So your not respond to what I have to say or reading it... okay.
No house rules are needed to play a balanced game of pathfinder.
The rules are balanced. GMs aren't.
and @MRsin again i guess ill repeat, either way you want balance that isnt currently in the rules. unless developers current intention is the address that, your up the creek without a paddle unless yout ake it on your self to address it.
Except I didn't argue against that but your being obtuse about that fact and not actually responding directly to what I say.
No house rules are needed to play a balanced game of pathfinder.
The rules are balanced. GMs aren't.
so a monk is balanced, a fighter, casters, etc?
hmm ok.
and @MRsin again i guess ill repeat, either way you want balance that isnt currently in the rules. unless developers current intention is the address that, your up the creek without a paddle unless yout ake it on your self to address it.
If you play a monk as a monk. A fighter as a fighter and a caster as a caster, they all excel in their various roles.
Monks are stealthy, mobile, and can hit hard with the right build. They excel as mage tanks and can defeat most traps without disable device. They are not martials, but with enough optimization they can fill that role.
Fighters are the Lords of DPR. They excel at the martial role.
Caster do caster stuff. The most efficient way to spend spells is battlefield control and buffing. Which still requires a martial to do damage. BUffs are some of the best spells because they never miss or fail.
and @MRsin again i guess ill repeat, either way you want balance that isnt currently in the rules. unless developers current intention is the address that, your up the creek without a paddle unless yout ake it on your self to address it.Except I didn't argue against that but your being obtuse about that fact and not actually responding directly to what I say.perhaps i am naturally obtuse then as i dont believe i was trying to ignore or not address any of your replies, i apologize!
you said you want a balanced game yes?
game isnt balanced, you want them to change it..or at least i thought you did, as you said houserules were not enough.
now here is that old saying **** in one hand, hope in another.
unless they are intending to do so, the game wont change in the ways you want. if they wont, you are left with two options (realistically, not tongue in cheek) and that is it houserule, or play something else.
not trying to be obtuse tho
The game is balanced though. Your conversation about house rules is pointless.
monks are stealthy, why? because they have stealth as a calss skill, i dont recall anything of there class abilities buffing stealth. its mobile, and can hit hard with the right build...hmm...lets see, there mobility is in DIRECT conflict with there ability to do damage, making a incompetent calss mechanically. i wont argue mage tanks, but thats like a sub class of mechanics arguably more niche then rogues backstabbing. not martials? but they clearly are not casters, great, so we have to create a third identity just for monks?
great DPR, too bad they are also the easiest to disrupt said high dpr, a fighters DPR is like communism, good on paper, poor in practice
didnt address casters being OP
Reverse order
Casters are not OP. If you think they are youaredoingitwrong
Fighter DPR is what you have to stop. It takes a fighter 2 rounds to end most fighters around his CR. This allows him to draw fire and gives the casters their combat role. Either get the fighter to the enemy or incapacitate the enemy so the fighter can get to them. It's a game mechanic.
Disrupting fighter DPR is harder than you think anyways.
Monks are stealthy. They will have decent dex, stealth as an in-class skill. They where no armor, so no check penalties. The only classes that have equal or better stealth are rogues, ninjas, and archer rangers. Mobility has it's uses both in and out of combat. I've actually played a monk. That mobility is easily the monks best, most unique feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is balanced though. Your conversation about house rules is pointless.many people have pointed out general as well as specific examples of imbalance, yet ive seen nothing form you but, oh x does this well, or just a generic "game is balanced"
Many people are wrong.
Reading the rules correctly is not a universal skill. Also many confuse this-is-more-fun-for-me = better than other options.
Pathfinder is a complex role playing game. Mechanics wise there are a lot of roles and classes that mix up those roles. The only thing you really need to balance is your party and you can play standard adventures.
For example, I think a monk, bard, magus, druid party is as balanced as a rogue, fighter, wizard, cleric party.
Disrupting fighter DPR is harder than you think anyways.
