Yeah... no.I've yet to see a point-buy system with any amount of crunch without crappy balance.
My experience with GURPS Fantasy and Mutants & Masterminds say otherwise. There are no martial-caster disparity in both these systems, and in M&M the scombos are easily noticiable because you don't need to look for unexpected synergies between special abilities because the rules are lighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charon, I understand what you're saying but when EVERYTHING is bought, and the points are limited, there is no "best combo". In M&M you don't just buy stats, you buy HP, you buy your Fort Save, you buy your skill points, you buy ONE LEVEL worth of spells (not the ability to cast altogether), you buy feats, you buy - everything.
Why shouldn't you be able to make a spontaneous nature caster with 5 levels of spellcasting (not 6, not 4, but 5, Dangit) with a weak will, martial weapon proficiency a good reflex and fort, medium BAB, and I dunno, I feel like spending 7 points on skills this level, but next level I really want to up my BAB...Yeah, that's the other thing. You're not locked into a specific progression with a point buy. You not getting much use out of that high fort save lately? Wanna take your points next level and ignore fort buy dump it into...oh, I dunno, upping your strength? You can.
Just make EVERYTHING that every class gets every level an item that is purchaseable with points with a prerequisite level, and let people make a character without being hindered by packaging.
What is this, the American political system? A guy has to hate guns if they are for a graduated tax system? Sometimes your bundles aren't for everyone even though the majority may like it.
And if options are more powerful than others YOU MAKE THEM COST MORE POINTS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a good opportunity for innovative design regarding a LA carte class mechanics and linear class tracks. At least, I believe that there is potential for a middle ground which would be satisfying for both parties.
Charon, I understand what you're saying but when EVERYTHING is bought, and the points are limited, there is no "best combo".
There is still a best combo in that situation. Also, I hate point-buy systems (and mutants and masterminds is far from balanced). Finally, if they did that change a giant portion of the fanbase would dislike it so I doubt they'd ever do it.
Possibly.
I still hate classes though. Title of the thread.
You mean to tell me that getting a ray that deals 1d4+10 points of damage at 20th level has to be restricted to minimum 3 times per day... when your Kineticist at the same level to shoot a Kinetic Blast that deals 10d6 points of damage at will?
Respectfully, a 20th-level kineticist will be dealing a LOT more damage than that. It would be more like several hundred damage each round.
I think there's a good opportunity for innovative design regarding a LA carte class mechanics and linear class tracks. At least, I believe that there is potential for a middle ground which would be satisfying for both parties.
My take as well. Existing Classes and Archetypes can serve as models, but character gen doesn't need to be restricted to only those that Paizo has designed - and even some of those aren't sanctioned for PFS, so even they go overboard sometimes. And many archetypes just aren't worth taking except in certain genre of campaign.
|
My experience with GURPS Fantasy and Mutants & Masterminds say otherwise. There are no martial-caster disparity in both these systems, and in M&M the scombos are easily noticiable because you don't need to look for unexpected synergies between special abilities because the rules are lighter.
Yeah... no.I've yet to see a point-buy system with any amount of crunch without crappy balance.
Point-buy can work well for rules light systems - that's why I said "with any amount of crunch". And there's no martial-caster disparity in such systems because there's no separation between them.
And if options are more powerful than others YOU MAKE THEM COST MORE POINTS.
However - in crunchier systems - many abilities are relatively weak on their own - BUT - in combination with other abilities become awesome - or are able to shore up some weakness that you can dump-stat somewhere else etc.
So - in such a point-buy system you have three choices.
1. Make them cost as much as the ability on its own is worth - making it OP when used in effective combinations.
2. Make them cost as much as the ability is worth in effective combinations - making them horrible choices on their own.
3. Keep the system simplistic so that such combinations are kept to a minimum.
#1 is a horrible idea and will lead for crazy imbalances.
#2 is almost as bad - and will lead to the cookie-cutter builds I mentioned above being the only viable builds.
(I've seen many online video-games start as #1 - and slowly patch their way to #2.)
#3 works fine if you want a more simplistic game - but I tend to prefer crunchy systems
Of note - hybrid systems can work pretty well. Where there are levels - some abilities cooked in - plus points to buy abilities in a few specific categories.
