Lemmy, I don't disagree much with your comments here, and I can generally accept the exaggerations of human physical capabilities. After all, this isn't earth, what is the value of "g" on a PF world? Who knows?
But when the fighter can swing his sword so hard that he rips a portal in the fabric of reality, I'm going to call that magic.
If that bugs people, I really don't care. I suspect that the majority of gamers are closer to MY view on this than the balance-obsessed crowd. Which is why PF is winning the marketing battle right now.
I don't see that in their options (A Medium barbarian can select a camel or a horse. A Small barbarian can select a pony or a wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if she is at least 8th level), though it's mostly beside the point.
I don't see that in their options (A Medium barbarian can select a camel or a horse. A Small barbarian can select a pony or a wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if she is at least 8th level), though it's mostly beside the point.
It might have been erratad or I'm missing something. I seem to recall they could get a flying companion that could get large.
I believe the Beast Rider Cavalier could get a flying mount before, but now cannot.
But obviously the answer is to use Leadership to get a synthesist summoner mount. Working as intended.
Lemmy, I don't disagree much with your comments here, and I can generally accept the exaggerations of human physical capabilities. After all, this isn't earth, what is the value of "g" on a PF world? Who knows?
But when the fighter can swing his sword so hard that he rips a portal in the fabric of reality, I'm going to call that magic.
Oh, I'd rather fighter didn't do obviously magical stuff, but I wish mundane character eventually became capable of doing stuff that in theory would be possible to do in the real world if we had enough strength, agility, intelligence, training, etc... More like a Charles Atlas Spider-Man (impossibly fast, agile, resilient and strong. Extraordinarily aware of danger and really good at climbing) than Thor(who flies, controls the weather and shoots lightning).
At 15+ levels, wuxia stuff is appropriate because that's what being 15+ level means. In fact, this sort of ability increase verisimilitude, because they match the reality of the world the game simulates.
This is just my opinion, of course, but for me, the game would be much more fun if the priority of game design went something like this (from highest priority to lowest):
Fun > Viability > Balance > Verisimilitude > Realism
And then gave us the ability to change those at will. Now, realism is easy, because that's what levels do. PF being a high magic game, it reflects a world where the equivalent to real humans like us is a low-level character. Personally, I love the fact that I can go from a ordinary farmer to demi-god if I put enough effort.
If that bugs people, I really don't care. I suspect that the majority of gamers are closer to MY view on this than the balance-obsessed crowd. Which is why PF is winning the marketing battle right now.
That's debatable, but besides the point... 4ed biggest mistake was not attempting to make the game more balanced. It was the fact that it tried to achieve balance through the worst possible way: homogenization.
However, I've seen many different games (not only RPGs) who successfully made classes/character very well balanced without having to resort to everyone having the same abilities with different descriptions.
Of course, there is no such thing as perfect balance (or perfect anything, for that matter), but I'm confident PF could be much better balanced without losing its variety and versatility.
Lemmy, again I mostly agree with you, especially about 4e taking the homogenization route to balance. It is conceivable that a different approach might have had better success.
But I doubt it. I do think the majority of fantasy RPG gamers like wizards with awesome cosmic powers.
I do think the majority of fantasy RPG gamers like wizards with awesome cosmic powers.
So do I. I too want Wizards to have awesome cosmic powers. And Fighters to have awesome mundane powers.
I want characters to have all sorts of level-appropriate awesomeness. But I also want different characters with of similar level and similar optimization to have similar levels of awesomeness.
What I want is:
- Mundane characters who can do fantastic stuff when they reach the appropriate level.
- Revised spells.
My priority is buffing martials, not nerfing casters.
Caster classes are mostly fine. I'd even buff a few of them if, and only if, spell casting wasn't so much more powerful than everything else and, most importantly, if the overpowered spells were nerfed to be more balanced and less game-breaking.
In fact, if you go and read my collection of house rules (still a work in progress) you'll notice I change quite a few spells, but don't really nerf Wizards, Druids or Clerics... In fact, some of them even got some buffs. I didn't even remove Simulacrum, I simply made it so Wish-farming was impossible. I didn't remove Flesh to Stone, I simply changed it so that it's still very useful against CR-appropriate enemies, but not a SoD, except against mooks.
IMHO, without problematic spells, casters are okay. They will always be more versatile than mundanes, but the GM won't have to worry about they pulling random tricks from their asses and completely derailing the campaign with a standard action. Martial and Caster players alike will also be able to optimize as much as they want (or not optimize at all) without fear of becoming obsolete or making their friends feel like they are obsolete.