What about Dominate Person, Dominate Monster, Wall of Force, Prismatic Wall, Hold Person, Hold Monster, Solid Fog, Create Pit, Spiked Pit, Acid Pit, Hungry Pit, Resilient Sphere, Sleep, Deep Slumber, Cloak of Dreams, Color Spray, Invisibility, Fly, Entangle, Grease, Glitterdust, Greater Forbid Action, Web, Major Image, Maze, or any spell with the Dazing Spell metamagic feat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Thanks for all the input.
Read some of your posts and some of Seans post it seems you are under the impression the problem with Rogue vs Ninja is the Ninja. I’d say the problem is the rogue.
Basing a class on the ability to fix traps, lot of skills and being able to do a lot of damage under very specific circumstances is in my opinion wrong. Here is why:
1) You need the rogue so she can deal with traps is kind of strange logic that was brutaly enforce up on the game in 3.0 and 3.5 editions (perhaps even earlier?). This means you have to add a lot of traps to make the rogue useful. It just seems like bad logic. I don’t mind the rogue being better at it, but I hope that in the next edition (hopefully a PF 1.5 and not a PF 2) all classes can disable magical traps or that a trait or feat lets you do it. Especially since traps even now can be dealt with even if there is no rogue in the party.
2) Skills: Let med quote AMIB on this: “The rogue's schtick is skills and skills aren't very good. They certainly aren't good enough to explain why a class whose only real combat schtick is "stab a dude" is weaker at stabbing than pretty much everyone else. Skills are not only often nonfunctional (Diplomacy, original-version Stealth), they're also almost always hardcapped at what's "realistic" or "humanly possible" (Stealth again, all of the movement skills).”
I hope Paizo will take a look at skills when you create the next PF edition and makes skills better. That would help some of the mundane classes (especially if you give the fighter and the Cavalier/samurai more skills).
I have some hope since Sean said he is “all in favor of analyzing the game, drawing a line at level X, and saying, "real Earth humans don't get past level X, and therefore beyond level X (and skill rank X) you can start to do things that Earth people would consider superhuman, impossible, or even magical," even with a nonmagical class like fighter or rogue”.
3) Finally the idea that 'a rogue that can deal sneak attack all the time would break the game so we must make SA hard to execute' is actually untrue. You don’t have to trust me. You can look at the numbers and you will find that a full attacking rogue that got flank and can sneak attack an enemy will do less damage than pretty much any class in the game. To be blund: The rogue don't do a lot of damage under very specific circumstances.
I still think a rogue should be able to feint as a swift action. That, letting her SA in dim light and making skills better would fix the rogue. It would at least make charisma and bluff more interesting ;-)
Again, thanks for all of your great posts. I think you all are doing an excelent job!
PS. pardon my cra*ppy English.
monks are stealthy, why? because they have stealth as a calss skill, i dont recall anything of there class abilities buffing stealth. its mobile, and can hit hard with the right build...hmm...lets see, there mobility is in DIRECT conflict with there ability to do damage, making a incompetent calss mechanically. i wont argue mage tanks, but thats like a sub class of mechanics arguably more niche then rogues backstabbing. not martials? but they clearly are not casters, great, so we have to create a third identity just for monks?
great DPR, too bad they are also the easiest to disrupt said high dpr, a fighters DPR is like communism, good on paper, poor in practice
didnt address casters being OP
Reverse order
Casters are not OP. If you think they are youaredoingitwrong
Fighter DPR is what you have to stop. It takes a fighter 2 rounds to end most fighters around his CR. This allows him to draw fire and gives the casters their combat role. Either get the fighter to the enemy or incapacitate the enemy so the fighter can get to them. It's a game mechanic.
Disrupting fighter DPR is harder than you think anyways.Monks are stealthy. They will have decent dex, stealth as an in-class skill. They where no armor, so no check penalties. The only classes that have equal or better stealth are rogues, ninjas, and archer rangers. Mobility has it's uses both in and out of combat. I've actually played a monk. That mobility is easily the monks best, most unique feature.
two bad if they want to do decent damage from the get go they have to make stat sacrafices, one of wich is losing good DEX (monk)
stopping fighters dpr is actually easier, but thanks for the vague comment :P
caster comment...useless comment
and im not saying mobility is bad, im saying its in direct conflict with how there damage works.
saying a lot without saying anything at all.
