Game Balance

[jocundthejolly]

CWheezy wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

Since that's not what he said, or even implied - there's a difference between saying, "It's balanced because it's old," and "Even though it's old, it's still balanced," (which is what he implied) - I find it ironic that you called out Kirth for making derogatory and unconstructive remarks.

I actually have no idea how else to read

Quote:

I do not question whether something that has been around a long time may have balance issues. I know better than that.

Because it says there he does not think about things that have been around a long time might have balance issues.

Even chess grandmasters know that chess has problems

Emanuel Lasker wrote:

The fatal hour of this ancient game is approaching. In its modern form this game will soon die a drawing death

Which is why variants like chess960 were created

Getting off-topic, but that's not a balance issue. The idea behind chess variants is to restore the primacy of analytical and creative problem-solving in a game which has become to a great extent a contest of preparation and memorization, even at the club level. Fortunately the draw death of chess doesn't appear imminent, even now. At the top level, one now sees more "suboptimal" openings, played to avoid heavily traveled theoretical lines.

[Xaratherus]

Anzyr wrote:

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.

But it is - at least to an extent. A character option that is wholly supplanted by another class's ability or spell and cannot be competitive is not going to be fun - and unless the person is willing to play a character that isn't fun, you won't see it played; that isn't the case here.

To me that says that if there are balance issues, they are not so extreme as to remove all fun from playing the class - and at least (again to me) that's all that matters.

This isn't World of Warcraft, where you can be kicked out of the game because your DPS is too low or your item level isn't good enough - unless you're talking about PFS, and if that's the sort of attitude PFS levies, then I'd argue that's not a problem with Pathfinder, but with PFS.

[Justin Rocket]

Quote:

A character option that is wholly supplanted by another class and cannot be competitive is not going to be fun

Perhaps 'fun' is not a binary exist/does not exist, but a scale.

Perhaps, the player who knows his character is completely eclipsed and finds his degree of fun harmed by this, dislikes the alternatives (e.g. playing the same class as someone else at the table) even less fun.

[Kirth Gersen]

Justin Rocket wrote:

Perhaps, the player who knows his character is completely eclipsed and finds his degree of fun harmed by this, dislikes the alternatives (e.g. playing the same class as someone else at the table) even less fun.

Here's where rules balance comes in. If the player in question could play the class he wants, and STILL contribute his full share to the team at all levels? Wouldn't that be something? Then it wouldn't be a choice, "Play what I want and not be good, or have a good character that's not what I want to play." Then you could do both.

[Justin Rocket]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Justin Rocket wrote:

Perhaps, the player who knows his character is completely eclipsed and finds his degree of fun harmed by this, dislikes the alternatives (e.g. playing the same class as someone else at the table) even less fun.

Here's where rules balance comes in. If the player in question could play the class he wants, and STILL contribute his full share to the team at all levels? Wouldn't that be something? Then it wouldn't be a choice, "Play what I want and not be good, or have a good character that's not what I want to play." Then you could do both.

I totally agree.

[EWHM]

My working definition of game balance: As many of the following are true as possible

1. Combined arms groups (groups with martials of varied types about equal in number or slightly more numerous than casters) are more effective than more one-dimensional groups. I want a self-interested group of players with few hard class preferences to present me with groups like fighter, paladin, rogue, wizard, cleric NOT cleric, wizard, wizard, bard, druid.
2. The advantage of combined arms groups persists over the full level range.
3. This advantage doesn't require me as the GM to constantly manufacture reasons to limit downtime or enforce a breakneck pace to adventuring. Sometimes the pace will be fast, other times slow, I don't however want to have to set said pace for metagame reasons.
4. The systems of the game should not create absurd results breaking a typical GM beyond the range he can simulate with a moderate amount of handwaving when the presumption that the NPCs in the game mostly know the rules and try to optimize their behavior to obtain the results that they want is applied. This means, for instance, that as Kirth mentions, there shall be no ways of obtaining reproducibly via a spell another spell of higher level or greater cost than the first. I express this as there exists no way of reproducibly getting a wish for less than 25k gp.

[Xaratherus]

Justin Rocket wrote:

Quote:

A character option that is wholly supplanted by another class and cannot be competitive is not going to be fun

Perhaps 'fun' is not a binary exist/does not exist, but a scale.