Edit: Also remember - game designers aren't perfect, and point-buy only systems give far more potential combinations. Just look at MtG - every new expansion ends up having cards which they limit and/or ban because players came up with OP combinations which they didn't anticipate.
You mean to tell me that getting a ray that deals 1d4+10 points of damage at 20th level has to be restricted to minimum 3 times per day... when your Kineticist at the same level to shoot a Kinetic Blast that deals 10d6 points of damage at will?Respectfully, a 20th-level kineticist will be dealing a LOT more damage than that. It would be more like several hundred damage each round.
True, but Burning isn't unlimited. You cannot Burn ad nauseum... because you'll exhaust yourself. Still, I used the basis, but a Kinetic Blast (unlimited use) will always outweigh a cheap bloodline power (limited use).
I think there's a good opportunity for innovative design regarding a LA carte class mechanics and linear class tracks. At least, I believe that there is potential for a middle ground which would be satisfying for both parties.My take as well. Existing Classes and Archetypes can serve as models, but character gen doesn't need to be restricted to only those that Paizo has designed - and even some of those aren't sanctioned for PFS, so even they go overboard sometimes. And many archetypes just aren't worth taking except in certain genre of campaign.
Yeah. I think classes need to get split off into a couple different tracks. If you have a social track, its easier to balance when all you have to look at is equivalent social advancement instead of trying to measure everything together. Also, it makes certain tropes available to classes that may not get an archetype in the current system.
I'd like to take this time to point out that if you're playing with someone who will "always take only this one option" or will "find a way to break the system", you're playing with an @$$hole, and the problems you're having will occur no matter what system you play with.
|
|
I'd like to take this time to point out that if you're playing with someone who will "always take only this one option" or will "find a way to break the system", you're playing with an @$$hole, and the problems you're having will occur no matter what system you play with.
Okay - it's a mindset of "taking the broken option" or "forced to take crappy options".
But - at that point then game balance matters very little, and point-buy systems are fine with that mindset. *shrug*
Frankly - I enjoy coming up with character combinations which work well from disparate sources - it's part of what I enjoy about RPGs. I don't WANT to break the system - which is why I like game balance where such combos are effective WITHOUT breaking the system in half. Point-buy systems don't do that well. (sorry if I'm doing it wrong)
If point-buy systems work for you - more power to you. But - they're not for me because of the balance issues.
True, but Burning isn't unlimited. You cannot Burn ad nauseum... because you'll exhaust yourself. Still, I used the basis, but a Kinetic Blast (unlimited use) will always outweigh a cheap bloodline power (limited use).You mean to tell me that getting a ray that deals 1d4+10 points of damage at 20th level has to be restricted to minimum 3 times per day... when your Kineticist at the same level to shoot a Kinetic Blast that deals 10d6 points of damage at will?Respectfully, a 20th-level kineticist will be dealing a LOT more damage than that. It would be more like several hundred damage each round.
A 20th-level kineticist can completely ignore 10 points of burn, so I don't think that will be a problem.
6 infusion specialization
2 gather power/supercharge as a move action
1 composite specialization
1 metakinetic master
That's enough to allow for an empowered composite blast with 7 burn worth of infusions on top of it for free EVERY SINGLE ROUND.
That's not even accounting for limited resources like the internal buffer, which can allow for even larger novas a couple of times a day.
If one of those infusions is kinetic blade or kinetic whip, then he can make a full attack for gads and gads of damage (though his free burn limit will be a little lower since he can't gather power in the same round).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mutants and masterminds is pretty tough to screw up the balance on. It has ceilings on how far you can improve in any specific area. If balance is in question, I would say M&M is a thousand fold more balanced than a bottom up system like pathfinder.
|
Mutants and masterminds is pretty tough to screw up the balance on. It has ceilings on how far you can improve in any specific area. If balance is in question, I would say M&M is a thousand fold more balanced than a bottom up system like pathfinder.
Seconded. Even Hero System has certain labels that tell a GM that a certain ability in the game can be more powerful then others. In pathfindef one either is very familiar with the system or through trial and error. So I wonder what kind of Lonny but systems people are playing because in my experience it's the opposite IMO.