14 dex is not low
17 14 14 10 14 8 after race mods with a 20 point buy.Notice how all the fighter stopping methods are casting related? In a party your casters can cast spells too. Fighter's dominate the 2/3 of encounters. You have to have some fights where the casters are needed.
Saying casters are OP without any supporting evidence is an equally useless statement.
So if your group likes high powered games, you can just fill a party with tier 1-2 classes. If you prefer mid-power, only allow tier 3-4 classes. And if you want a grittier game, only allow tier 4-6 classes. There's enough classes of each tier between all the books to accommodate any preferred power level.
This is a nice point, and this recommendation could work really, really nicely if we could fulfull two conditions: (1) there were classes of all the various roles at all tiers; and (2) the rulebook listed "OK, for a Tier 3 (average) game, the allowable classes are X, Y, and Z. A and B are too powerful and should really only be used in Tier 1-2 games, and Q and R are too weak and should only be used in very casual games."
Condition (2) is easy to achieve. Condition (1) is the sticking point, because, of the PC classes, all of the higher-tier (lower-numbered) classes are casters, and pretty much all the weaker classes are mundanes. You could substitute an Adept for a full caster in a lower-tier game, but there's no analog for a fighter or rogue in a Tier 1 game.
This is a nice point, and this recommendation could work really, really nicely if we could fulfull two conditions: (1) there were classes of all the various roles at all tiers; and (2) the rulebook listed "OK, for a Tier 3 (average) game, the allowable classes are X, Y, and Z. A and B are too powerful and should really only be used in Tier 1-2 games, and Q and R are too weak and should only be used in very casual games."
Well tiers are a creation of players, and there's always a few arguments about them. There's a good chance there are authors and players who don't know a thing about the tiers from 3.5
More so, you can't excuse the lack of "what tier is the best tier!" for game design. As Kirth said, there's not label explaining what is what, nor a guide for building your perfect party. Its also very relative and not the perfectly best way to look at the games balance.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have great respect for Kirth's work, but he represents an extreme opposite angle to the "the GM ought to be an overlord", namely the "the rules must shield and protect me from the GM".
This particular train of thought assumes an adversarial, or at very least competitive nature of GM-player relation. In this relationship, the GM is assumed to be prone to abuse his position and use his powers to arbitrary impede the players, hurt their PCs and impose his/her vision of how things should be. At very best, the GM does that in good faith of believing it's how things should be, in very worst case he's on a turbo power trip taking out his 40 years of virginity and social failure on hapless players before him.
In order to protect themselves, the players need a robust, balanced ruleset which clearly defines what their PCs can do and leaves as little to GM decision as possible, thereby shielding the players from the worst of GM power trip and abuse.
This train of thought embraces 3E, where rules tell you much about what your PC can do, and several important aspects of the game (eg. magic item creation) is left to players. It abhors 1E/2E, because the ideas of GM deciding what non-combat actions can a player take and GM having full control over magic item distribution smell of Gygaxianism and 40yr old egomaniac virgins.
As Kirth correctly identifies and SRM reminds, a publisher must mind his player base. I however don't agree with Kirth that those extremes form a majority of the base. If the "GM is overgod, obey" folks were truly the majority, they wouldn't be playing a player-oriented 3E variant, going with one of many OSR clones instead.
I think the vast majority of the base enjoys games where players and GM are equal participants and partners, and neither go out to put a stick in the other's eye. In such games, both sides of the equation are willing to do whatever it takes so that everybody at the table, including themselves, have fun. Such games don't need for the rules to serve as iron shield to defend the players from the evil GM because that conflict doesn't exist there.
Also, I do believe that many pro-balance gamists are on a power trip of their own, revelling in the fact that unlike the vast unwashed masses which are playing <insert game name here> despite its' OBVIOUS FLAWS which they BLINDINGlY OBLIVIOUS to (seriously, how can you not notice that the only true way to play a Rogue is to use blink+flasks combo, it takes just two working brain cells to figure that out hurr durr) they do see what things truly are. The feeling of perceived intellectual superiority over the average man is as attractive to some as is the feeling of control and domination to others :)
At very best, the GM does that in good faith of believing it's how things should be, in very worst case he's on a turbo power trip taking out his 40 years of virginity and social failure on hapless players before him.
