| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have done alot of theory-crafting/reading/musing on the subjects of balance, class tiers, and game design lately. The more I think about it all, the more convinced I am that the huge disparity between the different tiers of classes is a result of two things: spells and rule specificity.
-----
Spells stand out as the first game-breaking component for high tier character classes. Basically every tier 1-3 class has a variety of spells available to them, and in many cases this is where the power creep occurs. If spells were re-written to avoid the exponential jump in power/versatility that occurs over time, would this "fix" the disparity in class tiers?
I would have to include that summoned monsters are also directly connected to the spell-power-creep. Is there a good way to manage this and still allow summoning in a game without it resulting in a vastly more powerful/versatile character simply due the the fact that there are more actions and abilities allowed a character who can summon help as opposed to one who cannot?
-----
Rule specificity is a very hindering thing to non-spellcasters in my opinion. Where a 3rd level wizard can effectively climb any wall and move along any surface they want with the Spider Climb spell, a 3rd level Rogue with max ranks in all appropriate skills and feats to support the decision will never come close to the same results by that level. Is this because the Spider Climb spell is broken? I would say it isn't, though without magic I cannot argue that a "vanilla" mortal could do the same. However, in a game system this results in a vastly unfair advantage when other classes can easily outperform a character who chooses to approach a problem using skills, feats, combat maneuvers, etc...instead of magic spells.
Every skill, every feat, and every combat action has a set of rules that guides the adjudication of a character attempting an action. However, most of those rules are completely overpowered by a choice spell or two. Given the nature of a role playing game, we need those rules to make the game work. However, is there a way to make the rogue a comparable equal to the wizard without giving them magic?
If the rules remain as specific as they are, then the skill junkie/combat maneuver bruiser will spend vastly more character resources (skill points, feats, etc...) to accomplish a more narrow and inferior result. Could we loosen the reigns on these rules? What if we do a further skill collapse? If we allowed combat maneuver-support feats to be less specific and instead apply to most/all combat maneuvers? Would this even scratch the surface of the problem (it surely wouldn't make people suddenly choose to be rogues/fighters instead of wizards...)?
-----
Is the better approach to make each class weaker at (or incapable of doing) different things? What if a wizard could out-"climb" a rogue, but needed that rogue to do something else they couldn't do? In 3.5 the Trapfinding class feature at least made a Trapfinding class strongly recommended for a party. Today, a Cleric can find the traps better and the party ignores, avoids, or deliberately sets off the traps so that they are inconvenienced the least possible.
Should Pathfinder "2.0" or a homebrew attempt to deal with things in this manner, or is there a better way?
-----
I haven't even begun to talk about utterly broken (as in, don't work" character classes. Is this just poor design, or a lost cause? Does anyone have any good thoughts on this?
-----
Thanks for your thoughts and input. I would sure enjoy a helpful discussion on this topic. Who knows, maybe we can find a satisfying way to let a player make a fighter in the same party as a wizard and not feel so useless for the decision...
- DarkOne7141981
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm assuming you've heard of this little RPG game called D&D 4e, right?
So, I'm assuming you've heard of this little RPG game called D&D 4e, right?
I've been told its really fun and has a variety of options!
Anyways, yes you can balance, yes it can be fun. 3.x and PF aren't perfect though, but plenty of us apparently still play it.
Generally speaking, most classes get at most one feat-equivalent ability per level, plus the occasional rider. That breaks down completely for wizards and clerics, who get at least one ability each level worth more than most feats, and often much more. so, at a minimum, fighters should get something feat-equivalent every level, and wizards should get no more than one spell per level on average, plus the occasional bonus feat. Then, for higher level spells, you need to create more difficult casting requirements and vastly increase casting time for most of the spells that are flatly better than lower level equivalents.
A lot of balance is designed assuming four combat encounters per day.
If I wanted to balance the game that would be the very first thing I'd remove, personally. Makes things swingy imo. Swingy is hard to balance. Things should be balanced all the time, imo.
No, you can't balance a game system where some classes are based on the concept of people acting within real-world physics swinging pointy sticks, and other classes are based on the concept of people grabbing the raw cosmic powers of the universe and unleashing them by wiggling their fingers.
Furthermore, it's pointless to try. That's how we got 4e.
