|
Are you saying DnD creators went out to the field and shot at things with bows and crossbows, measured it and said "yup, should kill kobold 6 out of 10, sounds like d10 dmg"?
Actually they did do a great deal of field testing according to SKR, and the damage values of crossbows and bows has already been tested many times.
Which is why I was asking for your "3-4 times as much damage" citation source.
|
I hope this is brilliant sarcasm.For instance, I'd like an option to buy more expensive crossbows with flat bonuses in the +1 to +5 range, or thereabouts.
Mighty crossbows are a common houserule.
Depends on how hard I hit you with the stick...
See now you need to define stick, because I think of the kind you throw for a dog to fetch.
Are you saying DnD creators went out to the field and shot at things with bows and crossbows, measured it and said "yup, should kill kobold 6 out of 10, sounds like d10 dmg"?
Actually they did do a great deal of field testing according to SKR, and the damage values of crossbows and bows has already been tested many times.
Which is why I was asking for your "3-4 times as much damage" citation source.
We should discuss the accuracy of crossbows reload time maybe?
Anyways, I thought this thread was about whether some people of interest have weighed in, not about the particulars of what they said or accuracy of their statements. Probably safer to be impartial.
Depends on how hard I hit you with the stick...See now you need to define stick, because I think of the kind you throw for a dog to fetch.
I was thinking oversized ballista bolt. Did you think I was going to fight fair when you said stick fight?
Edit: that bro who brought the six inch stick is a sucker I'm thinkin'.
Like this.?We should discuss the accuracy of crossbows reload time maybe?
So... Is that like... Proof you can't fire a crossbow 5 times in six seconds or what? Especially a heavy crossbow?
It also wasn't the important part of what I said.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope this is brilliant sarcasm.For instance, I'd like an option to buy more expensive crossbows with flat bonuses in the +1 to +5 range, or thereabouts.
Mighty crossbows are a common houserule.
Depends on how hard I hit you with the stick...See now you need to define stick, because I think of the kind you throw for a dog to fetch.
|
|
Like this.?We should discuss the accuracy of crossbows reload time maybe?
So... Is that like... Proof you can't fire a crossbow 5 times in six seconds or what? Especially a heavy crossbow?
It also wasn't the important part of what I said.
Because it shows it was slower?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the Paizo staff think people are doing it--that is, playing the game-wrong. But that the perspectives expressed on the internet comes from a loud minority who are looking at a very narrow set of circumstances, play styles, and theories that do not actually prove themselves true at the majority of game tables. Where the "wrongness" is is the assumption that everyone is having exactly the same experience in game. Looking at game design and balance is sticky and complex and involves a rich spectrum of play styles, which the theorycrafters often sadly ignore, so it makes it hard to discuss it with them. More to the point, that in RPGs, there is no perfect mechanical system that works the same way for everyone, and so when discussing balance you have to look at how the game is played, not just how it is written (ETA: even if looking at how it is written and evaluating that is still important).
At least, that's my sense of it. Much of my own perspective sneaked in there, though, I admit.
Great post.
And they do have some ideas that some classes need "something". I have had a Dev tell me that yes, "cool new rogue talents are on the to-do list".
From my experience, the disparity occurs twice: levels 1-4 where martial types rule, and levels 17-20 where spellcasters are in charge. This does not upset me. And, most APs' end before 9th level spells are common, so it really isn;t an issue in those campaigns.
I have made a poll and read many posts and it seems those screaming the loudest play a different style. The do rocket tag, which encounters lasting only 2 rounds or so, then heal with wands (if needed) with resting every two encounters or so. If you run hyper-optimized characters, with every magic item, high point buy, dumping like crazy, and every sourcebook VS standard vanilla AP encounters, yes, this is to be expected. If you allow spellcasters to Nova and rest, then yes, they will have a advantage even earlier.
I am not condemning this playstyle. But it's not what the Devs counted on when designing the Ap's. Most folks don't play like that, altho it is apparently moderately common. But you can't expect them to re-write the entire game to support a minority playstyle.
