Balancing all Classes to be of roughly equal tiers: Can it be done? How?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 278 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Nathanael Love wrote:
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.

No, it means the exact opposite really.

Nathanael Love wrote:
The one thing you can directly compare for balance purposes is damage outputs and average damage outputs. Want to compare on those grounds?

No, again, your missing the point.


MrSin wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
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.

No, it means the exact opposite really.

Nathanael Love wrote:
The one thing you can directly compare for balance purposes is damage outputs and average damage outputs. Want to compare on those grounds?
No, again, your missing the point.

Enlighten me then-- what exactly is "the point"?

What do you want to make fighters more balanced? You want fighters to be able to throw up magical walls and to be able to fly and magically charm people? You're either describing a Super Hero Genre RPG or you are describing a fighter with wizard-like abilities. . .

Do you want more "wizardy combat powers"? Maybe some fighter SoDs? Some fighter based bleeds and debuffs? Then you are describing 4th edition. . .

You want Wizards to just not get to do their cool wizard-stuff? You know who doesn't want that? The guy in your gaming group that likes to play a wizard-- you don't need to take his cheerios away so you can have yours.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The ability of the player is often more important than the class. A good player give you problems with most any class, and a lesser one will not. the tier argument assumes all of the players are equal, and that is something I have never seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
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.

No, it means the exact opposite really.

Nathanael Love wrote:
The one thing you can directly compare for balance purposes is damage outputs and average damage outputs. Want to compare on those grounds?
No, again, your missing the point.

Enlighten me then-- what exactly is "the point"?

What do you want to make fighters more balanced? You want fighters to be able to throw up magical walls and to be able to fly and magically charm people? You're either describing a Super Hero Genre RPG or you are describing a fighter with wizard-like abilities. . .

Do you want more "wizardy combat powers"? Maybe some fighter SoDs? Some fighter based bleeds and debuffs? Then you are describing 4th edition. . .

You want Wizards to just not get to do their cool wizard-stuff? You know who doesn't want that? The guy in your gaming group that likes to play a wizard-- you don't need to take his cheerios away so you can have yours.

Things like eliminate feat trees and make all feats scalable with level.

ie. WF/WS/GWF/GWS or the Combat Maneuver feats or the Vital Strike chain.

Combine Combat Maneuver Feats into "Power Attack" Group and the "Combat Expertise" group.

Eliminate power attack and combat expertise as prereqs to those feats.

Let Vital Strike stack with full-round actions that allow a single attack (ie charge and spring attack)

Inherent bonus structure to remove Christmas tree effect. (I think that a good place to start would be the 3.5 vow of poverty, but remove the poverty part and just give everyone the bonuses.)

Make massive damage rule part of the game instead of optional.

Remove the need to specialize in one weapon. Allow WF/WS ect. to apply to weapon groups instead of particular weapons.

Change weapon groups from "Heavy Blades", "Axes", ect. to "Two Handed Weapons", "One Handed Weapons", "Light Weapons", "Ranged Weapons."

Remove static bonus feats as prereqs to other feats. Dodge and Mobility should not be required for Spring Attack.

I'm sure I could think of more but this is a good representation of what I would like to see, off the the top of my head.


For Skills vs. Spells it kind of depends on what style of game I'm running.
If it's a low fantasy game I generally say Skills can't exceed real world limits, but at the same time in such games I also put limits on magic.

In high fantasy games I don't cap what skills can do. I take my cue from Kung Fu movies. If you want to walk on the tops of trees or skip across the lake on lily pads, It's an Acrobatics check, probably between 25 and 30 but if that's doable for you go right ahead.

There are also plenty of ways to balance something without nerfing it.

Charm Person makes the target friendly. It's not blind obedience, he just considers you a friend the same as if you had used Diplomacy to get him there. It doesn't change any of his pre-existing loyalties, he might even want to show his new friend to his boss, see if he can get him a job.

More importantly They remember. There is nothing in the spell that says when the spell wears off they think everything they did was natural or that they forget you were suddenly their best friend when they hated you only moments before. If they have the slightest bit of magical knowledge their attitude should instantly flip to hostile. And in a lot of places using charm on people is probably a crime.

By comparison the Rogue who wined and dined someone to Friendly doesn't have to worry about as much fallout and he probably has a better understanding to the person's personality so he can avoid unpredictable actions.

You Balance it by having consequences for taking the cheap and easy way of getting things done.