I really don't know what classes people are considering so much worse than Wizards. Wizards can do more in single actions a limited number of times per day.
I really don't know what classes people are considering so much worse than Wizards. Wizards can do more in single actions a limited number of times per day.
I'd imagine its the ones that don't use a single action to warp reality? Something about that makes you look a little less awesome for swinging a stick really well.
|
So, I'm assuming you've heard of this little RPG game called D&D 4e, right?
13th Age also aims to be more balanced than Pathfinder. For example, spell casters pretty soon cap out at numbers of sells they can cast, the 4 encounter per "day" is hardwired in etc. I haven't played it enough to have a really good feel for how balanced it s but it LOOKS fairly balanced.
Not to mention DndNext.
The basic track is to make spell chuckers less quadratic in power. As long as number, variety and power of spells ALL increase with level spellcasters and non spellcasters increase in power differently with level and the game can NOT be balanced across all levels
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it could be done. It would need some big changes to the systems, but not so much of a change that it makes the game completely different. A "patch" could work, but tabletop RPG can't do it as easily as electronic games can, so it's difficult and probably off the table.
And we'll always have the problem of fanboys complaining about anything that makes mundane character anything slightly beyond ordinary.
"The Cleric is summoning angels and the Wizard is creating a new demi-plane. Seems legit."
"Wait... Is that 20th level Fighter is swiming in full-plate?! BLASPHEMY! THAT'S UNREALISTIC! I DEMAND FLAWLESS REALISM IN MY GAME ABOUT GNOMES AND ELVES KILLING DRAGONS AND ZOMBIES!"
Why are so many people against the idea of high-level fantasy character being... You know... High level fantasy.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is definitely easier to balance a game when wizards can't summon a Meteor Swarm as a standard action. Can you imagine a movie where the party wizard summons an ultra-destructive rain of fire every six seconds until the enemies are dead? It's like keeping a half dozen attack helicopters in your backpack and using them like Pokemon.
It's like keeping a half dozen attack helicopters in your backpack and using them like Pokemon.
LOL! I'm favoriting your post just because I love this analogy! ^^
I really don't know what classes people are considering so much worse than Wizards. Wizards can do more in single actions a limited number of times per day.I'd imagine its the ones that don't use a single action to warp reality? Something about that makes you look a little less awesome for swinging a stick really well.
But over the course of a dozen rounds you will do similar damage outputs?
But over the course of a dozen rounds you will do similar damage outputs?
Who cares? I've got an undead army, I can watch the scene from my tower, and I've got the whole world in my hands. Almost literally. As do I have the princess they 'rescued' charmed and willing to further my goals, and I did put a few cursed items in the stash they took. If somehow they do manage to get to me, I can just teleport away or go to a pocket dimension and I have a number of things in their way. The game is much more than HP damage. That's just the evil overlord to, imagine all the problem solving skills regular casters have to contend with aye?
No, over the first few rounds I don't do as much hp damage. In my first round I throw out a dazing chain lightning. Which will put down anyone who fails the save. There are far worse things in combat you can do than HP damage, and those are the ones I tend to pick, personally.
But over the course of a dozen rounds you will do similar damage outputs?Who cares? I've got an undead army, I can watch the scene from my tower, and I've got the whole world in my hands. Almost literally. As do I have the princess they 'rescued' charmed and willing to further my goals, and I did put a few cursed items in the stash they took. If somehow they do manage to get to me, I can just teleport away or go to a pocket dimension and I have a number of things in their way. The game is much more than HP damage. That's just the evil overlord to, imagine all the problem solving skills regular casters have to contend with aye?
No, over the first few rounds I don't do as much hp damage. In my first round I throw out a dazing chain lightning. Which will put down anyone who fails the save. There are far worse things in combat you can do than HP damage, and those are the ones I tend to pick, personally.
Too bad your undead army that's out there on its own is getting picked apart piece, by piece. And just because the Princess is charmed doesn't mean that they won't break the charm, and just because you can teleport away doesn't mean that when the tricked out fighter hits you and reduces your d4 sized HP to zero in a single swing that you will be able to get away. . .
And just because a spell puts things down when they fail their save . . . when challenging things of the appropriate level shouldn't be exceptionally likely TO do so. . .