True, but Burning isn't unlimited. You cannot Burn ad nauseum... because you'll exhaust yourself. Still, I used the basis, but a Kinetic Blast (unlimited use) will always outweigh a cheap bloodline power (limited use).You mean to tell me that getting a ray that deals 1d4+10 points of damage at 20th level has to be restricted to minimum 3 times per day... when your Kineticist at the same level to shoot a Kinetic Blast that deals 10d6 points of damage at will?Respectfully, a 20th-level kineticist will be dealing a LOT more damage than that. It would be more like several hundred damage each round.A 20th-level kineticist can completely ignore 10 points of burn, so I don't think that will be a problem.
6 infusion specialization
2 gather power/supercharge as a move action
1 composite specialization
1 metakinetic masterThat's enough to allow for an empowered composite blast with 7 burn worth of infusions on top of it for free EVERY SINGLE ROUND.
That's not even accounting for limited resources like the internal buffer, which can allow for even larger novas a couple of times a day.
If one of those infusions is kinetic blade or kinetic whip, then he can make a full attack for gads and gads of damage (though his free burn limit will be a little lower since he can't gather power in the same round).
I agree with you.
My point was that a Kinetic Blast is far more powerful a bloodline 1st-level power, and the latter has limited uses.
Clustered Shot drives me crazy. Once you have it you cluster shot every time you full attack, no penalty so why not. I house ruled a -2 to attack when using Clustered Shot.
|
I still hate the skill system, it is an improvement from 3.0/3.5 but needs works still
trained vs untrained makes no sense- yes it can be argued that somethings are hard to learn (the argument for the mechanic), but we are adventurers in a game, it can also be argued that we are likely to encounter the use of a skill and be curious as to how it works. My fighter is going to need to know how to pick a lock or tell if a trap is ahead. Doesn't have to be the best at it, but has to be able.
Class skills- this invention was a response to people picking up multi-classing to open up skills. I am in favor of a rank system where the limit is class level (like PF), you get 4x the skills at 1st level (like D&D), and class skill growth represents the training and effort you have put in to skills- no class links at all
The meta-skills need to be broken up, and skills per level adjusted accordingly. You should get a rising skill synergy bonus if you put points in the meta-category
DC's need to be harder, particularly in broken skills, like bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate. I feel like they are easier simply because people are likely to use Cha as a dump, because there are so many ways of altering or modifying the skills (Investigator, Inquisitor....)
I think rapid reload should be a skill to tone down ranged combatants- You have to reach a skill level to maintain accuracy (you attack with no penalties). No one that has ever fired a gun fast believes that any accuracy is maintained after the first shot or two, and firing five arrows out of a bow in six seconds accurately is a pain too.
|
|
Mutants and masterminds is pretty tough to screw up the balance on. It has ceilings on how far you can improve in any specific area. If balance is in question, I would say M&M is a thousand fold more balanced than a bottom up system like pathfinder.
It's okay. But in part that's because it's a pretty soft system - not a lot of crunch. The different skills etc are all used pretty much the same way - so they get a lot of their balance through symmetry.
But even then - the balance is far from perfect. As an easy example - many of the disadvantages are only that if your GM wants to punish you for taking them. Removable for an indestructible power saves a bunch of points - and basically the only has a disadvantage by GM fiat. (much less than a Pathfinder wizard's spellbook - and we've all been told that that's a non-issue unless the GM is a jerk)
Mutants and masterminds is pretty tough to screw up the balance on. It has ceilings on how far you can improve in any specific area. If balance is in question, I would say M&M is a thousand fold more balanced than a bottom up system like pathfinder.It's okay. But in part that's because it's a pretty soft system - not a lot of crunch. The different skills etc are all used pretty much the same way - so they get a lot of their balance through symmetry.
But even then - the balance is far from perfect. As an easy example - many of the disadvantages are only that if your GM wants to punish you for taking them. Removable for an indestructible power saves a bunch of points - and basically the only has a disadvantage by GM fiat. (much less than a Pathfinder wizard's spellbook - and we've all been told that that's a non-issue unless the GM is a jerk)
I won't even dispute this, though I think I could. The ultimate reality is that, if you're super good at finding ways to make powers efficient, then you end up with more powers as opposed to a power that sits outside the power curve. In that sense, the game is impossible to break the way you could pathfinder.
I agree. Swarms shouldn't be immune to weapon damage. Highly resistant, maybe, but not immune.How many times do you need to swing a sword at a swarm of locusts to kill them all? While the answer is some number that is less than infinity, it is so large that nobody would ever, ever do it. Anybody who did would give up long before he could even see a difference in the size of the locust swarm.
