As others have pointed out, the game is fairly balanced up through probably level 12 or so. At least within combat.
I agree whole-heartedly with this. 90% of our play is between levels 2 and 12, and the only time we venture higher than that is in the latter stages of AP's when we're able to get there. I find high level play tends to get out of hand and the game devolves into more of a cartoon than a character-driven story.
Of course, play styles differ.
|
Power depends a lot about the level of play and the type of party. I think its true classes like the rogue and fighter can at time be outdone by others filling the same roles such as the ranger and barbarian as pointed out earlier in the thread.
A lot of classes have a "sweet spot", the guides point these out, such as the Magus at level 5, druid when it gets large wild shape etc. These tend to be damage comparisons and the balance switches between the levels.
Some spells can be very good at certain levels, the fore mentioned colour spray can be devastating in a martial style campaign at low level where will saves are low and the caster has maxed out their casting stat.
For all the criticism of certain classes such as the rogue and fighter, I still see people playing them and enjoying the game.
There were actually several non vancian casters in 3.5 too, but martial adepts strike me as the one most aimed at martials. Some of them have been transferred to PF through 3rd party(occultist for binder, Invoker for warlock).
There's also the Sorcerer, the oracle, and other spontaneous caster, none of whom are true Vancian casters. The Wizard is a Vancian caster, the Sorcerer is not.
There were actually several non vancian casters in 3.5 too, but martial adepts strike me as the one most aimed at martials. Some of them have been transferred to PF through 3rd party(occultist for binder, Invoker for warlock).What?! Where?!
I put in the names of the classes there for you. I think its Little Red Goblin Games that has the Invoker which is like the warlock from 3.5, and Radiance House has the Occultist which is similar to the binder from 3.5. I think Dreamscarred Press is working on something similar to martial adepts, but I'm not keen on Path of War myself.
What does paizo think?
Well gunslingers seem to have been nerfed recently. I am sure work arounds will appear in short order though.
Can we use Mythic rules as a guideline to Paizo thoughts on balance? (interferometry , if you will)
I find it interesting that Mythic rules allow for an additional standard action that is most useful for martials with Vital Strike being an example of effectiveness. Mythic abilities seem to address many current martial (fighter) concerns.
Casters in Mythic I believe are still limited to spells per round as in regular Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well gunslingers seem to have been nerfed recently. I am sure work arounds will appear in short order though.
Gunslinger nerf? Are you talking about the free action FAQs? Because that doesn't actually nerf gunslingers per mechanics. They're only as nerfed as you 'nerf'inate them yourself.
What I do believe is that there are a lot of GM's who either through sympathy, or gullibility, let a certain type of manipulative spellcaster players run roughshod over through their campaigns by lax interpretations of magic rules, especially when not reigning in certain spells that need to be reigned in.
Its not the system, its the GM? The system has absolutely no blame whatsoever?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a 20th level game, it's a lot like this:
Casters are flagships, vast and grand with insurmountable versatility and power. Their primary weapons are the 'fighter' and 'ranger' class missile batteries. Without them, their firepower would be much reduced. But these missiles can't be fired independently very well. They need the flagship's launch mechanism.
Battles are fought between flagships, with their missiles aimed at each other - though these missiles often collide in mid-flight.
But I will say and maintain that the bulk of the perceived problems DO come from GM's AND Players. Sometimes through ignorance and inexperience, sometimes through deliberate malice.
I disagree, but that's not really something to chat about I don't think. I've just never been a big fan of blaming people when the system gives them the power and not much direction in reigning it in.
Casters are flagships, vast and grand with insurmountable versatility and power. Their primary weapons are the 'fighter' and 'ranger' class missile batteries. Without them, their firepower would be much reduced. But these missiles can't be fired independently very well. They need the flagship's launch mechanism.
My ship fires summoned and/or bound outsiders and more expendable but easier to replenish ammo. Or I just find another solution instead of firing at the other ship.
I think when the tier list for pathfinder is split up into 6 different tiers, it is not "well balanced"
3.5 was split into 6 tiers too?
Pathfinder is really very balanced compared to its predecessors and is well balanced as a stand-alone game.The first part might be true, but wooo boy the 2nd part.