The out of combat stuff is handy-- but if you enjoyed doing that stuff you would just play a Wizard. I don't want it balanced out of my game to where I can't do anything cool?
But over the course of a dozen rounds you will do similar damage outputs?Who cares? I've got an undead army, I can watch the scene from my tower, and I've got the whole world in my hands. Almost literally. As do I have the princess they 'rescued' charmed and willing to further my goals, and I did put a few cursed items in the stash they took. If somehow they do manage to get to me, I can just teleport away or go to a pocket dimension and I have a number of things in their way. The game is much more than HP damage. That's just the evil overlord to, imagine all the problem solving skills regular casters have to contend with aye?
No, over the first few rounds I don't do as much hp damage. In my first round I throw out a dazing chain lightning. Which will put down anyone who fails the save. There are far worse things in combat you can do than HP damage, and those are the ones I tend to pick, personally.
Not to mention the more "mundane" powers that wizards get. With one spell I can give everyone in my party (including the creatures I just summoned) +1 to hit and an extra attack at highest bonus. At 5th level you just doubled the damage output of the entire party for 5 rounds with a standard action, plus you get to spend the next four rounds doing other stuff. So, the wizards damage output = half of the entire party + what I can figure out to do in four more rounds + the damage gained whenever a fighter type would have missed by 1.
Too bad your undead army that's out there on its own is getting picked apart piece, by piece. And just because the Princess is charmed doesn't mean that they won't break the charm, and just because you can teleport away doesn't mean that when the tricked out fighter hits you and reduces your d4 sized HP to zero in a single swing that you will be able to get away. . .
Too bad your martials have no weapons or armor and are trapped on pluto. Why? Because I said so. Its a believable circumstance. So accept it as reason.
But no, really, that doesn't add to the discussion.
Also! No d4 HPs in pathfinder, its D6's now. Several D6's and D8's got a boost to!
The out of combat stuff is handy-- but if you enjoyed doing that stuff you would just play a Wizard. I don't want it balanced out of my game to where I can't do anything cool?
I'd like to know what your getting at here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, imagine if in the spell compendium spell effects were listed as Cleric2/Bard2/Acrobatics 15
I actually thought about something similar to this the other day and think it would be really cool to put a list together for every single skill. Whether the threshold was 15, 20, 25, or 30 would depend on the skill and which spell it was emulating. I personally think that emulating the effects of the invisibility spell "at will" would be a bit too much to allow someone to do, even with a requirement of a total +20 into stealth. Now, on the other hand, it seems like a great idea to allow a character with a +20 bonus into stealth to emulate the effects of the invisibility spell (gaining only 1/2 of the +20 bonus to stealth) three times per day as a spell like ability, with an effective caster equal to his total stealth bonus divided by 4.
I think a list like this could really incentivize specialized skill builds and potentially allow non-casters to emulate some of the power of casters and with a limit of 3 times per day, it shouldn't become overpowered...
Too bad your undead army that's out there on its own is getting picked apart piece, by piece. And just because the Princess is charmed doesn't mean that they won't break the charm, and just because you can teleport away doesn't mean that when the tricked out fighter hits you and reduces your d4 sized HP to zero in a single swing that you will be able to get away. . .Too bad your martials have no weapons or armor and are trapped on pluto. Why? Because I said so. Its a believable circumstance. So accept it as reason.
But no, really, that doesn't add to the discussion.
Also! No d4 HPs in pathfinder, its D6's now. Several D6's and D8's got a boost to!
The out of combat stuff is handy-- but if you enjoyed doing that stuff you would just play a Wizard. I don't want it balanced out of my game to where I can't do anything cool?I'd like to know what your getting at here.
I apologize. I forgot. You're right-- the Wizard was balanced around being squishy. That alone makes them more unbalanced than I was thinking about.
As far as casting a spell that buffs the party. . . yes, the caster can do that. But really, arguing that because the caster can make the fighters fight +1 better is not a very strong argument for why they are unbalanced.
Too bad your undead army that's out there on its own is getting picked apart piece, by piece. And just because the Princess is charmed doesn't mean that they won't break the charm, and just because you can teleport away doesn't mean that when the tricked out fighter hits you and reduces your d4 sized HP to zero in a single swing that you will be able to get away. . .Too bad your martials have no weapons or armor and are trapped on pluto. Why? Because I said so. Its a believable circumstance. So accept it as reason.