Sure, sure, his sword kills a few locusts. Keep it up long enough and he might kill hundreds of locusts before his arm is so dead-tired that he can't even lift it anymore. But the locust swarm will not even notice the loss, won't look smaller, won't do less damage to local crops, won't be affected in any way.
The dead locusts on the ground prove that they are, individually, NOT immune to the sword. But the essentially unaffected swarm has, literally, suffered no ill consequences for that swordsman's best efforts.
That's practically the definition of immunity.
The abstract combat system we use cannot effectively draw a line between "immunity" and "Millions of rounds of attacks would eventually eliminate the swarm but thousands will not". That degree of "highly resistant" just doesn't exist in this system, nor should it.
So swarms just use "immunity" because it's simpler than tracking millions of sword attacks.
I didn't say it wasn't realistic. You make a great point for why swarms work the way they do.
My point is that they are not fun. I don't have a better answer - while a high-level fighter with a magic sword probably should be able to hurt a swarm, I doubt you'd ever get a consensus on exactly how much.
I don't know what the right 'solution' here it.
Maybe its to get rid of the swarm mechanics and live with the fact that a swarm of killer bees or a carpet of rats might be better of treated as a hazard than a creature.
Maybe it's to give better monster design guidelines so that a swarm's CR can be better calculated, and their HP set in such a way that the party is more likely to have adequate answers.
Maybe it's to create more and better area-of-effect powers for martial characters, and possibly to insert some of them as default class abilities (or just combat rules) so that martials have options to contribute.
Anything but telling a 10th level character who isn't carrying 5 of every possible alchemical item that there is literally nothing useful he can do.
At certain point, when you remove, or change enough, you are not playing Pathfinder anymore.
I agree wholeheartedly, but the topic isn't what would you change, it's what subset do you dislike and why. I dislike classes, because I don't like my abilities prepackaged in bundles. There can be magic users that study that aren't wizards. There are people with no magic whatsoever that are strong willed.
Pigeonholing people into a class is limiting, and for many people it hurts suspension of disbelief when your class doesn't live up to your character, and that's why you get idiot GMs that won't let you play a ninja in a western setting, even though ninja is just a set of stealth and charisma powered abilities with a set of flavor text that happens to call it ki (and could just as easily be magic), or who think a barbarian must be a dirty uncivilized idiot even though it just is a package of melee abilities with an emotion fueled combat boost. With point buy abilities you can seperate the flavor from the crunch and write your OWN story why you can do what you do.
And yes, to change that would not be Pathfinder, and that's one reason my group changed to Savage Worlds...but PF still holds a place in my heart, and I would enjoy a similar system without classes for when I feel like more crunch...And M&M is the closest I can think of without classes.
SNIP
Reflavouring + archetypes + multiclassing + VCM + traits does all of that already though. And points based systems generally still have flavour changing mechanics... especially GURPS god. Same ability can cost ridiculously different amounts depending on how it's flavoured in GURPS.
Oh.
You are against forced flavor.
See, that requires little to no change.
You simply ignore the name of your class, feats, and abilities.
PCs don't know them.
Nothing stops you from being a LG Rogue, who follows a Code of Conduct, and calls him/herself a "Paladin".
I am against forced flavor. It is one reason I dislike classes.
I am also against prepackaged sets of abilities. Archetypes alleviate this some, but until they come up with every possible combination of ability sets possible, it isn't sufficient.
Reflavoring is nice...when players do that...but there's always one guy at every table who asks what class you are out of character and the proceeds to metagame and/or make in character assumptions.
VMC is just point buying without the points. You're trading feats for a feat worth of alternative abilities. Again, a step in the right direction like archetypes but again not covering all the bases.
I like the idea of classes to loosely guide your concept, not rigid barriers for your abilities.