Perhaps, the player who knows his character is completely eclipsed and finds his degree of fun harmed by this, dislikes the alternatives (e.g. playing the same class as someone else at the table) even less fun.

Given the plethora of options available regarding classes, then if someone cannot find another class they find more fun than an option that they're finding to be eclipsed by another class - I'm not sure what to tell them.

It's not something I can relate to because thus far I've never been in a position in a game where I just couldn't find something to play that interested me, regardless of what the rest of the group was playing.

I guess my point is this: Even if fun is a scale (and I agree that it is a range, not a Boolean value), then the fact that people still play the classes that people frequently complain about as being "underpowered" still are not so underpowered that I would consider them 'broken' because of it.

Could they use adjustment? Yes. Are they so out-of-balance versus other classes or abilities that the 'fun' scale on the class is consistently 0 for people who play it? I just don't see that to be true.

[edit]
Here's my about harping on 'balance' to frequently, or pushing it as a primary design philosophy: I play World of Warcraft, and 'balance' has become a fickle god of sorts. Every attempt at balance leads to an imbalance somewhere else. I've seen the same sorts of balance attempts in other game systems as well - D&D 4.0 comes to mind - and they always seem to lead: to a system that breaks itself every five minutes in an attempt to achieve balance; a system so complicated that you need a graphing calculator and a slide rule to play it; or a system wherein the classes are so homogenized that they might as well not exist.

Does that mean that I think balance should be ignored? No - but I also don't think it should be a primary design goal in a game that really wasn't meant to be competitive between players.

[meatrace]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

MrSin wrote:

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'.

Oh I do.

It was a Freeport game a few years back, and one of the long-time members invited one of his friends to join our group (which was growing at that time).

He wanted to play a female sorceress. I'm like okay great. He said his backstory is that she started out as a farmer, then her parents were killed and she was forced to live on the streets, and in a moment of desperation discovered she had magical powers she could call on. Seems pretty cool, right?

He wanted to represent this by starting with a level in commoner, and then taking 2 levels of rogue, before "graduating" to sorcerer. I tried to convince him that backstory is one thing, but you don't have to do that sort of hamstringing to play a character.

He got angry and belligerent and accused me of being a "roll player" and munchkin. How dare I try to interfere with him role playing his character.

The campaign ended after 3 months when the rest of us were about 6th level. He was a stump the entire game. I think the most useful thing he did was occasionally cast Light.

For the record, this is why I take no stock in people who call me a powergamer. Better to be a powergamer than a stump.

[Marthkus]

Well shouldn't all combinations of class choices and levels be viable?

That's balance right?

*Tongue in cheek

[EWHM]

Meatrace,
This is something in my experience very few 'real roleplayers' get.
It must be credible that the other members of the party would value your services sufficiently to not begrudge you a full share of the treasure (exception: very rarely you will have a group of players that is willing to EXPLICITLY negotiate compensation per party member in a manner reminiscent of tech start-ups back in the 1990s, but this is rare and almost exclusively limited to cases where there is a level spread in the party). If you are built so suboptimally relative to the rest of the party that this ISN'T true, you're abusing the metagame PC stamp on your forehead. Don't do that.

[Lemmy]

Marthkus wrote:

Well shouldn't all combinations of class choices and levels be viable?

That's balance right?

*Tongue in cheek

IMO, all character options should be balanced... But not necessarily all possible combinations of said options. (e.g.: if all feats were equally effective, but some feat combinations were still better than others)

The way I see it, how useful a character is in a certain role should depend on how much of her effort and resources she invested in that role, rather than arbitrary favoritism.

While some classes will always be better suited for a role or another, in the grand scheme of things, they should be well balanced.

Perfect balance is not possible, but better balance is. And I don't mean to be rude, but Pathfinder has terrible balance flaws, most of which were inherited from 3.5, but some were created in PF.

(Although I still find PF to be better balanced than 3.5 overall, save for a few corner cases...)

[Justin Rocket]

Xaratherus wrote:

It's not something I can relate to because thus far I've never been in a position in a game where I just couldn't find something to play that interested me, regardless of what the rest of the group was playing.

So, its not something you've experienced *shrug*

Its something other people have.

Xaratherus wrote:

the fact that people still play the classes that people frequently complain about as being "underpowered" still are not so underpowered that I would consider them 'broken' because of it.

Thia argument makes no sense.

Xaratherus wrote:

Are they so out-of-balance versus other classes or abilities that the 'fun' scale on the class is consistently 0 for people who play it?

