or any use of rule 0.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just find it curious that people would say 'this should not happen' about something where there is a way to read the item in question in which the 'should not' happens and where there is another way to read it in which the 'should not' DOESN'T happen, and they choose the first reading over the second reading. Because the first reading is 'correct' in their view. And I guess we'd all like to be 'correct'.
I just find it curious that people would say 'this should not happen' about something where there is a way to read the item in question in which the 'should not' happens and where there is another way to read it in which the 'should not' DOESN'T happen, and they choose the first reading over the second reading. Because the first reading is 'correct' in their view. And I guess we'd all like to be 'correct'.
Sometimes both options are equally rules valid and you need to pick one as GM based on what actually works when considering the rest of the games mechanics.
Look, I think Simulacrum is a very very powerful spell even when used to "only" create 1/2 level duplicates of yourself and I would love to see the Pathfinder staff take a whack at rebalancing and clarifying it. However, as much as I would love to see that happen, I feel a discussion of Simulacrum in this threat doesn't communicate to the underlying problem and only serves to make Stephen Radney-MacFarland feel that the problem perhaps is just one bizarre spell with very loose rules. I would much prefer that we have discussion in the context of how spells can often usurp other roles and generally provide massive amounts of utility. If people could provide specific examples and comparisons and comment on the accuracy of those I think this discussion could prove more fruitful.
I would much prefer that we have discussion in the context of how spells can often usurp other roles and generally provide massive amounts of utility.
Is this necessarily a problem, though?
What happens if you decide to game and no one wants to play the Fighter\Ranger\Paladin\Barbarian (i.e., the 'tank' type character)? Doesn't Simulacrum - or other such spells - then serve a viable - almost vital - purpose?
I can honestly say that in over two decades of gaming, I have not run across someone who said, "Oh, you've got Spell X? Then I guess I'm going to not play class X, I won't be needed." Maybe I've just been lucky; I know anecdotal evidence only goes so far.
And let's say that you do have the capacity to learn Spell X, and you have someone who is playing\wants to play Class X - rather than consider it a balance issue, don't you always have the option just to take Spell Y (granting a different function or fulfilling a missing party need) instead, since the intended function of that spell is already fulfilled by the person playing Class X?
Not especially. If a class has the capacity to have its functionality replaced by another class and that other class has more options on top of that, there is a game balance problem. Certainly a player can play Rogue with a Wizard who has Knock and there may not even be an issue. There may not be many locks to open or the Wizard may never prepare it. The problem is that a particular section of classes has the *potential* to duplicate these roles while still having more utility outside that role. For example, a 12th Level Druid is not only going to out Damage and out Armor Class a 12th Level Fighter, the Druid can also use Pounce to have greater access to Full-Attack than a non-archer fighter, wildshape for other movement modes, full spellcasting, an Animal Companion and 2 more base skills.
It's not that you've been lucky Xaratherus, its that the issue is balance. The fact that a Player will still play Class X, even though Class Y has Spell X, is not really commentary on whether or not this is balanced.