A class should be an archetype - not in the Pathfinder use of the term, but in the literature use - a prototypical example that you MIGHT follow but you might not. Why are all wizards strong of will? I can see MOST being, but it doesn't have to be the case. Why are all fighters weak of will? Iron Will doesn't cut it with plus two, and you can be stubborn as hell without a lick of wisdom in you, so no...putting together a martial master with an indomitable mind and no common sense should be an option. These are just examples of a few mixtures I can think of, but the point remains; until every combination can be done, classes are subpar. And BBT what if I want sneak attack, divine grace, and a high BAB, but I'm totally willing to sacrifice spellcasting and trapfinding, as well as my hit points and armor proficiency? Is my rogue pally really an option then? How about a spontaneous nature caster that doesn't have a curse, but IS willing to accept the druid metal drawbacks. What about someone who's pretty good at everything but amazing at nothing? What about a bloody martial non-caster wildshaper for criminey's sake!?!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of other things I dislike is the extreme damage capabilities of the spell casters, and in Pathfinder, their "high" AC, particularly among the monsters.
In D&D the casters almost never let you get in range of a physical hit, because when you did they were almost always toast, even then it was a withdraw and defensive cast of teleport.
The spell casters should be more limited of the very high level spells that they can cast(like one or two of the 7th level + spells per day if you keep the Vancian system. After the 7th level the game balance is thrown off to the point where magic (or surviving a magical hit) takes over the campaign. As spells get stronger they should taper off the number of times that a spell of that level can be cast.
Or make spells of that extreme level similar to some epic spells in that dealing with that much energy causes damage to the caster that cannot be avoided
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to "shop" for items you want or need (ie prepare for an encounter your spent time researching) is not a bad thing.
As a player, if I had to hope and pray you were going to give me the items I wanted or needed... I'd cut out the middle man and play a video game honestly.
It just promotes frustration when half the party wants the same item and there is only one to be had. It isn't any fun and does nothing for the game besides promote crafting feats on the casters, which then removes choices for doing "other things" which is bad as well.
See, that's only true if a very specific subset of items must be generally available in order to meet the challenges the party will face.
A good GM makes sure that doesn't happen. Admittedly, the game for itself would recommend challenges assuming the party owns specific gear. But this isn't a video game. It's managed by someone who has to see and know and understand the party's capabilities at all times. The GM can adjust the challenges to fit the party.
Well then, I dislike Rule 0.
It gives crappy GMs justification for ignoring rules that are part of the basic assumptions that the game is written and balanced on, then forcing it down other people's throats in guise of a more "enjoyable" game or some such.
Required magic mart isn't RAW. You had better pray for Rule 0.Well then, I dislike Rule 0.
It gives crappy GMs justification to run a crappy game.
You mean the rules that state there is a 75% chance of having an item up to the amount listed on table 15-1? As well as other assorted items the GM should roll for?
They don't say every location has a "Magic-mart" shining sign and all, but they absolutely state items are very likely (3 out of 4 times) to be available if under the cost limit of any given location. The CRB state this is the case, page 460, purchasing magic items. That is unless the GM arbitrarily decided they don't like it for some reason. Or are running a low magic campaign (which is not the basic premise of high fantasy rules assumed under the campaign setting the game is written under).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike the tactical grid. Biggest time sink n the game.
|
It gives crappy GMs justification for ignoring rules that are part of the basic assumptions that the game is written and balanced on, then forcing it down other people's throats in guise of a more "enjoyable" game or some such.
You're absolutely right.
Forcing rules down people's throats is a terrible thing.
Or, you know, impugning the character of people who do things differently, especially when it's not your table.
|
|
You mean the rules that state there is a 75% chance of having an item up to the amount listed on table 15-1? As well as other assorted items the GM should roll for?
They don't say every location has a "Magic-mart" shining sign and all, but they absolutely state items are very likely (3 out of 4 times) to be available if under the cost limit of any given location. The CRB state this is the case, page 460, purchasing magic items. That is unless the GM arbitrarily decided they don't like it for some reason. Or are running a low magic campaign (which is not the basic premise of high fantasy rules assumed under the campaign setting the game is written under).
I'm curious.
Let's say you reached a town, tried to buy your magic item, and that 1 chance in 4 comes up, and it's not available.
Do you accept it and move on, or do you go from town to town, refusing to adventure until you find that item?
And what if the GM throws an encounter at you before you find the item anyway?
You mean the rules that state there is a 75% chance of having an item up to the amount listed on table 15-1? As well as other assorted items the GM should roll for?