But I doubt it. I do think the majority of fantasy RPG gamers like wizards with awesome cosmic powers.
Yet Exalted still isn't big as D&D.
Exalted: the game where the sorcerers most basic attack is to summon a swarm of razor sharp obsidian butterflies and the most advanced martial artists punch you in the color yellow.
But I doubt it. I do think the majority of fantasy RPG gamers like wizards with awesome cosmic powers.Yet Exalted still isn't big as D&D.
Exalted: the game where the sorcerers most basic attack is to summon a swarm of razor sharp obsidian butterflies and the most advanced martial artists punch you in the color yellow.
Say what you want about exalted but the power balance was very much in favor of martials and they could do crazy awesome things. (I only ever played Solar and Lunar maybe spell users got crazy more powerful later, but that's two entire core rule book sized games where it was Fighters rule Wizards drool)
Lemmy, it sounds like your approach would be something I could probably live with. I doubt I could convince my fellow gamer group members to try it out though. They rejected 4e en masse.
I will admit to a certain amount of comfort in the traditional approach to mundane classes. It just doesn't feel like sword and sorcery to me when people are altering reality just by swinging a sword real, real hard. I'm not into anime and most of what I hear people on these boards calling "awesome!" comes across to me as "silly" or "cheesy". But that may just be an age thing. I admit that I am getting pretty close to qualifying for Paizo's senior citizen discount.
Ah well, I should just let you young whippersnappers decide what direction you want the game to go for the next 30 years. I suspect I won't be playing it that long. :)
Lemmy, it sounds like your approach would be something I could probably live with. I doubt I could convince my fellow gamer group members to try it out though. They rejected 4e en masse.
So did I... 4ed is not a bad game per se, it's just not the kind of game I want to play.
I will admit to a certain amount of comfort in the traditional approach to mundane classes. It just doesn't feel like sword and sorcery to me when people are altering reality just by swinging a sword real, real hard.
That's the thing, they're not altering reality. They are matching it. They get to kill giants with a toothbrush because that's part of their reality. Isn't it silly how a guy who is strong enough to bench-press the moon and just as skilled a warrior as Gorum himself still can't trip a giant, despite his CMB being thrice as high as the giant's CMD?
There is no law of physics saying you can't trip giants. It's just very, very difficult, but following RAW, it's impossible, and not because it's beyond the abilities of the character either, it's impossible because it goes against a notion of realism that makes no sense at all and is in fact completely unrealistic.Ah well, I should just let you young whippersnappers decide what direction you want the game to go for the next 30 years. I suspect I won't be playing it that long. :)
Wouldn't it be more fun if we all got to play the game however we like? Having the possibility of doing absurd stuff is not the same as having to do it. Doesn't matter if you're a 10 year-old gamer or a Gygax-era Grognard, the game has a character level for you, and systems like E6 allow you to have gritty adventures for as long as you want, while other players can play solely at 15~20th level if they want an wuxia/anime/superheroic adventure.
That's the beauty of having all sorts of scales of power, magic level, technology advancement, etc... Everyone can have their fun.
Say what you want about exalted but the power balance was very much in favor of martials and they could do crazy awesome things. (I only ever played Solar and Lunar maybe spell users got crazy more powerful later, but that's two entire core rule book sized games where it was Fighters rule Wizards drool)
But I doubt it. I do think the majority of fantasy RPG gamers like wizards with awesome cosmic powers.Yet Exalted still isn't big as D&D.
Exalted: the game where the sorcerers most basic attack is to summon a swarm of razor sharp obsidian butterflies and the most advanced martial artists punch you in the color yellow.
Ehhhhh yes and no.In Exalted 2nd ed. it was all about the silly paranoia combos where you perfect defended all the neat attacks and just swung with a grand daiklaive. Kind of made thigns rather boring.
However you could also be a sorcerer or martial artist or both while doing it. The only difference in that game was EXP costs for in/out of caste stuff.
|
Personally I would like to see fighters to pick from a number of stances (fighting styles), eventually ending up with three or four at 20th. Consider them to be self only buffs, with both offensive and defensive uses. Power down some of the crazier spells out there, make saving throws more viable, and make some necessary changes to rogue, monk, cavalier, and barbarian and call it a day. Do we even need a pathfinder 2e for this, couldn't Bulmahn and crew just release it as an optional rules add on. In fact I would prefer a series of rules revisions as opposed to a complete rules re-write (a pathfinder 2e).