I think when the tier list for pathfinder is split up into 6 different tiers, it is not "well balanced"
Perhaps it's because I come from 3.x, but Pathfinder actually does feel way, waaaaay more balanced than 3.x ever was. Paladins and Rangers are roughly tier 3 by the 3.x standards (it's really difficult to invalidate these guys and they have a lot of cool options). The barbarian has the least problem solving of all the classes but is almost like the mundane guy done right (he's mundane, he's mad, and he laughs at lots of magic stuff).
Most of the biggest balance problems came from the spells in 3.x. All the really problematic spells in core pathfinder were greatly toned down (and some that weren't). Even though most are still good, it's far more difficult to invalidate any opponent with a simple casting of summon monster or black tentacles.
You can build groups of barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and wizards in Pathfinder and everything works pretty well throughout all levels. I don't have to worry about the characters sitting around twiddling their thumbs. It's got a pretty solid base.
I can't vouch for all the splat material though. There's some really lame stuff in PF-splat material. There's some good stuff too of course (a lot of good stuff), but it only takes some stinkers to ruin the whole batch.
At the very least I will say that, as far as I can tell from gameplay, all of the classes are 'playable'. If someone plays a Fighter, he's the go-to guy to give a buff spell to and seems to be among the few classes that can handle multiple mobs of low CR creatures in a row. If someone plays Rogue (and compared to Fighter people play Rogue in my games A LOT) he's the one that checks and opens every door for the rest of the game and probably the only player who bothered to put ranks in the seedy face skills.
At the very least I will say that, as far as I can tell from gameplay, all of the classes are 'playable'.
True, there's no truenamer in the bunch.
If someone plays a Fighter, he's the go-to guy to give a buff spell to and seems to be among the few classes that can handle multiple mobs of low CR creatures in a row.
'Gets Buffed' happens to be a class feature a lot of classes have, and 'Wears Armor' is pretty much everyone but select arcane casters. There are also other ways to fend off low CR foes, like DR.
If someone plays Rogue (and compared to Fighter people play Rogue in my games A LOT) he's the one that checks and opens every door for the rest of the game and probably the only player who bothered to put ranks in the seedy face skills.
My bard does it in mine pretty well. A friend of mine has a magus specialized in bluff that does it pretty well. I once made a wizard who did a lot of trapworking and talking, and another time I made a vivisectionist with a thief motif. The only thing they can't do is disable magical traps.
They're playable, just not the best.
At the very least I will say that, as far as I can tell from gameplay, all of the classes are 'playable'.True, there's no truenamer in the bunch.
If someone plays a Fighter, he's the go-to guy to give a buff spell to and seems to be among the few classes that can handle multiple mobs of low CR creatures in a row.'Gets Buffed' happens to be a class feature a lot of classes have, and 'Wears Armor' is pretty much everyone but select arcane casters. There are also other ways to fend off low CR foes, like DR.
If someone plays Rogue (and compared to Fighter people play Rogue in my games A LOT) he's the one that checks and opens every door for the rest of the game and probably the only player who bothered to put ranks in the seedy face skills.My bard does it in mine pretty well. A friend of mine has a magus specialized in bluff that does it pretty well. I once made a wizard who did a lot of trapworking and talking, and another time I made a vivisectionist with a thief motif. The only thing they can't do is disable magical traps.
They're playable, just not the best.
I love and hate Vivisectionist. When I played one I kajiggered him into an unarmed strike Rogue, and he worked out, well, better than a Rogue. I became the go-to trap guy because I was pretty much impervious to most traps that I came up against and I had a bag of holding full of alchemical stuff and extracts to Macguyver out of trouble. Not to mention having the ability to turn invisible and have a flying familiar with construct immunities. It feels like it somewhat invalidates Rogue.
It feels like it somewhat invalidates Rogue.
I felt that at first and I've seen it said a lot, but I feel like a lot of that weight falls on the rogue instead of everyone else. Vivisectionist isn't overpowered on its own, nor archeologist(sans being fully buffed, but then anyone's a monster). Rogue is just underpowered as far as I'm concerned.
I think I'm going to play a Rogue next time I make a character. I want to see how hard I can push it. Just kind of play the game on hard mode.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But pathfinder on its own is like, super bad. Maybe it is because this genre of game traditionally has super bad balance, such that it is "normal" but man it is really bad. I think it sucks that people accept it as fine and attack attempts to improve it, regardless of whether the changes would affect them or not
Its for quiet a few reasons. Its inherited a lot and I see a lot of excuses given as to why improvement might be bad. Imo; The worst thing I've seen it inherit is an idea that its up to the GM to balance the game.