They don't say every location has a "Magic-mart" shining sign and all, but they absolutely state items are very likely (3 out of 4 times) to be available if under the cost limit of any given location. The CRB state this is the case, page 460, purchasing magic items. That is unless the GM arbitrarily decided they don't like it for some reason. Or are running a low magic campaign (which is not the basic premise of high fantasy rules assumed under the campaign setting the game is written under).
I'm curious.
Let's say you reached a town, tried to buy your magic item, and that 1 chance in 4 comes up, and it's not available.
Do you accept it and move on, or do you go from town to town, refusing to adventure until you find that item?
And what if the GM throws an encounter at you before you find the item anyway?
I typically say "Cr@p" and keep the money saved up until the next time we can try (either by traveling on or by killing time until we can attempt again) if it is something that is important. If it is a luxury item that I can do without I may try something else that could fit the bill, typically potions or consumables that are cheap and won't dent the savings to the point I won't be able to afford the initial item when I can try again.
I play a game, part of it is "chance." The rules are typically stacked in the PC's favor, I have no problem rolling the dice and them coming up not in my favor. I actually have a notebook of characters who are dead because of crappy rolls and a GM who feels bad that I've lost so many characters to them. I'm not the type to cry over an unfortunate roll, I look at it like an unexpected challenge, which is part of I play the game in the first place.
It gives crappy GMs justification for ignoring rules that are part of the basic assumptions that the game is written and balanced on, then forcing it down other people's throats in guise of a more "enjoyable" game or some such.You're absolutely right.
Forcing rules down people's throats is a terrible thing.
Or, you know, impugning the character of people who do things differently, especially when it's not your table.
The internet is full of people who are looking to be insulted by the littlest things. For those people "If the shoe fits" and all that... It isn't my problem if they are looking to be offended.
You mean the rules that state there is a 75% chance of having an item up to the amount listed on table 15-1? As well as other assorted items the GM should roll for?
They don't say every location has a "Magic-mart" shining sign and all, but they absolutely state items are very likely (3 out of 4 times) to be available if under the cost limit of any given location. The CRB state this is the case, page 460, purchasing magic items. That is unless the GM arbitrarily decided they don't like it for some reason. Or are running a low magic campaign (which is not the basic premise of high fantasy rules assumed under the campaign setting the game is written under).
I'm curious.
Let's say you reached a town, tried to buy your magic item, and that 1 chance in 4 comes up, and it's not available.
Do you accept it and move on, or do you go from town to town, refusing to adventure until you find that item?
And what if the GM throws an encounter at you before you find the item anyway?
If that item is not readily available, and it is one I really want, then I will commission it and wait (or adventure) until it is ready.
|
|
You mean the rules that state there is a 75% chance of having an item up to the amount listed on table 15-1? As well as other assorted items the GM should roll for?
They don't say every location has a "Magic-mart" shining sign and all, but they absolutely state items are very likely (3 out of 4 times) to be available if under the cost limit of any given location. The CRB state this is the case, page 460, purchasing magic items. That is unless the GM arbitrarily decided they don't like it for some reason. Or are running a low magic campaign (which is not the basic premise of high fantasy rules assumed under the campaign setting the game is written under).
I'm curious.
Let's say you reached a town, tried to buy your magic item, and that 1 chance in 4 comes up, and it's not available.
Do you accept it and move on, or do you go from town to town, refusing to adventure until you find that item?
And what if the GM throws an encounter at you before you find the item anyway?
I typically say "Cr@p" and keep the money saved up until the next time we can try (either by traveling on or by killing time until we can attempt again) if it is something that is important. If it is a luxury item that I can do without I may try something else that could fit the bill, typically potions or consumables that are cheap and won't dent the savings to the point I won't be able to afford the initial item when I can try again.
I play a game, part of it is "chance." The rules are typically stacked in the PC's favor, I have no problem rolling the dice and them coming up not in my favor. I actually have a notebook of characters who are dead because of crappy rolls and a GM who feels bad that I've lost so many characters to them. I'm not the type to cry over an unfortunate roll, I look at it like an unexpected challenge, which is part of I play the game in the first place.
Except... you just said...
It just promotes frustration when half the party wants the same item and there is only one to be had. It isn't any fun and does nothing for the game besides promote crafting feats on the casters, which then removes choices for doing "other things" which is bad as well.
But when item availability has a chance associated with it, you do run into the situation, by RAW, that the item isn't available for everyone.