Why does it have to be 0 to be broken?

An RPG is not an MMO. "Balance" doesn't mean the same thing in both kinds of games.

[Lincoln Hills]

I'm with Xaratherus on this one.

Oh, I admit the problem of 'eclipsing' other roles exists. But certain roles are fundamental to the game. Somebody's got to use diplomacy; somebody's got to kill enemies; somebody's got to deal with traps, etc. etc. The only way to prevent this sort of eclipsing would be to switch to an almost video-game-style system: "You can't kill things because you're a bard. He can't pick locks because he's a cleric." We have the option of the Druid Who's Better Than Fighters At Fighting as a consequence of the character creation flexibility we've been demanding for decades. I suppose the difference is that the classes have expanded in versatility at different rates - the more 'plausible' a character has to seem, the less appropriate it feels to have him suddenly have an option that allows him to raise the dead, change forms or use limericks to convince a horde of troglodytes that he is their new god.

I don't argue that spellcasters can fill any given role; but when I'm running a prepared spellcaster, it's really nice to have a rogue and a warrior in the party. Frees up my spell slots for things only I can do, you know?

[Justin Rocket]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I'm with Xaratherus on this one.

Oh, I admit the problem of 'eclipsing' other roles exists. But certain roles are fundamental to the game. Somebody's got to use diplomacy; somebody's got to kill enemies; somebody's got to deal with traps, etc. etc. The only way to prevent this sort of eclipsing would be to switch to an almost video-game-style system: "You can't kill things because you're a bard. He can't pick locks because he's a cleric." We have the option of the Druid Who's Better Than Fighters At Fighting as a consequence of the character creation flexibility we've been demanding for decades. I suppose the difference is that the classes have expanded in versatility at different rates - the more 'plausible' a character has to seem, the less appropriate it feels to have him suddenly have an option that allows him to raise the dead, change forms or use limericks to convince a horde of troglodytes that he is their new god.

I don't argue that spellcasters can fill any given role; but when I'm running a prepared spellcaster, it's really nice to have a rogue and a warrior in the party. Frees up my spell slots for things only I can do, you know?

The issue is not that one character is built for DPR and another is built for tanking. The problem is when two classes which should both make good tanks (or whatever) consistently result in the character based on class X being better than the character based on class Y

[Bill Dunn]

Anzyr wrote:

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.

I disagree that this is a problem or indicative of balance problems. Rather than being problematic, I think this illustrates a certain flexibility. If a wizard wants to stock up on the spells (particularly in conjunction with a cleric), the group isn't locked in to needing a rogue. If the rogue wants to invest in UMD and use scrolls and wands, then maybe the wizard isn't so neceassary.

PF is, ultimately, a toolbox for putting together the type of fantasy-adventure game I want to play. No single tool is absolutely necessary and, in fact, the game sometimes plays even better if the right tools are left in the box.

[MrSin]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

The only way to prevent this sort of eclipsing would be to switch to an almost video-game-style system:

No, the system you described is the one I advocated against earlier and explained was a false specialness. Saying "no you can't do that" is different from "everyone can do everything... but some people do it better!" Fighters and rogues are more of the first, in particular with trapfinding for rogues.

[Lincoln Hills]

Justin Rocket: I understand that. I'm just saying that if Character Y has to go out of his way - or minimize other core qualities - to outperform Character X in Character X's specialty, it is Player Y's deliberate choices that are leading to that outperformance - not an inherent imbalance between the classes. To cite one example, if Character Y sinks three feats into being better at archery than Character X, that's not an example of class imbalance - just of players jockeying for the same role. (Not always bad, of course; sometimes having a backup is best.)

I recognize that there can be situations when Character X and Character Y, before any attempts to specialize are made, are focused on exactly the same role and Character Y is still better at it. That, unlike some of the other areas where Character Y deliberately gave up things to get there, is something I concede is a balance issue.

[Justin Rocket]

Bill Dunn wrote:

I disagree that this is a problem or indicative of balance problems. Rather than being problematic, I think this illustrates a certain flexibility. If a wizard wants to stock up on the spells (particularly in conjunction with a cleric), the group isn't locked in to needing a rogue. If the rogue wants to invest in UMD and use scrolls and wands, then maybe the wizard isn't so neceassary.

If you're going to create a wizard-esque character using a rogue, you're going to have to spend a whole lot more gold than the other way around.