In order to protect themselves, the players need a robust, balanced ruleset which clearly defines what their PCs can do and leaves as little to GM decision as possible, thereby shielding the players from the worst of GM power trip and abuse.
This train of thought embraces 3E, where rules tell you much about what your PC can do, and several important aspects of the game (eg. magic item creation) is left to players.
An excellent summary of my position, and I applaud you for it. And I'm especially impressed with the opening phrase quoted, because I think that's pretty firmly where most of the "weak rules, all-powerful DM" fan base resides.
One thing, though -- I advocate this position as a DM, not just as something for the players. When I'm the DM (which is usually), I really LIKE to have a robust rule set that I can't run roughshod over, despite my good but misguided intentions. I really, really like for the players to have more input and more narrative control. If I didn't want to play a cooperative game where everyone's input is included as much as possible, I'd just go home and write stories instead!
however don't agree with Kirth that those extremes form a majority of the base... I think the vast majority of the base enjoys games where players and GM are equal participants and partners, and neither go out to put a stick in the other's eye.
I'd like to believe this, but the overwhelming tenor of many "player entitlement" rants and the accompanying flood of "favoriteds" lead me to believe otherwise!
However, even if it's as you say, look at it this way: if you have a shield, you can use it as needed, and just let it sit there when not. If you don't have a shield, you can't use it, ever. I'd rather have it there for the people who need it, because for the people who don't, its existence doesn't change their game the slightest bit. Why begridge it to others?
Power is not equally distributed across the table because responsibility is not equally distributed across the table.
Depends on who your playing with. Imo giving one person the ability to take tyrannical power is usually a bad idea. I have plenty of horror stories about bad GMs in my experience.
So how'd we start talking about this?
Disrupting fighter DPR is harder than you think anyways.What about Dominate Person, Dominate Monster, Wall of Force, Prismatic Wall, Hold Person, Hold Monster, Solid Fog, Create Pit, Spiked Pit, Acid Pit, Hungry Pit, Resilient Sphere, Sleep, Deep Slumber, Cloak of Dreams, Color Spray, Invisibility, Fly, Entangle, Grease, Glitterdust, Greater Forbid Action, Web, Major Image, Maze, or any spell with the Dazing Spell metamagic feat?
A wand of dispel magic works. The Fighter has enough feat to pick up Skill Focus and Magical Aptitude. With the dangerously curious trait UMD is a class skill with +1 bonus. A first level Human Fighter could have a +11 (1 rnk, 3 CS, 3 SF, 2 MA, TB 1, Chr 1) UMD. That's 60% chance of use wand of dispel magic assuming you had one at 1st level. More likely when you need this it will be around 7th level and at it's automatic.
Now the fighter I find is kind weak when compared to the Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian and Cavalier. Sure DPR is high most of the time with the fighter but they have nothing else and suffer from weakness in the will and reflex saves due to armor check penalties that cancel out any Dex bonus they might have. I don't think this Balance issue but more of problem with the fighter Class.
The Fighter has enough feat to pick up Skill Focus and Magical Aptitude.
As does everyone else...
Thanks for all the input.Read some of your posts and some of Seans post it seems you are under the impression the problem with Rogue vs Ninja is the Ninja. I’d say the problem is the rogue.
Basing a class on the ability to fix traps, lot of skills and being able to do a lot of damage under very specific circumstances is in my opinion wrong. Here is why:
I hear what you are saying, but that has been the rogue for many decades. This is a point of balance that I'm talking about. We entrusted to reproduce a very core experience in fun and interesting way. You may think that the rogue should not be the guy that disarms traps and has a lot of skills, but many (including myself) define the rogue by that mix of skills and combat expertise.
The ninja on the other hand has a very different set of skills in history, pop-culture, and literature. And when we designed the ninja, we attempted to reproduce that experience.
The problem is neither with the rogue or the ninja, but looking at them through the very strict lens of balance most people are talking about in the thread. If you define your play experience only about what you can do in the stage of the combat round, and think the ability to do great amounts of damage during you play on that stage, you are going to find the rogue lacking compared to the ninja. And you are going to devalue her other abilities.