But no, really, that doesn't add to the discussion.
Also! No d4 HPs in pathfinder, its D6's now. Several D6's and D8's got a boost to!
The out of combat stuff is handy-- but if you enjoyed doing that stuff you would just play a Wizard. I don't want it balanced out of my game to where I can't do anything cool?I'd like to know what your getting at here.I apologize. I forgot. You're right-- the Wizard was balanced around being squishy. That alone makes them more unbalanced than I was thinking about.
As far as casting a spell that buffs the party. . . yes, the caster can do that. But really, arguing that because the caster can make the fighters fight +1 better is not a very strong argument for why they are unbalanced.
That was my "mundane" example. The stupid unbalanced insane example (which is just as simple to accomplish, albeit at a higher level) is auto-win iniative, no possible supprise round. Mass suffocation, quickened mass suffocation three rounds in a row, fail any one of 18 saves that forces you to make and take no actions on your turn, fail any 3 of those 18 saves and die. Except, not just you, but everyone in your group.
Are we really discussing if the wizard is the most powerful class in the game?
How many times have you run a game to that level? And how many of the creatures you faced routinely failed Fortitude saves?
Sorry, but the Tarrasgue (the kind of challenge you should be fighting at that point) isn't going to just up and fail Fort saves and die.
You can kill the snot out of all the low levels you want though. . .
Tarrasque is CR25. Those spells become available at 17th level.
The reason so many players avoid high level play is precisely because magic becomes so game-breakingly powerful.
SoD are not even the most powerful thing casters can do. Just the most annoying. And boring.
If your fighting the tarrasque you aim for will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your fighting the tarrasque you aim for will.
Or become intangible and completely ignore it. Or teleport away. Or make your own Tarrasque simulacrum. Or Balor Simulacrum, who knows... So many absurd options, it's hard to pick just one...
And we haven't even touched the Wish-farm stuff yet.
:)
Why I considers casters to be far more powerful than non-casters.
IMHO, this is what must be done if PF hopes to have any semblance of balance:
- Nerfing/Removing OP spells (Honestly, this is a top priority!)
- Setting 4 + Int modifier as the minimum number of skill points to PC classes. Also, make skills more useful at higher level. Allow skills to do fantastic stuff when they are supposed to mirror fantastic characters.
- Remove SoL and SoD effects. Or, at the very least, make it so they are only SoL against weak opponents (at least 4 HD less than the caster).
- Scaling Feats instead of feat chains.
- Better Combat Maneuvers (e.g.: Only provoke when you miss, can be used against opponents of any size, don't require 2~3 feats just to be usable, etc.)
- CMB & CMD is a great system. Simple and intuitive. It just needs to be recalibrated so that CMD doesn't scale so much faster than everything else!
- Give characters a way to move and still make more than 1 attack. Doesn't have to be a full attack, but say... Up to 2 attacks for BAB +6 and up to 4 attacks for BAB +11. Half of these attacks must be provided by BAB, and the other half must be provided by something else (TWF, Haste, natural weapons, etc.)
- Reduce the Christmas tree effect by giving innate bonuses instead of requiring a bunch of obligatory items.
Those would be good tweaks that don't require a full rewrite, IMO. At least, not one that makes the game almost unrecognizable, such as 4th Ed.
If you want a game where its never worth it to be a magic user they are out there. . .
If you want a game where its never worth it to be a magic user they are out there. . .
How does buffing martial to be slightly less limited hurt any casters? None of my suggestions removes the casters' monopoly on teleport, raise dead, flight, invisibility, summoning, etc...
Does the removal of SoD and OP spells suddenly make casters "never worth" playing?
If you want a game where its never worth it to be a magic user they are out there. . .How does buffing martial to be slightly less limited hurt any casters? None of my suggestions removes the casters' monopoly on teleport, raise dead, flight, invisibility, summoning, etc...
It's reverse schadenfreude. "If they are better that means that I'm worse!" Hint: This isn't a 0 sum game.
If you want a game where its never worth it to be a magic user they are out there. . .How does buffing martial to be slightly less limited hurt any casters? None of my suggestions removes the casters' monopoly on teleport, raise dead, flight, invisibility, summoning, etc...
