Its my general understanding that the tier 1 classes in pathfinder is magic users, how do you think this will be done in pathfinder online ?
I can see the paladins as well be very powerfull with the smite against evil players, but what about the rest of the classes, will they be underpowered or will goblinworks balance this more so wont be same as pathfinder rpg ?
In pathfinder rpg it often happens people rank the classes in tiers based on power , in tier 1 its only magic users, and melee classes in bottom
Goblin Squad Member
|
The PFO system is actually breaking most of those abilities out into mix and match trainable skills. There are expected to be archetype bonuses for slotting only wizard skills or only fighter skills, but ultimately the game is going with a Build Your Own Class style.
That being said, I believe the balance between magic user and melee classes will not be 1 to 1. The idea is that different sets of abilities will be optimal for different scenarios. A wizard style build should be ideal for laying out area of effect damage and control abilities, whereas martial characters may excel in single-target or few-target combat.
Naturally, there will be awesome synergies in picking and choosing skills, so the archetype bonuses are meant to bring focused class-style builds into balance.
I'm sure they'll be balanced, and yes, as Lifedragn says, it's a classless mix and match system. One thing they haven't really talked about, is whether the "classes" will be mirrored, or whether they'll be rock, paper, scissors (meaning classes are strong against X, but weak against Y). I imagine it'll be RPS to an extent, as it is in D&D/Pathfinder, but we'll see...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for balance...
It should be noted that balancing all possible character builds is not an objective of the design team.
In fact, balancing most character builds isn't an objective of the design team.
...
Don't get too focused on figuring out how we'll balance every type of character against every other type of character. Because we're not going to do that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good to see you Imbicatus!
I see it as we all get character 'blanks' and a vast array of electable skills from the spectrum of possible skills. These possible skills will likely 'tier', or build off an earlier skill as a prerequisite.
Attribute variances only affect the XP (cost in time) expense of training, so that a skill that depends on strength will cost less XP to train the more attribute value you have invested your character's strength attribute.
So a high INT character will be able to train wizardly skills faster than someone who loaded up on strength, but there is nothing to say the strong character cannot train wizardly skills. It would just take more xp.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good to see you Imbicatus!
Thanks!
Attribute variances only affect the XP (cost in time) expense of training, so that a skill that depends on strength will cost less XP to train the more attribute value you have invested your character's strength attribute.So a high INT character will be able to train wizardly skills faster than someone who loaded up on strength, but there is nothing to say the strong character cannot train wizardly skills. It would just take more xp.
Forgive me if I've missed a blog post or a dev comment contradicting this, but I thought that everyone's attributes started at 10 + racial mods and grew organically as you trained skills that matched those attributes. Is that no longer true?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I thought that everyone's attributes started at 10 + racial mods and grew organically as you trained skills that matched those attributes. Is that no longer true?
I believe this is still true.
I expect Being was talking about a more mature character, where some level of variance had already kicked in. I also expect the phrase "loaded up on strength" means "trained up many Strength-based skills".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I thought that everyone's attributes started at 10 + racial mods and grew organically as you trained skills that matched those attributes. Is that no longer true?I believe this is still true.
I expect Being was talking about a more mature character, where some level of variance had already kicked in. I also expect the phrase "loaded up on strength" means "trained up many Strength-based skills".
Gotcha, thanks.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In the PnP, there are only four out of eleven core classes that don't get frank spellcasting: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, and Monk.
A party with none of those classes is very likely to get wiped; even though Paladins and Bards can cover some of the gaps, that isn't because of their spellcasting.
As for balance...
It should be noted that balancing all possible character builds is not an objective of the design team.
In fact, balancing most character builds isn't an objective of the design team.
...
Don't get too focused on figuring out how we'll balance every type of character against every other type of character. Because we're not going to do that.
Yea, it looks like they're going rock paper scissors. Nice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's going to be a lot more complex than rock/paper/scissors. For instance most bard builds will probably lose in a 1vs.1 against... almost anything but will be invaluable in a group.
Rather than making sure every role is perfectly equal in terms of "power" all they really need to do is make sure every provides at least one useful purpose that justifies playing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Balance" as an all encompassing philosophy is garbage.
Designing classes so that different classes excel under different circumstances is much smarter game design. In a way though, it still amounts to balance.
But a barbarian who doesn't know when or how a barbarian can be better than a wizard and allows the wizard to set the situation against the barbarian deserves to lose. A fighter who treats every enemy the same, or wants every enemy to be "equal" in all ways is going to ruin the game for everyone else.
Some classes should have the upper hand in group combat, others in single combat. Some should have the upper hand when they manage to pull of a surprise ambush, others should excel in facing the enemy directly. If the game design doesn't reflect that, you should take it as a direct personal insult: the game designers suggesting you want something that simplistic.