On damaging spells I kind of agree with what I've seen in D&D Next. a Fixed damage value at the spell's minimum level, and if you want it to do more damage you have to cast it with a higher level spell slot. Fireball cast as a 3rd level spell is 5d6 fire damage. regardless of if you are a 5th level caster or a 20th level caster. If you want to do more than 5d6 with it you have to cast it as a higher level spell.

Combine that with Metamagics and you actually get rid of some of the spell bloat. Delayed Fireball can be replaced with a Fireball using a higher level slot and the Delay Spell metamagic.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


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.

1/3rd of the game being unplayable because of balance isn't a problem?

Also, Adamantine Dragon, the fallacious argument you are making is called a False Dichtomy. You are claiming that there are only two types of balance, either everyone is the same or the game is wildly unbalanced.

This, of course, is not true with any number of examples in many genres of game.

The thing I have noticed about Pathfinder is about how obvious the power imbalances are, and how many people deny it or make irrelevant claims that do not change the end result. It is ok to admit that a game you like has flaws, I play games with many flaws and find them fun. I wish I could change them for the better, but most of the time that result is out of my hands.

I think the removal of some of the blatent things that full casters get would help quite a bit. Martial characters do damage well, but if they could be more flexible it would be great. Let pinnacles of strength and agility really be able to show it off, instead of being incredibly limited

EDIT: Final thoughts on the wizard, a lot of their spells are very "All or Nothing", which leads to them being super dominant generally, due to the ease and intuitiveness of pumping save dcs. It even starts at level 1, with colour spray. Instead of colour spray being a save or die, why not spells be changed to be more consistent or flexible? Grease, while incredibly powerful, isn't a save or die, and has useful secondary effects, which is great.

Colour spray is just a straight up save or die, which doesn't really lead to exciting gameplay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Go play 4e and enjoy your boring boring balanced game.
Simulationist games sacrifice balance for theme and internal consistency. In my book that's a good thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
true_shinken wrote:

Go play 4e and enjoy your boring boring balanced game.

Simulationist games sacrifice balance for theme and internal consistency. In my book that's a good thing.

There are a few ways this can go.

Either you're creating an experience where there are going to be problems with your cast being horribly skewed, which is not enjoyable to be on the lower end of.

Your Wizard not playing their super-genius level intelligence properly, and avoids the first problem by not actually knowing how to solve things.

You lose consistency by relying on judgement calls on what people can do in order to compensate, which results in a highly inconsistent story in which peoples ability varies from day to day with no real rhyme or reason.

All of which result in a far worse overall story. The only real way to create a well balanced and engaging narrative which is /also/ consistent is by balancing things in advance. Worth noting is that, despite popular opinion, balancing things, does not necessarily force a choice between everything being the same and everything being wildly out of balance. You can get close while retaining the same flair that each individual had (so long as that flair isn't "I can do everything almost as well as everyone else, if not better").

3.5 actually did a pretty good job with the Dread Necromancer, Beguiler and Warmage casters. Each had a strong, consistent theme about them that they could do extremely well, while being able to contribute, but not outright solve issues that lay outside of it. Looking back on it, it seems like a good option might be to either limit the number of schools that they can learn spells from (i.e. At character selection, select 2 schools of magic to gain access to, with a class feature that lets them gain limited access to spells from other schools [in case their concept is something that requires a specific combination]), or just axe the wizard/cleric/druid and replace them with similar classes with more limited spell lists.

On that note, I've always wondered why people want to admit to missing all but one part of the story. The simulationism/whatever other categories there are is a false classification designed to try and simplify the concept to be easier to grasp when it's important to look at the story that you make at the end of it all, and the experience that is had by those involved, of which each of these aspects is just one part of the final product.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Balance =/= 4e. Seriously, this is the lamest argument ever made; it's been disproven, with examples, multiple times, and people keep making it because they don't have a real argument and figure they can Godwin the topic by declaring "edition wars." It's pathetic.

Frank and K's "Tomes" rules boost martials in effectiveness to balance the tiers; those rules are well-balanced, and not remotely like 4e.

Szartany's "Ultimate Classes" rules selectively nerf casting classes instead to achieve balance. They're not remotely like 4e.

There are other examples as well.

Saying "balancing classes leads to 4e" is like saying "any ice cream other than chocolate is vanilla!" and willfully ignoring strawberry and pistachio and all the other flavors.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The local 4e groups would laugh their heads off if they saw this thread. 4e is not balanced.


BigDTBone wrote:


Make massive damage rule part of the game instead of optional.