Personally I would like to see fighters to pick from a number of stances (fighting styles), eventually ending up with three or four at 20th. Consider them to be self only buffs, with both offensive and defensive uses. Power down some of the crazier spells out there, make saving throws more viable, and make some necessary changes to rogue, monk, cavalier, and barbarian and call it a day. Do we even need a pathfinder 2e for this, couldn't Bulmahn and crew just release it as an optional rules add on. In fact I would prefer a series of rules revisions as opposed to a complete rules re-write (a pathfinder 2e).
You should really take a look at Kirthfinder. There is an entire section of feats for stances.
|
|
You should really take a look at Kirthfinder. There is an entire section of feats for stances.Personally I would like to see fighters to pick from a number of stances (fighting styles), eventually ending up with three or four at 20th. Consider them to be self only buffs, with both offensive and defensive uses. Power down some of the crazier spells out there, make saving throws more viable, and make some necessary changes to rogue, monk, cavalier, and barbarian and call it a day. Do we even need a pathfinder 2e for this, couldn't Bulmahn and crew just release it as an optional rules add on. In fact I would prefer a series of rules revisions as opposed to a complete rules re-write (a pathfinder 2e).
Honestly, I just don't like Kirthfinder.
Martials may not have a ton of options, but the option to beat the bloody piss out of your enemy is a damned good one.
Too bad everyone can full attack and nearly every martial does it the same way. There's only a slight difference between the way they play sometimes. You smite and full attack. You rage and full attack. You equip a weapon you have mastery with and full attack.
Unrelated to the above, I was thinking back to when I played WoW and how my warrior was completely mundane but had dozens of options and took down colossal beast regularly. I mean, my rotation was always the same, but at least my cooldowns and mobility abilities were cool and I had a few things to shrug off pain and conditions. I feel bad because I thought about WoW and compared it to dnd though...
I agree that the martial option of "full attack vs suck" is a major problem that drives towards similarity of builds and tactics. I'd prefer to see more options to do reasonable amounts of damage without full attacking. The idea that a martial character can make seven attacks if they full attack, but ONE attack if they don't is pretty silly if you think about it.
I agree that the martial option of "full attack vs suck" is a major problem that drives towards similarity of builds and tactics. I'd prefer to see more options to do reasonable amounts of damage without full attacking. The idea that a martial character can make seven attacks if they full attack, but ONE attack if they don't is pretty silly if you think about it.
I agree, its one of the reasons I liked tome of battle and am really interested to see dreamscared press' results of their pathfinder update of it.
I've never worshipped at the altar of game-balance, and since the vast majority of my play takes place at levels 2-12, its rarely an issue.
Having said that, there are indeed more balanced systems, the oft-mentioned 4e - which I enjoyed - being the most commonly mentioned. Whether that makes them better or worse is up for debate and is likely a matter of personal preference.
I agree that the martial option of "full attack vs suck" is a major problem that drives towards similarity of builds and tactics. I'd prefer to see more options to do reasonable amounts of damage without full attacking. The idea that a martial character can make seven attacks if they full attack, but ONE attack if they don't is pretty silly if you think about it.
I was told there was once a time where you did all your attacks in a round even if you moved. This may have been a thing of legend though.
I do think its pretty silly and not helping though.
Ok, so the dispute isn't about balance now, it is about flavour text? The fact is that when you say "Five foot, full attack, cluster shot, many shot, deadly aim, all at XYZ" is every bit as effective as anything else in the game. It may be repetitive and boring, but it isn't ineffective.
Actually, its not about flavor text. Its about the mechanics of full attacking. It is your option. It is sometimes your only option. Smite and rage on their own just augment your attacking. You hit things. You don't overcome, you just hit. You don't gain mobility, you hit. Get it? Its the fact you have that sole option and few others that hurts. I can describe my attacks in a number of ways but the number of solutions I carry to a problem is quiet small.
How many options you have does have an impact on balance. It is a potential strength, by which we measure capability. Just being able to full attack is great, killinating things is cool, but darn near everyone does it. With few exceptions, overcoming obstacles and challenges and being tactical isn't something that's built into your class as a martial.
Sin, I agree with the basic thrust of your post above, but I think you are being a bit over-dramatic. There are options that martials have beyond hitting things with sticks, and some of them are very tactical.
In my mind the problem isn't that martials completely lack options, it's that there is ONE option that is almost always vastly superior to any other option, and that option is "full attack".