[Justin Rocket]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I recognize that there can be situations when Character X and Character Y, before any attempts to specialize are made, are focused on exactly the same role and Character Y is still better at it. That, unlike some of the other areas where Character Y deliberately gave up things to get there, is something I concede is a balance issue.

And that's the issue. I have no idea why you brought up the red herring of the other point. Was it a straw man?

[Lincoln Hills]

Justin Rocket wrote:

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I recognize that there can be situations when Character X and Character Y, before any attempts to specialize are made, are focused on exactly the same role and Character Y is still better at it...

And that's the issue. I have no idea why you brought up the red herring of the other point. Was it a straw man?

My point was that the two situations are so easily mistaken for each other that it's possible for somebody to think that the first situation ("intentionally constructed role superiority"?) is actually the second ("systemically inherent role superiority"?) I never intentionally put forth a straw man. I have enough regard for my opponents' position to assume that it springs from a rational basis and thus attempt to grasp it before I set out to argue against it.

Well, not always... but this is gaming, not politics.

[Rynjin]

Xaratherus wrote:

Given the plethora of options available regarding classes, then if someone cannot find another class they find more fun than an option that they're finding to be eclipsed by another class - I'm not sure what to tell them.

If the solution to a class not being good is "Pick another class" that doesn't change teh fact that the class has an issue.

Xaratherus wrote:

It's not something I can relate to because thus far I've never been in a position in a game where I just couldn't find something to play that interested me, regardless of what the rest of the group was playing.

Well, yes, something, but not anything.

I can always think of something to play that is fun and balanced. That thing is never the Rogue.

Xaratherus wrote:

Here's my about harping on 'balance' to frequently, or pushing it as a primary design philosophy: I play World of Warcraft, and 'balance' has become a fickle god of sorts. Every attempt at balance leads to an imbalance somewhere else. I've seen the same sorts of balance attempts in other game systems as well - D&D 4.0 comes to mind - and they always seem to lead: to a system that breaks itself every five minutes in an attempt to achieve balance; a system so complicated that you need a graphing calculator and a slide rule to play it; or a system wherein the classes are so homogenized that they might as well not exist.

Does that mean that I think balance should be ignored? No - but I also don't think it should be a primary design goal in a game that really wasn't meant to be competitive between players.

To be brutally honest, Blizzard is flat-out terrible at balancing.

Look at Diablo 3 (and WoW). Early on, class balance was kinda skewed. Then they overcompensated toward other classes. Then they overcompensated in another direction.

Until finally it ended up back at the "Kinda skewed" level again.

They like to make big, sweeping, huge changes to class abilities and stuff that completely changes the power level of the game without considering how it affects other classes that interact with them and without stopping to think "Gee, maybe making a SMALL change to a SMALL problem would be a good idea!".

Using Blizzard as an example of why balancing shouldn't be done is like using Ernest P. Worrell as an example of why camp counselors should be done away with.

[Nicos]

Well, I am coming late to this thread but...

I have to say that Since my thread "false option in PF" I am somewhat dissapointed with the way the things are in PF.

I mean, paizo have to publish to earn money, sometimes umbalanced things will happens and the like.

But I did not like that some option are meant to be utterly superiors and the other optiosn are meant to be inferion no matter what, how or when then.

That thread was mostly about crossbows Vs Longbows, but other thing come to my mind, for example are bard supposed to be just plain better than rogues? that was an accident or was they way the designer(s) wanted it to be?

Are the paladin, barbarian and rangers suppsoed to be stronger with every book? while at the same time the fighter combat prowes and out of combat utility remain the same? Does thinglie this just happnes or it is intentional?

[Morgen]

Justin Rocket wrote:

The issue is not that one character is built for DPR and another is built for tanking. The problem is when two classes which should both make good tanks (or whatever) consistently result in the character based on class X being better than the character based on class Y.

What exactly are you basing that on? I'm actually kind of curious now why it's a problem the way it is. Maybe I've been thinking about these threads in the wrong way this whole time.

Where does this idea of total system balance without regards for rules mastery or enjoyment of the game come from? I can't think of a single role-playing game in the known universe that has pulled that off and yet somehow there is so much noise on these boards about demanding X get lots of focus or is terrible and Y is too strong.

Why is one class being better then another wrong? We as human beings are the ones creating a list. Logically speaking that means if we're going to put something into a list like that one class is first and one is last.