There seems to be quite a few threads about unbalanced characters
So what characters do you think are over powered or under powered and why
Just a brife reason
None. They may be unbalanced in regards to eachother, but it should be that way imo. Ergo none of them ar overpowered or underpowered.
The monks and rogues needed the most help, got the least help, and always get "errata" and rules "clarification" that actively make them worse.
Every time!
Monks have had the rules changed in their favor.
How much time, as a percentage, have you spent playing what you perceive to be the weakest characters in the game?None. They may be unbalanced in regards to eachother, but it should be that way imo. Ergo none of them ar overpowered or underpowered.There seems to be quite a few threads about unbalanced characters
So what characters do you think are over powered or under powered and why
Just a brife reason
About 50% of the time I'd say I play rouges and fighters and stuff that has a bad reputation on this forum.
I don't see any issuses with those classes compared to any of the others.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I live in the northeast U.S. I don't see any issues with malaria. Therefore 'malaria' does not exist, or if it does, it's 'supposed to be that way.' People in the tropics complaining about malaria should shut up or they'll ruin everything for everyone."
I give everyone in my world total free will, so if a guy chooses that his character doesn't have the power to manipulate anything in the world further than his (own) codpiece then I'm not gonna give him a hard time about it.
TLDR: Balance is what you cry about when playing what you want is still somehow not playing what you want.
Sorry. Am I late for the trollduggery?
Just kidding.
For all the criticism of certain classes such as the rogue and fighter, I still see people playing them and enjoying the game.
I only see fighters as part of multiclass builds and that is where they excel at.
I've only seen one single class rogue and the player had no real fun with it and rerolled at level 7 or so.In fact we started out with three martials and ended the campaign with only one which was a fighter/titan mauler multiclass with a large twohanded weapon so in fact a pc not RAW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember one day while talking before a PFS a rogue player was bragging about the combat effectiveness of his character. He was going on and on about how much damage his guy could do and all of that stuff. I asked him how much damage he actually does, and he was like, TONS! I was like, give me a number. So he did. I was like, are you level 2 or something? He looked at me funny, no level 6. I was like, um that is actually really bad damage for that level. Sorry, 3d6 sneak + 1d6 normal +1 for magic weapon is not that good, and you need to sneak attack to do even that much. He asked me what I was playing. I said cleric. He then said "well at least I'll do more than you do, all healing the party and stuff"... I straight up told him I don't heal in combat, if you get hurt its your own problem till I can use my wand, I have more important things to do like buff the party and to crush the enemy and see them driven before me...
Come game session his character is completely ineffective, complains about people not helping him get flanks, and gripes that my character is killing everything before he can get into position (my character is a cleric of Gorum with channel smite and a spell storing great sword... its meant to hit hard and one shot things). He also complained that the bard was a better talker and didn't fight (was to busy casting party buffs) and that we just detected magic for traps and laughed off the possibility of mundane traps being a problem (anybody can find them if they put points into perception and didn't tank wisdom, and 99 percent of the time you can laugh off the damage or inconvenience). Oh, his character got smacked by a full attack from some mook, nearly put him on his back, first thing he does is shout "medic!"... I'm like, stop trying to melee things if you can't take a hit or can't kill it in one round. There was no cannon in his glass cannon, so he kept getting smacked around by full attacks.
Later on he complained I wasn't playing cleric right, and if I wanted to play like that I should have played a fighter or barbarian. I was like... No. I want to do more than just damage, and IF I played a fighter or barbarian you would be complaining even more about how much damage I was doing.
That being said a well played rogue CAN be effective. But people who both are willing to put in that much effort, and still want to play a rogue are somewhat rare. Most rogues players in my experience aren't up to getting the most out of the class.
Spell casters are generally more powerful than martial classes.
Monks and rogues tend to be generally considered the least powerful of the martial classes, although many people will claim the fighter is the least powerful because "all the fighter can do is fight."
Not true. A first level wizard is basically a commoner in a bathrobe.
That's not true either. I started thus weekend Rise of Runelords, and my first level commoner in a bathrobe took down 75% of the goblins with his DC 18 Sleep. While it's true the spellcaster can't warp the reality from the get go, martials aren't uber durable killimg machines at first level either. First level casters can't do it all, but they aren't inferioe to other clases. I doubt any one in my group thinks my character is the weakest in the party
You can build a full caster that deals 1d3+7 damage with his unlimited cantrip at first level. Similar damage to what a fighter can do but it targets touch AC. Not really a commoner in bathrobe.