Does the removal of SoD and OP spells suddenly make casters "never worth" playing?
If you mean removing a few spells which are over powerful for their level then no. But I get the feeling you don't want wizards to ever be able to "bend the laws of reality" or to do "awesome magical stuff".
If my wizard can't do awesome stuff why am I playing a wizard?
And if this isn't a zero sum game, then how does a wizard character's capabilities reduce your fun? Why do we need to take away my awesome so you can feel better about your CHOICE to play something that's not a wizard?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... Just a thought, but fighter's don't do awesome mundane stuff. Ever.
Casters get greater power because it's an exhaustible supply, and theoretically the martial's sword arm will never tire (which is true, though his hit points will).
To balance you need to either give martials access to high fantasy feats of heroism a limited amount of times per day, or unlimit caster spellcasting (and the power of it).
Classes should be spent at about the same time as each other.
So... Just a thought, but fighter's don't do awesome mundane stuff. Ever.
They can. But I want my Wizard to do awesome MAGICAL stuff?
If I wanted to do awesome sword stuff I'd play a fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you mean removing a few spells which are over powerful for their level then no. But I get the feeling you don't want wizards to ever be able to "bend the laws of reality" or to do "awesome magical stuff".
If my wizard can't do awesome stuff why am I playing a wizard?
You misunderstand me. I want everyone to do awesome stuff. At least as awesome as their level dictates. There are broken spells in the game, those should be revised and then rebalanced or removed, but I don't want to nerf casters fto the ground.
I'm not complaining about Wizards flying, becoming invisible, teleporting and shooting fireballs, but things like Dazing Spell, Mass Suffocation, Simulacrum, etc have poorly designed mechanics. And SoD effect are simply boring, IMHO. Both for the caster and the target.e.g.: Here are some ideas for revised spells I have:
- Baleful Polymorph & Polymorph Any Object: Targets are only transformed if they fail both their saves or if they fail their Fortitude save and have at least 4 HD less than the caster has caster levels.
- Charm Person/Monster: Creatures afflicted by this spell no longer blindly obey the caster. Instead, they treat the character who cast the spell as if she were their best friend and personal hero. (e.g.: The target will do all it can to help you and view everything you say in the best possible light, but it won’t kill its children just because you said so. You’ll need Dominate Person/Monster for that. This is more about the "Charmed" condition than these specific spells).
- Confusion*: Confused character have a higher chance of acting normally. (This actually more of a nerf to the Confused condition. Basically, the character has a 50% chance of acting normally, instead of only 25%)
- Dominate Person/Monster: The spell lasts for a single day instead of 1 day per caster level.
- Glibness: Adds a bonus to Diplomacy and Bluff equal to your caster level (maximum +15).
- Flesh To Stone/Stone to Flesh: Targets are only petrified if they have at least 4 HD less than the caster has caster level. Otherwise, they are simply staggered for 1 round per caster level. Characters already staggered by this spell are petrified if fail their save against a second casting of Flesh To stone. Additionally, this spell can be used to return petrified enemies to normal, therefore removing the necessity of the Stone to Flesh spell.
- Simulacrum: Simulacrums cannot use spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities that duplicate spells with costly material components (such as Wish). Material component: A small body part of the copied creature, such as a lock of hair or scale, of the creature the simulacrum is supposed to copy.
These are just a quick fix I thought about a few days ago. They make these spells way more balanced without removing options from the casters.
And if this isn't a zero sum game, then how does a wizard character's capabilities reduce your fun? Why do we need to take away my awesome so you can feel better about your CHOICE to play something that's not a wizard?
Because being constantly overshadowed by other character is annoying and boring. Because one player is allowed to do all sorts of cool stuff and the other gets a +2 to his attack and/or damage.
I'm much more interested in buffing martials than nerfing casters, but ideally, they should meet somewhere in the middle. Casters could lose a few options and have no complaints about it. Martial desperately need more versatility.
So... Just a thought, but fighter's don't do awesome mundane stuff. Ever.They can. But I want my Wizard to do awesome MAGICAL stuff?
If I wanted to do awesome sword stuff I'd play a fighter.
What awesome sword stuff are you talking about?
Casters get greater power because it's an exhaustible supply, and theoretically the martial's sword arm will never tire (which is true, though his hit points will).