I agree that the martial option of "full attack vs suck" is a major problem that drives towards similarity of builds and tactics. I'd prefer to see more options to do reasonable amounts of damage without full attacking. The idea that a martial character can make seven attacks if they full attack, but ONE attack if they don't is pretty silly if you think about it.
Yeah, the lack of mobility is my biggest problem with martial classes. I like the idea that you can make more attacks if you don't move, so that you have a real tactical choice to make during combat... "Should I attack first and deal less damage, or wait for the enemy to come to attack me but then deal more damage in retaliation?"
Unfortunately, that's not even close to being a real choice. If you ahve the option to full attack, that's what you'll do, because full attack are so much more powerful than a standard action attack.
I had an idea of characters being able to move and make more than 1 attack (but still less than during a full attack) as a full round action after they reach a certain BAB.
BAB +6: You can use a full round action to move up to your base speed and make 2 attacks, but at least one of these attacks must come from a source other than BAB. (e.g.: TWF, Haste, natural attacks, etc). These attacks use the same bonuses and are made in the order they would use during a full attack.
BAB +11: You can use a full round action to move up to your base speed and make 4 attacks, but at least 2 of these attacks must come from a source other than BAB. (e.g.: TWF, Haste, natural attacks, etc). These attacks use the same bonuses and are made in the order they would use during a full attack.
Not sure if it's very clear, though. I'd like suggestion of how to word it more clearly.
No one is saying martials are bad at doing damage, especially archers who don't find it arbitrarily harder to do damage at their full potential as they level up.
Casters can sure give them headaches though, with a spell like Fickle Winds. Casters don't have to play the AC game if they don't want to, that's just one of their options (and part of the reason Crane Wing is a step in the right direction).
Another thing I like about Legend is the abstraction of battlefield location, compared to PF (and ye olde DnD's) standing perfectly still when it's not your turn.
In PF, your reach is only as long as your sword arm, and the sword it holds. In Legend, your reach increases with BAB (IIRC), representing how you keep moving in combat around an anchor point that you spend most of your time in (sorta like Combat Patrol, sorta).
|
I'm not into anime and most of what I hear people on these boards calling "awesome!" comes across to me as "silly" or "cheesy". But that may just be an age thing. I admit that I am getting pretty close to qualifying for Paizo's senior citizen discount.
I'm a young gamer (started in 2006 with 3.5), but while I enjoy reading good mangas from time to time, I'll admit I'm not into anime at all and find most of the ideas suggested here pretty silly.
There already are other systems based on superheroes and anime to emulate this kind of gameplay... or even the Mythic ruleset by Paizo, which you can use right at 1st level if you want to.I wouldn't like the game to take this path as a way to balance higher levels... but that doesn't mean it would make me not play it either. I just think that's not the right approach. What I'd like to enjoy is a revised balance in spell lists (for example : haste should be a single target spell or have a concentration duration ; I would like to see abjuration spells as immediate actions ; and SoD/SoS spells just giving place to versatile debuffs and class abilities instead), and a way for martials to follow up at higher levels in more ways than just picking archery and be done with it.
The ninja does it for the rogue by granting great stealth and mobility and feels like what I would expect a Pathfinder 2.0 to be.
While the D&D4 comparison you made are valid, the situations are still not the same, and coming from Paizo, In my opinion the wisest way to do business would be to keep writting campaign settings, then in some years, start building the craze over Pathfinder's equivalent of D&D3's 3.5. A system easy to convert to and compatible with all existing campaigns, granting some native improvement to the rogue, fighter and monk, more versatility in weapons choice (I love Kirthfinder's idea of having a purpose and specific effects for EACH kind of weapon depending on your proficiency level, something I've been waiting for in eons while we still get 2-3 optimal choices and the remaining being crap, same thing for Kirthfinder's evolving feats), and overall some patches and fixes to the rules (stealth skill, feat taxes removed or granted an incentive to actually be picked, rogue talents...)
But maybe I'm getting it wrong and am just too used to play at mid levels. There is just a reason why Pathfinder Society and modules stop at a certain level though - stories then just aren't that interesting or fun for most gaming groups, because your farm boy is a demigod who still gets owned by the BBEG who will obviously teleport away at will while sending meteors. I don't mind casters having the flashy effects and incredible versatility ; but that doesn't mind the martials should be left behind without any way to counter these effects. Again there is a reason two of the fan favourite barbarian powers are superstition and spell sunder : high level spellcasters make the game feel at best boring, at worst unfair for martials.