One could argue while the combat stage is important, it is not the only stage of Pathfinder. I like combat a lot, but I am one of those people who would make that argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that the lack of rules puts the players implicitly into the position of petitioners before the sovereign GM. Just because the GM is not the players' enemy doesn't mean it is right that he hold such power. A GM who is not the players' enemy should be happy to accept the limits of a consistent and well defined rule set. If he's not willing to accept common sense limitations on his power that is ipso facto proof that he cannot be trusted not to abuse it.
Welcome to RPGing. This power relationship, of a GM having more power than the PCs (including power to break the rules) is pretty much fundamental to role playing games. Someone at the table moves the heavens and the earth in order to bring a setting and game to life and to handle all the things that the rule set cannot seamlessly handle. And that kind of power relationship, as I see it, really is necessary because of the freedom RPGs offer to the players. PCs aren't constrained to just move about a tidy grid, nor respond to other characters in the environment (player and non-) with a selection of pre-written statements and moods. They go off topic, off story, off the reservation entirely. GMs adjudicate what happens and may need to ignore rules in order to do it effectively.
The only common sense limits on a GM's power are bound by good table etiquette and respect. A GM should be prepared to explain why he's ruling the way he's ruling, or why he's limiting choices in his campaign, because the players have a right to know what sort of game they're in or choosing to join. And the players have the power to accept that or choose to do something else.
something to take away form this thraed, dont rely on devs for balance.This thread has nothing of value to take away from.
I'm sorry both of you think those things. I think we are having an interesting conversation about the various lens of balance in RPGs and I am finding the conversation both interesting and enlightening.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to believe this, but the overwhelming tenor of many "player entitlement" rants and the accompanying flood of "favoriteds" lead me to believe otherwise!
However, even if it's as you say, look at it this way: if you have a shield, you can use it as needed, and just let it sit there when not. If you don't have a shield, you can't use it, ever. I'd rather have it there for the people who need it, because for the people who don't, its existence doesn't change their game the slightest bit. Why begridge it to others?
I believe we're looking at vocal minorities ready to go great lenghts to get their point across the Internets. My personal experience of being a default D&D/PF GM at a local club gives me a much more optimistic picture. Sure, there's an odd Gygaxianist who scolds me for going easy, or an odd turbogamist who tells me I should kick people from my table because they don't optimize enough. But the vast bulk is nowhere close to those two extremes.
As for the second paragraph, I was expecting that one from you :) But let me tell you, a rulesets' geist is something that you can feel throughout the game. Look at 4E - it valiantly tried to make everything fit into rigid, well defined matrix of definitions and code words, while eliminating avenues of escaping that matrix. That didn't work, because people rejected this rigidity. If you make a ruleset that tells you "this is a turbo gamist ruleset for rocket tag D&D, but you can use it for your magical tea party if you wish", won't that kill the sales dead like 4E's "this is a boardgame MMO lookalike but you can use it for your pen and paper stuff" did?
Maybe there's some sweet spot between 3E, 4E and 1E/2E, I'm sure some day somebody will find it. Until then, we can both (hopefully) agree that 3E was the closest one to the sweet spot, that it has some irredeemable flaws, and it's the most popular ruleset that everybody around is playing, so why not hop in and have some fun? (cref: TOZ and his "playing this for fun, not rules" mindset).
Welcome to RPGing. This power relationship, of a GM having more power than the PCs (including power to break the rules) is pretty much fundamental to role playing games. Someone at the table moves the heavens and the earth in order to bring a setting and game to life and to handle all the things that the rule set cannot seamlessly handle.
Well unless you do group storytelling. Absolute power is very different from group storytelling. If you as a group create a setting and story and the GM is only there to set the scene and control NPCs you end up with a very different game.
|
|
I remember one former poster on this board who took the "GMs are a problem" to a total extreme, he hoped that some day you'll have AIs running combats in RPGs and there will be no need for those overbearing monsters behind GM screens.