That won't help since it will also affect PC's. It just gives them more chances to insta-die, and most casters have avoids to avoid contact since you can kill them if you can get to them anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


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.

1/3rd of the game being unplayable because of balance isn't a problem?

Also, Adamantine Dragon, the fallacious argument you are making is called a False Dichtomy. You are claiming that there are only two types of balance, either everyone is the same or the game is wildly unbalanced.

This, of course, is not true with any number of examples in many genres of game.

The thing I have noticed about Pathfinder is about how obvious the power imbalances are, and how many people deny it or make irrelevant claims that do not change the end result. It is ok to admit that a game you like has flaws, I play games with many flaws and find them fun. I wish I could change them for the better, but most of the time that result is out of my hands.

I think the removal of some of the blatent things that full casters get would help quite a bit. Martial characters do damage well, but if they could be more flexible it would be great. Let pinnacles of strength and agility really be able to show it off, instead of being incredibly limited

EDIT: Final thoughts on the wizard, a lot of their spells are very "All or Nothing", which leads to them being super dominant generally, due to the ease and intuitiveness of pumping save dcs. It even starts at level 1, with colour spray. Instead of colour spray being a save or die, why not spells be changed to be more consistent or flexible? Grease, while incredibly powerful, isn't a save or die, and has useful secondary effects, which is great.

Colour spray is just a straight up save or die, which doesn't really lead to exciting gameplay.

I think the game could have stopped with a power level equivalent to a level 15 character. I think a GM can control a game past that level, but it becomes more difficult. If you have players of varying skill level, it is much more difficult.


BigDTBone wrote:

Things like eliminate feat trees and make all feats scalable with level.

ie. WF/WS/GWF/GWS or the Combat Maneuver feats or the Vital Strike chain.

Combine Combat Maneuver Feats into "Power Attack" Group and the "Combat Expertise" group.

Eliminate power attack and combat expertise as prereqs to those feats.

Let Vital Strike stack with full-round actions that allow a single attack (ie charge and spring attack)

Inherent bonus structure to remove Christmas tree effect. (I think that a good place to start would be the 3.5 vow of poverty, but remove the poverty part and just give everyone the bonuses.)

Make massive damage rule part of the game instead of optional.

Remove the need to specialize in one weapon. Allow WF/WS ect. to apply to weapon groups instead of particular weapons....

If you eliminate feat trees and make all the feats auto-scale then you have to give Fighters something else. Otherwise Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger get everything Fighter gets plus their own class abilities.

All the Feat tree, and specializing in weapons were put in so that characters could differentiate themselves from each other and there were build options.

All martial characters are already proficient in all the weapons. They then only have to take a few feats for Specialization. You may think that this is a hassle-- that they should be able to just be the best with all the weapons, but again its there so there are options.

Think of the cool martial characters from fantasy novels-- they are typically all defined at least in part by their weapon choice. The knife-master, a dark elf sword user with his twin magical scimitars, King Arthur and Excaliber. That's in there so that all fighters don't feel exactly the same-- the spellcaster differentiate themselves with spell selection, martial characters with weapon selection.

But if feat trees are smashed, and I have to take one feat for the entire Cleave Tree and one feat for every kind of TWF then all the Fighters start to look basically the same. If I have so many feats, and it only takes one and then I can get all the extra attacks. . .

Anyone who actually played 3.5 with the Vow of Poverty will tell you it was a bad rule set. Killing monsters to bring home magic items is a big part of the "flavor" of this game. A LOT of players would have as adverse a reaction to changing that paradigm as did to the changes made for 4th edition.


Nathanael Love wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Things like eliminate feat trees and make all feats scalable with level.

ie. WF/WS/GWF/GWS or the Combat Maneuver feats or the Vital Strike chain.

Combine Combat Maneuver Feats into "Power Attack" Group and the "Combat Expertise" group.

Eliminate power attack and combat expertise as prereqs to those feats.

Let Vital Strike stack with full-round actions that allow a single attack (ie charge and spring attack)

Inherent bonus structure to remove Christmas tree effect. (I think that a good place to start would be the 3.5 vow of poverty, but remove the poverty part and just give everyone the bonuses.)

Make massive damage rule part of the game instead of optional.

Remove the need to specialize in one weapon. Allow WF/WS ect. to apply to weapon groups instead of particular weapons....

If you eliminate feat trees and make all the feats auto-scale then you have to give Fighters something else. Otherwise Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger get everything Fighter gets plus their own class abilities.