These arguments have been going on for decades over and over again in repetition. Generations of gamers have groused the way people are grousing now and in the future another will take this generations place to complain about exactly the same things. It's so curious.

[Marthkus]

"Scissors are fine. Paper is overpowered"

--Rock

[Nicos]

meatrace wrote:

The campaign ended after 3 months when the rest of us were about 6th level. He was a stump the entire game. I think the most useful thing he did was occasionally cast Light.

For the record, this is why I take no stock in people who call me a powergamer. Better to be a powergamer than a stump.

Did he have fun?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Justin Rocket wrote:

Given that the game designers don't care about game balance, why are there so many posts on these boards about game balance? Isn't that like complaining that a B1 Bomber makes a terrible submarine? If you're concerned about balance, why not play a game for which balance is a design goal?

These threads are so cute.

Sure, the PF team obviously doesn't prioritize game balance the way that say, the 4e team does. But balance is on their to-do list, even if it's behind eleven other concerns.

Frankly, I'm sure that some PFers would be happier playing a better-balanced game -- like the 4e clone that I DM. But who am I to judge? There are plenty of reasons to care about balance and play PF, including...

1. "My DM and/or group love PF, and I love gaming with them."

2. "I don't have the time to write my own adventures, and Paizo's APs are top-notch."

3. "PF is the only in-print game that hits my nostalgia G-spot."

And that's just off the top of my head.

[Rynjin]

Morgen wrote:

Why is one class being better then another wrong? We as human beings are the ones creating a list. Logically speaking that means if we're going to put something into a list like that one class is first and one is last.

It's not a matter of one class being the best and another being the worst, per se.

That will ALWAYS happen, and can't be fixed the majority of the time.

The issue is when the gap between "Best" and "Worst" is so huge that "Worst" might as well not even be a class.

Even worse is when "Worst" and "Viable" are far apart from each other.

If either of those is true, re-balancing is required.

[Xaratherus]

Justin Rocket wrote:

Thia argument makes no sense.

The argument is the same one I made earlier, or similar: If a class were truly 'broken', then people wouldn't play it. The fact that people complain about them on the forums is not, in my opinion, a clear indicator of an actual problem; if it were, then I'm fairly certain that every single class in Pathfinder is broken and the game should be scrapped. :P

Justin Rocket wrote:

Why does it have to be 0 to be broken?

An RPG is not an MMO. "Balance" doesn't mean the same thing in both kinds of games.

Except that what you're describing later - "The problem is when two classes which should both make good tanks (or whatever) consistently result in the character based on class X being better than the character based on class Y." - is exactly the sort of balance issues that WoW runs into. Druids are better tanks, so they nerf something on Druids and buff something on Warriors, Death Knights, and Paladins; that buff has an unintended consequence of making the Death Knights too powerful, so they nerf it and then buff something on the other three; and the cycle continues ad nauseam. The same holds true for the DPS classes and for the healers.

When it comes down to it, there differences between and MMO and a tabletop, from a standpoint of statistical mechanics, is pretty slim; the major difference is really this: The tabletop RPG includes a GM who acts as ultimate advocate and can rule via GM fiat to try and keep things balanced.

Oh, an MMO has graphics and sound and a more complex system of randomization, but on the back end you're still comparing random numbers versus static numbers and determining which set of numbers is better.

Rynjin wrote:

If the solution to a class not being good is "Pick another class" that doesn't change teh fact that the class has an issue.

That's not really the problem you're trying to solve.

A class's 'fun factor' is always going to be subjective. In the above problem, it's not that the class is not 'good', it's that in the particular circumstances, that particular player is not having fun as that particular class - specifically because they're comparing themselves to someone else's character and believe the other character is doing better than they are.

I think it's too simple to say, "That has to be because the class is unbalanced!" Maybe the player expected something of the class that the class doesn't really excel at; maybe the person playing the other character is better at optimization, and the player with the 'weak' class made a bad build; maybe the particular encounters the GM has been throwing recently play against the 'weak' character's class limitations.

Now, if you can rule all those out? Then it's time to look at the class.

As to Blizzard and their balance issues: I'm only using them as an example. I've played WoW, Aeon, TOR, CoH\CoV, TSO, and a few others I'm probably forgetting - and none of them have been successfully balanced. They always had their FotM classes and builds, and no matter the size of the tweaks they made to try and make things balanced, people always re-optimized and found the new FotM, and those tweaks almost inevitably caused other problems (some major, some minor).