So, it sounds like you are complaining that the rules mean that a crap roll of the dice will mean you can't buy the thing you need. That's cool, that's what this thread is for.
Yeah, it's going to happen on occasion. And, as I said,
See, that's only true if a very specific subset of items must be generally available in order to meet the challenges the party will face.
A good GM makes sure that doesn't happen. Admittedly, the game for itself would recommend challenges assuming the party owns specific gear. But this isn't a video game. It's managed by someone who has to see and know and understand the party's capabilities at all times. The GM can adjust the challenges to fit the party.
The point being, a good GM needs to know what the PCs can handle, given that the roll of the dice may or may not limit their equipment, and adjust accordingly.
Honestly, I think we're pretty close in our positions.
|
|
I won't even dispute this, though I think I could. The ultimate reality is that, if you're super good at finding ways to make powers efficient, then you end up with more powers as opposed to a power that sits outside the power curve. In that sense, the game is impossible to break the way you could pathfinder.Mutants and masterminds is pretty tough to screw up the balance on. It has ceilings on how far you can improve in any specific area. If balance is in question, I would say M&M is a thousand fold more balanced than a bottom up system like pathfinder.It's okay. But in part that's because it's a pretty soft system - not a lot of crunch. The different skills etc are all used pretty much the same way - so they get a lot of their balance through symmetry.
But even then - the balance is far from perfect. As an easy example - many of the disadvantages are only that if your GM wants to punish you for taking them. Removable for an indestructible power saves a bunch of points - and basically the only has a disadvantage by GM fiat. (much less than a Pathfinder wizard's spellbook - and we've all been told that that's a non-issue unless the GM is a jerk)
I agree - as I said - the balance between powers in M&M is pretty good because of the symmetry of the different powers. Most of Pathfinder's 'broken' bits are at spots where the classes are the most asymmetrical.
Besides the fluff - most skills/powers in M&M work pretty much the same. It's the same reason that Chess & Go are well balanced - both sides are using identical tools. (Though Chess gives a slight edge to white.)
I find that symmetry as the method for balance is boring - especially in a co-op sort of game. *shrug* Could Pathfinder balance be better? Definitely. But going more symmetrical as the method for it seems to be the wrong route. (it sure didn't work for 4e)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, something I'm not fond of is the binary pass/fail system. If you roll higher the DC you win. If you roll lower, you lose.
What I think might be cool is a system where if you, say, roll 5 or less than the DC, you still accomplish the task. However, your victory comes at a cost. Like say, if you roll a 13 on a DC 15 stealth check. You remain undetected, but the guards are now more on guard because they saw something moving in the shadows. They think it was probably a rat, but they're more alert now.
Actually, something I'm not fond of is the binary pass/fail system. If you roll higher the DC you win. If you roll lower, you lose.
What I think might be cool is a system where if you, say, roll 5 or less than the DC, you still accomplish the task. However, your victory comes at a cost. Like say, if you roll a 13 on a DC 15 stealth check. You remain undetected, but the guards are now more on guard because they saw something moving in the shadows. They think it was probably a rat, but they're more alert now.
This makes more sense to me. I'd like it if combat were like that too, personally - one roll resolution where you do more damage depending on how much you beat the target's defense by.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that swarms are not fun.
I disagree.
As a player, I LOVE challenges that are, well, challenging. I like it that there are a few encounters out there that I can't beat just by rolling a d20 a few times. It's FUN to solve a problem.
You suggest that a swarm should be a hazard instead of a creature. I suggest that it's BOTH. I also suggest that it doesn't matter what label you put on it; call it what you want, it's still a challenge that can be defeated by dishing out enough elemental damage and cannot be defeated by hacking it with a sword - and once you've defeated it, you get XP. Knowing that, I don't care what the label is, the solution to overcome the challenge is the same: Be prepared with the right tools or run away and find some other way to get around it or get away from it or get to town to procure the right tools.
To me, as a player, that's fun. And yes, I know that other players, and evidently you're one of them, disagree. Can't please all the people all of the time.
Here's a suggestion: Take the swarm and multiply its HP by x10. Then multiply all applicable damage by x10 (that means x15 for AE elemental stuff). Then simply allow normal weapons to do normal damage. But maybe consider DR 5/Bludgeoning just for fun - I bet arrows and spears and daggers and swords are still somewhat ineffective against them no matter what you try.