All the Feat tree, and specializing in weapons were put in so that characters could differentiate themselves from each other and there were build options.

All martial characters are already proficient in all the weapons. They then only have to take a few feats for Specialization. You may think that this is a hassle-- that they should be able to just be the best with all the weapons, but again its there so there are options.

Think of the cool martial characters from fantasy novels-- they are typically all defined at least in part by their weapon choice. The knife-master, a dark elf sword user with his twin magical scimitars, King Arthur and Excaliber. That's in there so that all fighters don't feel exactly the same-- the spellcaster differentiate themselves with spell selection, martial characters with weapon selection.

But if feat trees are smashed, and I have to take one feat for the entire Cleave Tree and one feat for every kind of TWF then all the Fighters start to...

1) I am beginning to seriously doubt you have ever played this game.

2) By removing feat trees and make them auto-scale you give people with feats MORE options. They are able to use feats more freely.
3) Making martial weapon groups more broad encourages the type of distinction you are talking about, not discourages it. How many Scimitar wielding magi are out there? If instead of being forced into using a scimitar to dervish they instead could use a one-handed slashing weapon then everyone one of them could have some distinct flavor.
3a) Isn't this a problem for spells in general? That out of 1000's of spells that the most popular 10/level get prepared 90% of the time?
4) You don't have to give fighters other class feature because you make feats better. They get feats, feats are better. It's actually INSANE that you think that by making feats better that you would have to boost the fighter, but by leaving feats alone the fighter is ok.


1. I have played this game and many like it for many years. Don't insult me because we have a difference of opinions on the direction the game should go and that effects a theoretical change would have.

2. If every feat that comes after cleave scales in with cleave I have removed several options from the game-- now a single feat gives them all.

If Improved Two weapon fighting auto-kicks in at a certain level again I have removed options.

Now the fighter can choose from BETTER options but there are less of them-- unless you simply design a great number of additional feat trees that are not currently in the game.

If all the feat chains scaled and fighter's entire set of class features were still just a ton of bonus feats then every fighter has ALL the feats-- which don't always benefit him because having the feats that benefit 2WF don't stack with the feats that benefit two handed fighting.

Meanwhile Barbarian still gets to rage, but he too gets all the feats of the one chain he wants to take.

3. But again, if Fighter gets to spend one feat and get all the swords, and one other feat and get all the axes-- how often will the fighter just have ALL the weapons?

Also-- there are so many scimitar wielding X and longsword wielding Y out there because many of the weapons on the table aren't worth using according to their stats.

3a. There are a few spells that get cast a lot. But my Necromancer I played last game plays very different than an enchanter I might play next game or an Evocation specialist someone else is playing because we have so many options and only get to choose a limited number of them. Several of those characters might/probably do give up schools of magic that the others specialize in-- I've given up necromancy plenty of times, but when I play a necromancer I feel comfortable giving up Evocation and Illusion if I want.

4. Again-- if barbarian gets better feats then he is better than the fighter. If fighter who has nigh limitless feats to get all the feats from the chain gets better feats he runs out of feats that will continue to stack together to gain more power. Sure he CAN be a two hander specialist who could also have the entire chain of 2WF-- but he can only fight with one or the other at the same time, not both.

Meanwhile Barbarian gets the better feats and can rage while using them and Paladin can Smite Evil while doing the same. And technically speaking unless you simply label them as "this or that only" Magus can get that benefit as well.


Why would he take TWF if he goes two handed weapon? Why not grab archery to become a switch hitter, improved initiative, feats that improve saves, improved combat maneuver feats etc... the notion that the fighter can run out of feats to take when there's literally hundreds of them )even if they are cut down to 1/3rd) is just absurd.

Hell, even if he runs out of the combat relevant ones (which he won't, but I'll humor you here), he can finally spend his non-combat feats on utility stuff like skill focuses and the like.


A few points:

1. To bring up 4e as an example of how the game is affected by attempts to pursue balance as a major design goal are entirely legitimate in any discussion of balance since 4e very publicly and deliberately stated that balance was one of their major design goals. That does not mean that they achieved balance, only that the attempt to achieve balance led to their design choices, choices which most PF players voted against with their pocketbooks. That also does not mean that there aren't other ways to achieve balance, but it is instructional in the discussion since other people are proposing exactly the sorts of things 4e attempted in this thread and others. Not every mention of another game system is an attempt to launch "edition wars." Sometimes it's just an attempt to bring actual DATA to the conversation. I like 4e. I prefer PF.