To balance you need to either give martials access to high fantasy feats of heroism a limited amount of times per day, or unlimit caster spellcasting (and the power of it).
Classes should be spent at about the same time as each other.
Lets not make everyone x/day and vancian please...
|
option 1)Wizards and the like are only "human" they are limited even if magic is not. So the easy answer is to change spells while keeping a wow factor to them, as magic should be cool.
option 2)the benefits to having str/dex/con should be apparent every adventuring day, pretty much all of the time. Mud, rain, dangerous forests, heat, cold, lots of climbing, swimming, riding.
Option 3)Make saves matter less and use physical skills in their place (adding skills per level to fighter and maybe a few other classes). for an example having Grease be avoided by acrobatics and only uses reflex if you don't have the skill or something (targeting a weapon would be slight of hand). I would add a few skills to PF for mundane classes, like stoic body to stop bleeding and sleep in heavy armor, continue fighting to the death and resist pain effects or stoic mind to fight compulsion and fear but still losing your turn, these things will show how awesome the physical body and mind really are.
Option 4) Or you could go the mutants and mastermind route and make everything point by, which works in their d20 system but is just very different from DnD/PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I constatly hear this endless mantra here on the boards that "my character should not be constantly overshadowed by another character." Of course this is usually in the context of some "martials suck and casters rule" thread.
But I have not seen this in my games. The overshadowing that is. Being "more powerful" does not automatically mean "overshadows others."
Some of the major powers that casters have which make them so powerful are things that make the martial characters shine in combat. Haste, enlarge, buffs, healing, debuffing the enemy, providing flanking for the martial character, enabling surprise, enabling martials to overcome tactical barriers, maneuvering the enemy into the martial's weapon reach, etc.
And that's just combat. Outside of combat the same general opportunities exist.
Yes, there are a limited number of offensive spells that casters can use, but frequently using them is a less viable tactic than making the martials better.
I would suggest that if martial PCs are being constantly overshadowed by the casters in the game, especially in combat that's a party that might benefit from some lessons in party synergy tactics.
So... Just a thought, but fighter's don't do awesome mundane stuff. Ever.They can. But I want my Wizard to do awesome MAGICAL stuff?
If I wanted to do awesome sword stuff I'd play a fighter.
What awesome sword stuff are you talking about?
Kurasawan action? Describing the swings? Running up the dragon's back, lassoing the griffin, using your sword to latch onto the megalodon shark and riding it to towards the bottom of the ocean as you kill it?
(All three have happened in games I've run or been in).
@Lemme-- the is NOT the way Charm Person works. It doesn't make them a mindless slave, it makes them treat you like a friend. If you couldn't ask your friend to do it IRL charm person isn't going to make the guy you charm do it necessarily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I constatly hear this endless mantra here on the boards that "my character should not be constantly overshadowed by another character." Of course this is usually in the context of some "martials suck and casters rule" thread.
But I have not seen this in my games. The overshadowing that is. Being "more powerful" does not automatically mean "overshadows others."
Some of the major powers that casters have which make them so powerful are things that make the martial characters shine in combat. Haste, enlarge, buffs, healing, debuffing the enemy, providing flanking for the martial character, enabling surprise, enabling martials to overcome tactical barriers, maneuvering the enemy into the martial's weapon reach, etc.
And that's just combat. Outside of combat the same general opportunities exist.
Yes, there are a limited number of offensive spells that casters can use, but frequently using them is a less viable tactic than making the martials better.
I would suggest that if martial PCs are being constantly overshadowed by the casters in the game, especially in combat that's a party that might benefit from some lessons in party synergy tactics.
Casters can overshadow martials in combat too, but out of combat is where the problem is truly obvious. Sure, most players are willing to simply play nice and not use the full extent of their character's ability and most GMs are willing to try and fix broken spells. The game is more fun that way.
I have a different take on this problem, though. If the rules themselves are balanced, the GM can use the time and effort he'd put on fixing balance problems on more interesting things, like creating a fun story, because he'd not have to worry about things like simulacrum wish-farm and 1-spell-knock-out options. The players would be able to push their characters to their limits without fear of stepping on his friends' toes. If they don't want to optimize, they don't have to, but if they want to do it, the game won't suffer for it.