That mechanic would make it so someone with a bludgeoning weapon could eventually swat enough of the swarm to death to kill it, if he's patient enough. Someone with piercing or slashing will need a lot longer. But AE elemental damage is still the I WIN button against a swarm.
Well then, I dislike Rule 0.
It gives crappy GMs justification for ignoring rules that are part of the basic assumptions that the game is written and balanced on, then forcing it down other people's throats in guise of a more "enjoyable" game or some such.
I made the original post and I do remove the 'magic mart' as it has been called from the game. It may be old school, but I am part of a tradition that says magic should be special. In my opinion, Pathfinder is only as balanced as the restraint of the players allows it to be. At higher levels it is almost impossible to keep balance and a custmised and extensive wardrobe 2k-16k magic items optimised for each player only makes this harder.
As a DM (and a player) I make a pitch to our players when I'm thinking of starting a campaign. It usually is a few pages of introduction giving a flavour and any unique circumstances/restricted classes/house rules. If the players want to give it a crack, I will happily invest the time and effort into DMing. If not, then I'm cool with that and will come up with a different pitch or someone else can DM. I don't try to force my house rules down people's throat, but at the same time I am entitled to enjoy the game as well.
A different DM in our group is running a campaign with magic mart and the other players in the group find it very uncomfortable and difficult because we dont know whether or not we are expected to 'order' magic items to try and solve challenges.
I think that Automatic Bonuses would be an ideal fit for you, Sword. That way, the only "real" magic items in the game are for utility purposes only.
Except that if he thinks +4 stat items are too strong, he's not going to be happy with PCs being entitled to those bonuses =P
Then he really is playing a very different game. ;)
Except... you just said......You mean the rules that state there is a 75% chance of having an item up to the amount listed on table 15-1? As well as other assorted items the GM should roll for?
They don't say every location has a "Magic-mart" shining sign and all, but they absolutely state items are very likely (3 out of 4 times) to be available if under the cost limit of any given location. The CRB state this is the case, page 460, purchasing magic items. That is unless the GM arbitrarily decided they don't like it for some reason. Or are running a low magic campaign (which is not the basic premise of high fantasy rules assumed under the campaign setting the game is written under).
I'm curious.
Let's say you reached a town, tried to buy your magic item, and that 1 chance in 4 comes up, and it's not available.
Do you accept it and move on, or do you go from town to town, refusing to adventure until you find that item?
And what if the GM throws an encounter at you before you find the item anyway?
But the rules don't say there is only one item, they say the PC can go looking and have a 75% chance of getting what they are looking for. If every character wants the same item, they each get their chance. But the end result is you have a better than average chance of getting anything you are interested it opposed to the GM going "in, no sorry
I typically say "Cr@p" and keep the money saved up until the next time we can try (either by traveling on or by killing time until we can attempt again) if it is something that is important. If it is a luxury item that I can do without I may try something else that could fit the bill, typically potions or consumables that are cheap and won't dent the savings to the point I won't be able to afford the initial item when I can try again.
I play a game, part of it is "chance." The rules are typically stacked in the PC's favor, I have no problem rolling the dice and them coming up not in my favor. I actually have a notebook of characters who are dead because of crappy rolls and a GM who feels bad that I've lost so many characters to them. I'm not the type to cry over an unfortunate roll, I look at it like an unexpected challenge, which is part of I play the game in the first place.
There is a HUGE difference between each character going looking for the item they want and getting a 75% chance to get it and the GM offering a single item when they feel like it. The rules don't say there is just a single item up for sale. They say when the PC goes looking for an item that can be bought under the location cap, there is a better than average chance of getting it. That means each character has a chance of getting the item. Maybe we all get it, maybe if the rolls are really crappy none of us do. But the possibility still exists versus GM whim.
I'm not complaining about anything regarding this, I FINE with it. Crappy rolls mean crappy results. My complaint was that people b!tch and moan about magic mart, when it is actually there to promote quality of life for the characters. A written rule stating you have a 75% to get any item you are interested in so you can build you character like you want is a GOOD thing. Having to wait 2 adventures (if ever) until you get that magic weapon of the type you specialized in and half your abilities are wasted? No thanks.
You asked what I would do, I told you what I would do. It wasn't even close to a complaint. It was my response to worst case scenario.