2. I sometimes think that for the great majority of people who complain about "balance" they seem mostly to mean "balance in combat." Pathfinder is much more balanced in combat than outside of combat, at least through the levels most people play the game. It is outside of combat where the caster classes tend to totally dominate the power curve with spells that provide options for travel, information gathering, manipulation of people, production of things, etc. This is even true in 4e although in 4e anyone can learn rituals (but most martials don't bother).

3. There are only two ways to "balance" martial classes against casting classes. One is to nerf spellcasters. The other is to give "martial"classes abilities that are so far beyond what can be accomplished by flesh and blood obeying the laws of physics that the result is just as much magic as the casters, and thus the "martial" classes simply become "casters" as well, they just don't call the abilities "spells." 4e actually did both of these things.

Paizo recognized that there is a large market of gamers who prefer their fantasy to have a disparity between martial and caster classes. I think they were surprised and pleased to learn that my well be the MAJORITY of gamers, but that was the market they went after and they won it. I doubt they are going to now say "Oh, I guess it's our turn to piss our market away just because a few loud voices cry about 'balance' now and then."


Please point me to where the Fighter or the Ranger does something impossible with their powers in 4e that they don't already do in PF.


LoneKnave wrote:
Please point me to where the Fighter or the Ranger does something impossible with their powers in 4e that they don't already do in PF.

Geebuz, seriously? I played a ranger in 4e. One of his daily powers was the ability to set up teleporting portals that anyone in the party could use.

That's just one example. But should be plenty.


LoneKnave wrote:
Please point me to where the Fighter or the Ranger does something impossible with their powers in 4e that they don't already do in PF.

I can't speak for fighters or rangers, its been forever since I've had the book, but I remember Barbarian's can perform Shoryuken. Punch so hard you make an energy blast in the shape of a giant dragon. That's something you definitely can't do with any martial in PF.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Also the fact that anyone can learn Rituals, which is 4e's out of combat magics.


LoneKnave wrote:

Why would he take TWF if he goes two handed weapon? Why not grab archery to become a switch hitter, improved initiative, feats that improve saves, improved combat maneuver feats etc... the notion that the fighter can run out of feats to take when there's literally hundreds of them )even if they are cut down to 1/3rd) is just absurd.

Hell, even if he runs out of the combat relevant ones (which he won't, but I'll humor you here), he can finally spend his non-combat feats on utility stuff like skill focuses and the like.

Its not taking the current feats and dividing them by 1/3rd-- the weapon specialization chain has 10 feats, the power attack chain has 9-- the over 100 Combat feats could end up cut down to a mere handful depending on the level of combining.

Its not unreasonable in this combining world that a Fighter who has roughly 15 feats at 15th level-- most of which have to be combat feats will run out of choices he actually want to use. And even in your example the fighter is not using Archery and 2WF simultaneously whereas the Barbarian with 2WF is still ALSO raging.


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Also the fact that anyone can learn Rituals, which is 4e's out of combat magics.

In all my time playing 4e (almost three years) the only martial PC I ever saw that learned to use rituals was my ranger, and I did it mostly just to see what the impact would be. No other martial character I ever saw made the effort or invested the feat. So while it is possible for martials to learn rituals, they almost never seem to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Geebuz, seriously? I played a ranger in 4e. One of his daily powers was the ability to set up teleporting portals that anyone in the party could use.

That's just one example. But should be plenty.

I thought we were talking in combat. Could you point me to that power btw? Sounds like something a horizon walker like path or destiny would get.

Quote:
I can't speak for fighters or rangers, its been forever since I've had the book, but I remember Barbarian's can perform Shoryuken. Punch so hard you make an energy blast in the shape of a giant dragon. That's something you definitely can't do with any martial in PF.

Barbarians are not martials though; they are primals. And in PF Barbarians can rage so hard they are covered in flames and grow dragon wings already anyway.

Quote:
Its not taking the current feats and dividing them by 1/3rd-- the weapon specialization chain has 10 feats, the power attack chain has 9-- the over 100 Combat feats could end up cut down to a mere handful depending on the level of combining.

Only the basic-improved-greater lines would be combined. The ones that iterate. Combining every single feat that has power attack as a prereq into one would be probably too much. You can't seriously think that was the intention.


LoneKnave wrote:
Only the basic-improved-greater lines would be combined. The ones that iterate. Combining every single feat that has power attack as a prereq into one would be probably too much. You can't seriously think that was the intention.