I think such mindset is as poisonous as "3E is a game for girls and kids because traps can't kill you and Wizard doesn't start the game with 2 HP". Really, there are extremes on both ends of the specturm. And extremes enjoy anonymous attention, for sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for all the input.Read some of your posts and some of Seans post it seems you are under the impression the problem with Rogue vs Ninja is the Ninja. I’d say the problem is the rogue.
Basing a class on the ability to fix traps, lot of skills and being able to do a lot of damage under very specific circumstances is in my opinion wrong. Here is why:
I hear what you are saying, but that has been the rogue for many decades. This is a point of balance that I'm talking about. We entrusted to reproduce a very core experience in fun and interesting way. You may think that the rogue should not be the guy that disarms traps and has a lot of skills, but many (including myself) define the rogue by that mix of skills and combat expertise.
The ninja on the other hand has a very different set of skills in history, pop-culture, and literature. And when we designed the ninja, we attempted to reproduce that experience.
The problem is neither with the rogue or the ninja, but looking at them through the very strict lens of balance most people are talking about in the thread. If you define your play experience only about what you can do in the stage of the combat round, and think the ability to do great amounts of damage during you play on that stage, you are going to find the rogue lacking compared to the ninja. And you are going to devalue her other abilities.
One could argue while the combat stage is important, it is not the only stage of Pathfinder. I like combat a lot, but I am one of those people who would make that argument.
I think for me, balance issues are less of issues of a strictly numerical sense, because honestly, if I put in a little effort, the system is robust enough where I can get high numbers (or at least higher then the base assumption the CR uses) out of any class, or any basic options set. I have seen very powerful rogues, fighters and monks (the most maligned of the 'balance' problems). I have seen dreadfully weak wizards, druids and clerics. I even saw a numerically weak summoner on the boards the other day (shocking I know). Well, it wasnt weak per say, just capable of being overshadowed by a druid also at his table. But anyway, I digress.
My balance concerns arent about situational power. Its not about how high the numbers are. Its narrative power. The ability to CHANGE the situation instead of just acting in it. Its my view that casters (and characters with significant supernatural abilities) have dramatically more narrative power by the rules then more mundane characters do, and for me at least, that is the real balance problem.
I believe at low levels casters have small scale narrative power, the ability to change an encounter from one situation to another. And at high levels, they have large scale narrative power, the ability to shape events as a whole to their liking. Mundane characters dont really have this. Every character class has the ability to act in a situation an adventure might present. Some are 'better' then others, but assuming you dont have dramatic overlap, or a very large party, everyone will get a chance to shine with a well structured adventure. But only casters (and characters with significant supernatural abilities) seem to have the option to alter the circumstances of that adventure instead of just acting in them.
Lets take an example of small scale narrative power. The party is crossing a narrow rope bridge across a casm and are ambushed by hidden foes. The fighter, rogue and monk(baring some of their more dramatic ki powers that appear at later levels) are going to be fighting it out on the bridge, maybe making acrobatics checks, climb checks and struggling to move about on the shakey (and possibly compromised) bridge while fighting the enemy.
The wizard casts fly on himself or the druid wildshapes into a bird, or the cleric casts air walk. Suddenly part of the situation no longer applies to him. The rope bridge isnt an obstacle anymore. There is still an encounter to deal with, but the situation, for that character has changed. This is what I think of as small scale narrative power. The fighter and rogue engage the situation, and must overcome it. The caster bypasses or alters the situation.
Ofcourse a good encounter, and a good gm will be ready for this and account for the potential use of abilities the party has at its disposal, but that doesnt eliminate the fact that the narrative imbalance exists.
Large Scale Imablances are the ability to turn the story itself on its head. Not just altering an encounter, but the plot of the adventure. Some such plot altering abilities exist at low levels, but many reside higher.
For example, perhaps the party needs to convince a morally bankrupt monarch to assist in the defense of a neighbor under seige by an undead army. The mundane characters can use skills to try to convince him, or to convince others to overthrow him, or offer to do difficult tasks for him in order exchange for his help. This plot could encompass many encounters, and a whole story arc. A wizard could theoretically use a series of dominate person spells to get this over in the amount of time it takes to walk from the front of the palace to the king's chamber.