[Anzyr]

The thing is... we *CAN* rule all of those situations out and thus why we would like these classes to be looked at. We can compare roughly equal optimization of a 12th Level Fighter and a 12th Level Druid and the Druid is going to come out on top in pretty much every situation (all encounters in antimagic fields not withstanding). Believe me when we call out the Fighter or Rogue as weak it is not due to our personal experiences (though they may have helped us to reach the understanding), but rather the numbers, options, and versatility of each.

[MrSin]

Nicos wrote:

meatrace wrote:

The campaign ended after 3 months when the rest of us were about 6th level. He was a stump the entire game. I think the most useful thing he did was occasionally cast Light.

For the record, this is why I take no stock in people who call me a powergamer. Better to be a powergamer than a stump.

Did he have fun?

Also, Did you have fun playing with him?

[w01fe01]

This thread is frankly dumb, who cares if pathfinder designers care/dont care, who cares if they are competent or not competent enough.

Its what houseruling is for. and why society has so many banned features. the community knows balance better quite frankly and isnt afraid to make the steps to achieve it.

something to take away form this thraed, dont rely on devs for balance.

monk is weak compartively to all martials sept maybe rogue, fighter is one dimensional and casters are simply overpowered and have substantially more narrative power then martials.

ahh, but nothing needs changing :P

[MrSin]

w01fe01 wrote:

Its what houseruling is for.

I don't buy broken things so I can fix them. That'd be silly.

[Marthkus]

w01fe01 wrote:

something to take away form this thraed, dont rely on devs for balance.

This thread has nothing of value to take away from.

[w01fe01]

MrSin wrote:

w01fe01 wrote:

Its what houseruling is for.

I don't buy broken things so I can fix them. That'd be silly.

a lot of people do actually...kinda invalidates the point in a vaccuum, but instead of purposely being obtuse ill bite.

then play something better?

theres a lot of fun to be had in pathfinder, if the worst thing you have to do is make the game better then what the devs can/care to make it then go play something else.

[MrSin]

w01fe01 wrote:

Theres a lot of fun to be had in pathfinder, if the worst thing you have to do is make the game better then what the devs can/care to make it then go play something else.

I don't think house rules are an excuse though.

[w01fe01]

MrSin wrote:

w01fe01 wrote:

Theres a lot of fun to be had in pathfinder, if the worst thing you have to do is make the game better then what the devs can/care to make it then go play something else.

I don't think house rules are an excuse though.

they are not an excuse, they are a solution to a problem.

there are many issues to why things arent going teh way you want. time, money, expectation just to name a few.

Not too mention the undertaking that is required in a game like pathfinder, plenty of unbalanced things is not a surprise.

what im saying tho is you, the player, have the tools to fix it, if your argument that you dont wnat to, you feel its unfair, or its too much work, then play something else.

thats part of the reason the houserules/suggestions section exist.

A monk with say..Dabbler's combined changes is frankly a better, more balanced monk in relation to the other classes. I dont expect the devs to touch it with a ten foot pole, but using it yourself is not a unbalanced thing.

fighters are another issue, harder to fix identity issues combined with being weak.

[Rynjin]

w01fe01 wrote:

they are not an excuse, they are a solution to a problem

Houserules do not solve the problem. They mask it.

The problem is still there, and WILL be there at tables that do not implement the same houserules as you would like.

[MrSin]

w01fe01 wrote:

they are not an excuse, they are a solution to a problem.

Didn't say they weren't a solution, but they don't really have anything to do with the state of the game as is. I don't like having to fix things, I would like things to come in a good condition. The fact you can house rule doesn't make legitimate criticisms moot. At its a core the game should be malleable, rather than strict to better help house-rules and world building; Treating it more like a toolkit.

Worse, the problem is still there. There will be 100s of houserules to fix a problem, some problems/solutions more complicated than others. Why not just have a good flexible core, eh?

[w01fe01]

Rynjin wrote:

w01fe01 wrote:

they are not an excuse, they are a solution to a problem

Houserules do not solve the problem. They mask it.