And how is that not awesome!?

And only later on in either game. At lower levels if I remember right barbarians are much more smashy smash than anything.


Didn't say it wasn't awesome I'm just saying Barbs in PF are not mundane anyway. They are, however, really, really awesome.


LoneKnave wrote:


Only the basic-improved-greater lines would be combined. The ones that iterate. Combining every single feat that has power attack as a prereq into one would be probably too much. You can't seriously think that was the intention.

I don't know what the intention was. I would have to see which feats you would be combining together? It could be done in a dozen different ways. You could combine only Weapon Focus and GWF-- or that could include Weapon Spec and GWS as well. Either way is a possibility.

It could be an interesting system for martials-- you just have to make sure that if Fighter's only class features are feats that there is still enough variety for it to be a compelling choice to be Fighter instead of Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin.


To be honest fighter is barely even a class atm.


Lone, the teleportation power of the ranger IS a combat power. It's used to do things like remove allies from danger, move into flanked positions etc.

No I have no desire to "link to it" for you. If you insist on believing that 4e martial characters don't gain powers that are essentially spells I really don't give a fig. As I have pointed out in numerous threads now, I'm totally over the "score rhetorical points to 'WIN' the thread" crap.


MrSin wrote:
To be honest fighter is barely even a class atm.

Why? Because he is already overshadowed by Barbarian? Fighter has always had a problem that he is just well. . . fighter. Its very generic and not flavorful at all, and in all 3.X/OGL games Fighter has just been essentially Feat Machine-- he doesn't get rage or anything special, he just gets more of what anyone can take.


Nathanael Love wrote:
MrSin wrote:
To be honest fighter is barely even a class atm.
Why?
Nathanael Love" wrote:
Fighter has always had a problem that he is just well. . . fighter. Its very generic and not flavorful at all, and in all 3.X/OGL games Fighter has just been essentially Feat Machine-- he doesn't get rage or anything special, he just gets more of what anyone can take.

Answered your own question I think.


One of the characters I played recently in PF was considered one of the most "flavorful" characters in our group in a while. He was a fighter. I rarely rely on class abilities to provide my character's "flavor". It can help, but I always try to make my characters memorable because of what they do in game, not according to the arbitrary limitations or abilities introduced by a class system I don't like anyway.


CWheezy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


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.

1/3rd of the game being unplayable because of balance isn't a problem?

Unplayable? Just because one class gets a edge over another? The warriors have a significant edge over the spellcasters levels 1-4.

And, of course the only time I have seen the spellcasters just plain take over is when they get 9th level spells. which is not until 17th level. Shapechange allows a caster to become a better tank than the tank. Yes, before that the Codzilla (who was seriously nerfed in PF) can tank just fine, but at the cost of LOTS of prep spells.

So yeah- levels 1-4 warriors rule, level 17-20 spellcasters rule. So? Where do you play more often? Since D20 came out I have got very very little playing at those highest levels. I have played a LOT at levels 1-4.

I don't see any issues with the warrior classes being not played. They are very popular and the Bbn and Pally can do some amazing stuff at higher levels.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
The warriors have a significant edge over the spellcasters levels 1-4.

I cast color spray on Dr. Deths post. Make a DC 15 will save. If you or everyone else in the cone fails they go down for the count.

Silver Crusade

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Paizo recognized that there is a large market of gamers who prefer their fantasy to have a disparity between martial and caster classes. I think they were surprised and pleased to learn that my well be the MAJORITY of gamers, but that was the market they went after and they won it. I doubt they are going to now say "Oh, I guess it's our turn to piss our market away just because a few loud voices cry about 'balance' now and then."

I for one would be all for a ruleset which allows all characers in a group to shine in a mid-fantasy setting. Balance doesn't mean boring ; but utter broken balance DOES make things suck for a lot of gaming groups.

It shouldn't be that revolutionary to ask for spellcasters who don't trample their own group's utility in a single round. You could very well have spellcasters be a potent addition to any party, slinging spells, rays, curses and protections all around the battlefield without totally owning the pace of the game.

The most simple way would be to fix the current spells themselves (nerf some, ban others and boost the rest) ; while granting martials some heroic deeds on their own based around skills and sheer badassness, reproducing (in a limited fashion) the effects of appropriate spells.


Maxx, I have no doubt that's what you would like. And there are others who would like the same thing. Many of those are playing 4e since 4e does something very similar to what you describe.