Ofcourse again, the gm can be prepared for the enchanter and prevent, or make difficult such a task, but the fact remains that if the caster succeeds, the plot of the adventure has changed. Thats large scale narrative power.
There is a massive imbalance in what certain classes/collections of options can do in the sense of narrative power, both small and large scale. And I think that fact is why you get things like a strong desire for niche protection of classes like the rogue and fighter. If fighters and rogues could also have that kind of narrative power, there would probably be a lot less concern of the 'balance' of any one individual option.
I obviously am not sure how to solve that problem. I know that one way or another it would cause issues with 'providing the experience' that people have come to expect with certain character types. But I'd love to know your thoughts on narrative power, and if it comes into play at all when designing the game.
Kolkotroni has it exactly. It's not about combat DPR or any of that. It's about the fact that, at high levels especially but starting earlier on, the DM and the casters make the story, and the martials never get class features that let them do anything at all except go along with it. Counterintuitively, boldly dramatio men-of-action PCs are best played by extremely passive players.
If you define your play experience only about what you can do in the stage of the combat round, and think the ability to do great amounts of damage during you play on that stage, you are going to find the rogue lacking compared to the ninja. And you are going to devalue her other abilities.
One could argue while the combat stage is important, it is not the only stage of Pathfinder. I like combat a lot, but I am one of those people who would make that argument.
More entries from the Pathfinder Lexicon:
Encounter: Euphemism for “combat.” In some instances, combat consists of one or two initial rounds of ROLEPLAY whose only effect is to ruin the SURPRISE advantage.
Rogue: 1. A non-spellcasting CLASS notable for running higher risks than any other member of the PARTY and yet constantly being harassed for skimming off extra LOOT; also famous for having a large number of skills and CLASS BENEFITS which, ironically, have largely been stolen by other classes. 2. The most misspelled class name ever.
Roleplaying: The part of the PFS ADVENTURE when the Venture Captain tells you what the mission is.
Trust me. I ran organized play programs for years. I am very aware of this mode of thought. I even understands why it happens. I just don't think that is the only mode of play we are designing for. I'm not even quite sure it is the correct for OP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a really cool discussion, and it finally illuminated to me the disparity between my opinion of epic level games and many other people's.
As some of you perhaps know, I ran an epic game for just under 7 years, most of it above level 20. Over and over, I'd read about how completely broken the epic rules were, how the math doesn't work, how it was unplayable, etc., and yet week after week for years we happily got together bi-weekly to play our impossible, unplayable game.
It worked because we were there to have fun.
Any single player at the table (or myself) could have broken that game in a second. But why would they? This wasn't theorycrafting; this was us trying to get together, have a few beers, and enjoy ourselves.
Sure, the epic 3.5e druid was a nightmare for me. The epic dervish dancer/fighter with a slew of Luck feats was horrific. The wizard was played by a pre-teen who could have been a million times more effective had he optimized his character better. Generating throwaway CR50+ threats got a bit overwhelming at times. The PCs could easily have overthrown half the damn universe had they chosen to.
So what?
Our goal was to play the game, and we did, and we had a blast, and when we finally retired the campaign this past June, nobody was relieved to finally be done with the game. In fact, I'd planned on taking a few months off (felt kinda deserved, ya know), instead after about a month they're all now saying "sooo ... when are we starting up again?"
Good thing the Mythic book is coming out this month. And to hell with that supposed level 20 cap :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ran an epic game for just under 7 years, most of it above level 20. Over and over, I'd read about how completely broken the epic rules were, how the math doesn't work, how it was unplayable, etc., and yet week after week for years we happily got together bi-weekly to play our impossible, unplayable game.
It worked because we were there to have fun.
Any single player at the table (or myself) could have broken that game in a second. But why would they?
So you're saying (a) the rules didn't really work at all ("could have broken that game in a second"), but (b) your group carefully used kid gloves to avoid using the broken parts ("it worked because we were there to have fun"), and therefore (c) the rules work perfectly ("happily played our impossible, unplayable game!").
In other words, your game worked despite the rules, not because of them. I'm frankly unconvinced that that's an ideal state of affairs.