The problem is still there, and WILL be there at tables that do not implement the same houserules as you would like.

and how does that other group affect you? answer...it doesnt.

yes it would be nice if they cared more about balance,d or were better at it. one way or another, they are not.

plus if they re-released a book everytime they made a balance change theyd probably go out of business.

a houserule does fix it, masking implies a superficial change, a houserule is not, it changes how something works, that is not cosmetic.

now if you are talking about the fact that you cant reach every pathfinder player over the world and grab them by the shoulder and tell them, NOT THIS.

then i strongly suggest you print your own revised rules and specify them as houserules for better balance, try to get it published.

[w01fe01]

MrSin wrote:

w01fe01 wrote:

they are not an excuse, they are a solution to a problem.

Didn't say they weren't a solution, but they don't really have anything to do with the state of the game as is. I don't like having to fix things, I would like things to come in a good condition. The fact you can house rule doesn't make legitimate criticisms moot. At its a core the game should be malleable, rather than strict to better help house-rules and world building; Treating it more like a toolkit.

Worse, the problem is still there. There will be 100s of houserules to fix a problem, some problems/solutions more complicated than others. Why not just have a good flexible core, eh?

has the pathfinder designers shown any inkling at all of any intention of this? not want, but intention.

if not, then my answer is simply that its not gonna happen so you have to houserule anyways, or get into a different game.

or maybe try to get employed by them and eventually take over the company...

[Rynjin]

w01fe01 wrote:

and how does that other group affect you? answer...it doesnt.

Pop quiz: What's more common, a player or a GM?

[w01fe01]

Rynjin wrote:

w01fe01 wrote:

and how does that other group affect you? answer...it doesnt.

Pop quiz: What's more common, a player or a GM?

the players job to bring up game balance to said gm as well, you cant be a passive player.

[MrSin]

w01fe01 wrote:

the players job to bring up game balance to said gm as well, you cant be a passive player.

So... How much responsibility due you actually lay on the game?

[w01fe01]

MrSin wrote:

w01fe01 wrote:

the players job to bring up game balance to said gm as well, you cant be a passive player.

So... How much responsibility due you actually lay on the game?

as much as it can handle. obviously it doesnt handle all balance.

your wanting a videogame maybe, something that can be digitally altered very quickly.

maybe if pathfinder allowed free digital updates to rules for people who have already bought the books.

but that would require a serial code of sorts

and require for them to care.

your wanting x, your getting y, complaining its not x, even tho your basically told y will never be x.

[Rynjin]

w01fe01 wrote:

the players job to bring up game balance to said gm as well, you cant be a passive player.

And if said GM doesn't think it's an issue or doesn't want to fiddle with the rules?

Your fix is on shaky ground.

[MrSin]

w01fe01 wrote:

your wanting a videogame maybe, something that can be digitally altered very quickly.

So you don't put any blame on the game?

And no, I don't want a video game. A video game is something else entirely.

[w01fe01]

Rynjin wrote:

w01fe01 wrote:

the players job to bring up game balance to said gm as well, you cant be a passive player.

And if said GM doesn't think it's an issue or doesn't want to fiddle with the rules?

Your fix is on shaky ground.

then tell him to stop playing modules/society.

but i apologize for your lazy/snooty DM's that have vendettas against balance.

[w01fe01]

MrSin wrote:

w01fe01 wrote:

your wanting a videogame maybe, something that can be digitally altered very quickly.

So you don't put any blame on the game?

And no, I don't want a video game. A video game is something else entirely.

but mechanically that is what you are asking for, numerical balance.

something simply not achievable in a game as fluid as this, you can get close, but even then, once again i state, does the desiners care/are they capable of doing it? even moreso, DO THEY HAVE THE CURRENT INTENTION?

if no, then once again, houserule or play something else. i dont get whats difficult to grasp. im not a designer, im not personally holding hte game hostage and keeping it from your supposed balance hopes/wants. i have no direct creative control over the official product.

my point is, neither do you.

[Rynjin]

w01fe01 wrote:

then tell him to stop playing modules/society.

This forum desperately needs a :rolleyes: emoticon.

w01fe01 wrote:

but i apologize for your lazy/snooty DM's that have vendettas against balance.

And I apologize for your inability to see the difference between an actual fix to the ruleset and a variable, unreliable combover of the problem.

[MrSin]

w01fe01 wrote:

but mechanically that is what you are asking for, numerical balance.

If you've been reading my post you know I'm not asking for numerical balance. Far more aspects to the game than numerical balance. I'm much more for Kirth's idea of storytelling power.