As for me, I just want a set of rules that enough of my gaming friends enjoy playing with to get together and have a game every other week or so. I long ago realized that the game is just an excuse for me to get together and exercise my imagination with my friends, and the only thing that actually matters is that there is a game system that enough of us all agree to play under that we can get together to play.

Pathfinder does that. No other game system does. If Pathfinder tries to "fix" their balance problems and end up doing something that alienates my friends the way that 4e did, we'll just keep playing the existing version of Pathfinder, just as we kept playing 3.5 when 4e came out.

Paizo has the example of 4e to look at when they sit down to discuss marketing strategy. I would be very, very, very surprised if Paizo decided to "fix" something that is demonstrably, powerfully, from a marketing and game community sense, NOT BROKEN.

But that doesn't mean you guys can't keep bringing up this balance thing as if Paizo is going to risk their entire corporate future on pursuing it to make you happy. Why would they when they have the lion's share of the market with what they have?


@Adamantine Dragon

That's fine, I've already realized it was a stupid question anyway considering rangers have divine spellcasting...


Elosandi wrote:
Looking back on it, it seems like a good option might be to either limit the number of schools that they can learn spells from (i.e. At character selection, select 2 schools of magic to gain access to, with a class feature that lets them gain limited access to spells from other schools [in case their concept is something that requires a specific combination]), or just axe the wizard/cleric/druid and replace them with similar classes with more limited spell lists.

The problem with the first approach is that it would require completely redoing how spells are broken up by school. Some schools are just much better than others. A wizard with only conjuration and transmutation wouldn't lose out on too much versatility while a wizard with divination and enchantment would be useless in a large number of situations.

I think this is a good idea, but in the current context of how the spell schools are done, it would require a lot of changes to work.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If feats are the only thing you are going to change, then feats should change FOR FIGHTERS.

Other classes already have feats tailored to their classes (rage feats, SA feats, FE feats, lay on hands feats).

The reason a fighter feels so vanilla is that they can all take his good stuff, and he can't take theirs.

Simply have feats auto-scale FOR FIGHTERS, and you get versatility and power for the class that needs it (okay, maybe rogues, too).

Weapon focus would give other classes +1, but would eventually give fighters the spec tree.

Improved Grab gives other classes +2, but for fighters auto scales up the chain with their BAB.

Iron Will and the other saves give others +2, but for a fighter improve by their Bravery, also.

Etc. You don't necessarily need to condense the feats down, you need to insure the fighter gets more out of them then other classes.

This gives fighters access to the top of the chain, and really makes those feats the equivalent of class abilities.

==Aelryinth


3.5 was actually extremely well balanced through the sheer variety of classes it ended up having. You could restrict the classes and still have a strong selection of classes to work with.

Warblades could exist quite happily alongside Factotums, Beguilers and Wilders for instance.

It was only when you either went completely unrestricted, player ability varied hugely, or decided to play core only that things became an issue.


Aelryinth wrote:
If feats are the only thing you are going to change, then feats should change FOR FIGHTERS.

Feat chains hurt everyone. Not just fighters.


MrSin wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
If feats are the only thing you are going to change, then feats should change FOR FIGHTERS.
Feat chains hurt everyone. Not just fighters.

Would you object to fighters being able to change a small number of their feats at the start of each day? Sort of like how the warblade was able to change the weapon that their weapon focus, specialisation, etc. feats applied to.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my own group, we play Pathfinder (although heavily patched there and there on a case by case basis and using a lot of houserules and archetypes supplements) because we find it to be the best game system currently available to sit there together for hours and have great laughs in a way that lets us use our brains in sooo many ways.

This doesn't mean the game couldn't be much better.
The worst game we ever had was the one where I finally played a wizard just for fun. When the rules lawyer plays an optimized wizard, even within the social contract of "don't be a jerk", it's not pretty.

D&D4 didn't fail "because it was all balanced DUH" ; it failed because :

- it sent to scrap the whole D&D feeling everyone loved to attract MMORPG players through WoW rip-off and exotism bloat
- it wasn't OGL, nor retrocompatible with any previous content, forcing you to cash again just to play in a way that was so obvious it was insulting
- it's designed almost as a flashy videogame, not a roleplaying game

I remain convinced that a 3.P.5 fixing the balance issues through light but efficient changes would keep the right flavor and be welcomed by consumers, the same way 3.5 was acclaimed over 3.0.