And most people tend to forget all those nice school powers or bloodline powers you get in pf.
Even if you only have 1 or 2 1st level spells per day you can still use the other stuff you get.
Not all school/bloodline powers are combat relevant. But some sure are.
Remember different experience charts? That was actually kind of fun. Old school DND more or less said "yeppers, wizards are more powerful at high levels than other classes, but they've got to earn it."
The removal of that made a big impact on how the rogue is perceived in class balance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is also hard not to be a little cynical about class balance discussions, based on prior experiences. I was a really good WOW Warlock- yet according to the warlock forum they were a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad class to play. And Blizzard hated warlocks. Or something.
There's a lot to that in WoW. In WoW the game changes a lot overtime, I remember the patches just before lich king came out retribution paladins went from being total crap to OP, and there was a time when shaman couldn't dual wield and another when they dual wielded windfury and another where they had an insane rotation. I remember there were item sets that were a tier above but did less DPS because of the different set bonuses. There's also weird cases where your DPS sucks until you get to a certain point/gear set, or some classes did subpar in the common sense rotation but the optimized rotation was absurdly powerful by comparison.
MMOs are a much different grounds than tabletop. There are different consequences for an imbalance. Pathfinder for instance has wizards that change reality with the wave of a hand and fighters who are supposed to stand next to them and... do... something, but its not nearly as punishing about someone doing 10% less DPS. Meanwhile an MMO expects the mage, lock, the warrior, and the priest to all do about the same DPS if they're a dps spec, or else no one is going to actually invite the class to a raid(though sometimes they do unique utilities, such as shadow priest being a mana battery). Its also easier to measure because you have things like DPS meters.
The biggest consequence in a tabletop however is a harder to see affect on the narration. The wizard can shape a country with his magic, almost literally! The fighter... at best he can talk or kill something.
You said, "I don't see any issuses with those classes compared to any of the others", but I asked you, "what you perceive to be the weakest characters in the game".How much time, as a percentage, have you spent playing what you perceive to be the weakest characters in the game?None. They may be unbalanced in regards to eachother, but it should be that way imo. Ergo none of them ar overpowered or underpowered.There seems to be quite a few threads about unbalanced characters
So what characters do you think are over powered or under powered and why
Just a brife reasonAbout 50% of the time I'd say I play rouges and fighters and stuff that has a bad reputation on this forum.
I don't see any issuses with those classes compared to any of the others.
Maybe the rouge then. I play one in the "way of the wicked" adventure path at the moment. Even though it may be less powerfull compared to many other classes it is still a lot of fun and I don't have any problems contributing both in and out of combat.
I just love how different and challenging in others ways playing a rouge is compared to say, wizards and clerics.
Do you have a point to make with this line of questioning?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those claiming that the classes are finely balanced already, I'll believe that when every tactical treatise I see published on the boards doesn't start with "first go after the casters..."
Maybe the rouge then.
Is the rouge some kind of 3pp cavalier archetype or what? You sure need a mount to function, after all.
noun \ˈrüzh, especially Southern ˈrüj\
a red powder or cream that is used to make your cheeks pinker
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... and because it burns in my soul like a rod of plutonium....
"rouge" is makeup
"rogue" is a class
Edit: and "ninja" is what just happened to my post
yeah I know I keep misspelling that. I meant rogue.
yeah I know I keep misspelling that. I meant rogue.
When you said that you knew what I meant I thought we were going to get into a discussion about mascara and beauty tips...
Anyways, I think the questioning is because you think no one is imbalanced because its okay that they are. Bit of an awkward bit of logic and its a bit hard to chew on, particularly if you want a balanced game. Some of us don't like playing a game that could be described as 'wizards and friends'(I think I told you this before...) You then go on to say you don't see any problems at all with classes that a lot of people do think they have problems. That's something people are likely to question.
For those claiming that the classes are finely balanced already, I'll believe that when every tactical treatise I see published on the boards doesn't start with "first go after the casters..."
So you're saying this proves that casters are frail and fragile squishies who can be picked off in the first round compared to the nigh invulnerable martial classes who can only be worn down gradually? ;)