Class balance is a good thing for many reasons, one of them is that not having to worry about huge disparities of power gives your more time to create your story instead of fixing flaws in the game rules.
Kurasawan action? Describing the swings? Running up the dragon's back, lassoing the griffin, using your sword to latch onto the megalodon shark and riding it to towards the bottom of the ocean as you kill it?
(All three have happened in games I've run or been in).
You realize those three things were allowed by a benevolent GM and not covered by the actual rules, right?
You realize those three things were allowed by a benevolent GM and not covered by the actual rules, right?Kurasawan action? Describing the swings? Running up the dragon's back, lassoing the griffin, using your sword to latch onto the megalodon shark and riding it to towards the bottom of the ocean as you kill it?
(All three have happened in games I've run or been in).
You're right. Somewhat. If a fighter makes an Acrobatics why can't he stand on the back of a powerful foe?
Because its a situation that isn't spelled out in black and white saying "this is the specific special sub-set of the rules for holding onto a much larger creature as it dives underwater" doesn't mean it can't be attempted.
I think this is where people are getting hung up on their "casters better" arguments. The spells have descriptions. They are evocative and get a lot more text devoted to how they accomplish what they do, whereas the fighter has to inject that creativity himself for it to be there.
As a fighter I can roll my d20 and hit AC X or I can "bring my longsword across overhead, sweat running down into my eyes as I scream the name of my lost love, intent on beheading the man who took her from me."
(There are no rules differences for that, but I can still do it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can not have class balance if you want appeal to wide audience of players. Some people want play classes that are high fantasy like wizards while others prefer low fantasy light fighter. If the classes were balanced you can only appeal to one or the other.
4E did this in an attempt balance the classes. It appealed some and not to others. All fine and good in you want cut your customer base in half. From a customer point of view I find a game that includes more rather than less is more appealing.
Kurasawan action? Describing the swings? Running up the dragon's back, lassoing the griffin, using your sword to latch onto the megalodon shark and riding it to towards the bottom of the ocean as you kill it?
(All three have happened in games I've run or been in).
So... No, they have no awesome sword abilities. They have whatever you make up. Which is great! But entirely unreliable and not really a part of class balance and shouldn't be used as an excuse for the class's poor mechanics/ build/ balance. They never actually learn to do awesome things with their sword.
Applying the same logic; I can say in my game they can jump to the moon and blow it up with a single swing. They're actually pretty OP. Everyone up to this point has been wrong about class balance because in my game they can blow up the moon.
As a fighter I can roll my d20 and hit AC X or I can "bring my longsword across overhead, sweat running down into my eyes as I scream the name of my lost love, intent on beheading the man who took her from me."
(There are no rules differences for that, but I can still do it.)
Yeah... They roll a D20 and do damage if they hit. That's how you talk about balance. Not making things up to make it look cooler.
Kurasawan action? Describing the swings? Running up the dragon's back, lassoing the griffin, using your sword to latch onto the megalodon shark and riding it to towards the bottom of the ocean as you kill it?
(All three have happened in games I've run or been in).
So... No, they have no awesome sword abilities. They have whatever you make up. Which is great! But entirely unreliable and not really a part of class balance and shouldn't be used as an excuse for the class's poor mechanics/ build/ balance. They never actually learn to do awesome things with their sword.
Applying the same logic; I can say in my game they can jump to the moon and blow it up with a single swing. They're actually pretty OP. Everyone up to this point has been wrong about class balance because in my game they can blow up the moon.
Yeah... They roll a D20 and do damage if they hit. That's how you talk about balance. Not making things up to make it look cooler.As a fighter I can roll my d20 and hit AC X or I can "bring my longsword across overhead, sweat running down into my eyes as I scream the name of my lost love, intent on beheading the man who took her from me."
(There are no rules differences for that, but I can still do it.)
You're right. So you cannot compare and attempt to discuss the balance between a Wizard casting a Charm person and a rogue whining and dining a new friend the old fashioned way.
The one thing you can directly compare for balance purposes is damage outputs and average damage outputs. Want to compare on those grounds?
We have found that up thru about 12th level the classes are balanced just fine. In fact out Fighter is far and away the most powerful PC in the party.
Now, most IRL playing is done level 1-12. Since there's no real balance issues until you get higher, I don;t really see a big problem.