Aelryinth wrote:
If feats are the only thing you are going to change, then feats should change FOR FIGHTERS.

The underlying problem is that fighters don't have much going for them excepts lots of feats. If this means that feat chains have to stay to protect the fighter's niche, then the solution should be to change fighters, not to refuse to change feat chains.


Elosandi wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
If feats are the only thing you are going to change, then feats should change FOR FIGHTERS.
Feat chains hurt everyone. Not just fighters.
Would you object to fighters being able to change a small number of their feats at the start of each day? Sort of like how the warblade was able to change the weapon that their weapon focus, specialisation, etc. feats applied to.

No, not at all! I don't have a single problem with that. I'd allow it anytime a player ask myself. Its not really overpowered, unless of course having the feats in the first place was overpowered. Besides, it helps them have fun and make mistakes and experiment, so all's good aye.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the fighter were to be rewritten, I would say he should get class features that are exceptional/superhuman but not explicitly 'magical', instead extensions of the things in his existing role.

Things like a version of display of strength (the mythic ability), ability to ignore hardness or DR of constructs up to a certain level, holding breath for hours underwater/resistance/immunity to inhaled poisons (inspired by Beowulf fighting underwater).

Some sort of super attack that fatigues you maybe, at high levels (inflicting condition like stunned, not just "more damage").


(That's with the assumption that all other classes stay the same.

I actually think the PF classes are largely a bit too 'busy' with confusingly many features, more so than in 3.x D&D; I think that's maybe a bit intimidating to new players...)


KtA wrote:

If the fighter were to be rewritten, I would say he should get class features that are exceptional/superhuman but not explicitly 'magical', instead extensions of the things in his existing role.

Things like a version of display of strength (the mythic ability), ability to ignore hardness or DR of constructs up to a certain level, holding breath for hours underwater/resistance/immunity to inhaled poisons (inspired by Beowulf fighting underwater).

Some sort of super attack that fatigues you maybe, at high levels (inflicting condition like stunned, not just "more damage").

Ever seen tome of battle: Book of the nine swords? Its a book for 3.5 near the end of its life, had a class called the Warblade. That was his MO, being the badass normal with the ability to ignore DR/hardness, blindsight at moments, and a variety of other things.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
One of the characters I played recently in PF was considered one of the most "flavorful" characters in our group in a while. He was a fighter. I rarely rely on class abilities to provide my character's "flavor". It can help, but I always try to make my characters memorable because of what they do in game, not according to the arbitrary limitations or abilities introduced by a class system I don't like anyway.

While I agree with this I also find that having the mechanics back you up helps. It's very very hard to pull off cool things when the rules don't support what you do. You either rely on gm fiat or mercy.


Original post-writer here:

Ok, a couple of things have gone off in the thread that have been informative and interesting. The discussions of feats, collapsing them, and their different values to the martial classes brings up some interesting thoughts. The discussion of 4th edition's efforts to balance things was one of the ideas that sounded good at first and then went south very fast in my opinion.

What I am asking for is a discussion of the following things:

1. Rules that are under-utilized that should be used to better limit the higher-tier classes. Examples might include spellbook issues for wizards and such, spell limitations for divine casters based on divine fiat, utilizing spell components even for low-cost components, carefully reading casting times and adjudicating complicated spells strictly, etc...

2. Spells that do too much or are simply too powerful. I am not necessarily referring to combat spells, though they can be included. I am mostly trying to talk about the spells that present so many (more) options (than a spell should) and allow them to (inappropriately) fulfill rolls outside their usual niches. This could include class abilities like wildshape/transformative spells, summoning spells, divinations (?), game altering spells like Genesis, etc...

3. Buffing the severly handicapped classes. While the fighter is a great example of simple tier 4/5 class, the real disasters are the tier 6 classes and cases like the Rogue (where many people have simply stopped utilizing them entirely). Feel free to continue to discuss feat solutions, but let's fix the very flavorful but incapable classes too.

4. I am actually interested in designing serious revisions to classes, so if the subject is that the base class is too strong/weak, I want to consider fixes for that. While I realize you cannot ignore spells when considering the tier 1 classes, is the basic spell progression FUBARed? Should we take away bonus feats from the Wizard? Does anyone think the bloodlines for Sorcerors are too much? If so, what should we do to make those classes flavorful, well designed, balanced (?) classes?

Thanks for the continued discussions!

51 to 100 of 278 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Balancing all Classes to be of roughly equal tiers: Can it be done? How? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.