Guys there are already a hundred threads on crossbows. let us not make this the 101st, OK?
|
|
Are you saying DnD creators went out to the field and shot at things with bows and crossbows, measured it and said "yup, should kill kobold 6 out of 10, sounds like d10 dmg"?
Actually they did do a great deal of field testing according to SKR, and the damage values of crossbows and bows has already been tested many times.
Which is why I was asking for your "3-4 times as much damage" citation source.
What citation do you want? I do not know any studies that compare how much HP damage crossbows do compared longbows. Do you? You seem to be an expert on this.
The fact that a heavy crossbow can pack twice as much force as a +4STR composite longbow means that it should do at least as much damage, no? Am I wrong here?
Can it? Citation please?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the Paizo staff think people are doing it--that is, playing the game-wrong. But that the perspectives expressed on the internet comes from a loud minority who are looking at a very narrow set of circumstances, play styles, and theories that do not actually prove themselves true at the majority of game tables. Where the "wrongness" is is the assumption that everyone is having exactly the same experience in game. Looking at game design and balance is sticky and complex and involves a rich spectrum of play styles, which the theorycrafters often sadly ignore, so it makes it hard to discuss it with them. More to the point, that in RPGs, there is no perfect mechanical system that works the same way for everyone, and so when discussing balance you have to look at how the game is played, not just how it is written (ETA: even if looking at how it is written and evaluating that is still important).
At least, that's my sense of it. Much of my own perspective sneaked in there, though, I admit.
Great post.
And they do have some ideas that some classes need "something". I have had a Dev tell me that yes, "cool new rogue talents are on the to-do list".
From my experience, the disparity occurs twice: levels 1-4 where martial types rule, and levels 17-20 where spellcasters are in charge. This does not upset me. And, most APs' end before 9th level spells are common, so it really isn;t an issue in those campaigns.
I have made a poll and read many posts and it seems those screaming the loudest play a different style. The do rocket tag, which encounters lasting only 2 rounds or so, then heal with wands (if needed) with resting every two encounters or so. If you run hyper-optimized characters, with every magic item, high point buy, dumping like crazy, and every sourcebook VS standard vanilla AP encounters, yes, this is to be expected. If you allow spellcasters to Nova and rest, then yes, they will have a advantage even earlier.
I am not condemning this playstyle. But it's not what the Devs counted on when designing the Ap's. Most folks don't play like that, altho it is apparently moderately common. But you can't expect them to re-write the entire game to support a minority playstyle.
Guys there are already a hundred threads on crossbows. let us not make this the 101st, OK?
I agree with both of these posts, especially the part about the 101st crossbow thread. I mean, Paizo gave you a tool kit. If you aren't happy with parts of it, you can easily house rule or not use the parts you don't like. It seems unlikely that the devs are going to create a game or ruling that is going to make every one 100% happy. They did the heavy lifting on the system, and now you can make the alterations to make it fit you and yours.
It seems unlikely that the devs are going to create a game or ruling that is going to make every one 100% happy.
I think you can always try to do the best you can though. In a lot of ways its not even a tool kit, its actually got some really strict criteria in some places that could be ironed out or things tend to explode, such as encounter per day design or WBL.
I don't think the OP was asking for any of this information though...
It seems unlikely that the devs are going to create a game or ruling that is going to make every one 100% happy.I think you can always try to do the best you can though. In a lot of ways its not even a tool kit, its actually got some really strict criteria in some places that could be ironed out or things tend to explode, such as encounter per day design or WBL.
I don't think the OP was asking for any of this information though...
Ah, I think that doing the best you can is a worthy goal; that said, I think that the devs and the company are doing quite a good job. Some people (maybe just on the boards?) are unhappy with some things they believe are unbalanced, broken, or not how they want them.
It would be a perfect world where they could take the time to go back over everything and listen to all the complaints/discussions and make changes where they are needed. But that time comes from making new products, new adventures, and so on. Is addressing some of what the arguments are worth the time and energy is the real question.
As for what the OP was asking for .. well. I don't think they wanted 30 or so posts about bows either. But this is part of it all, the discussion of whether the balance issue exists and how bad it is if so.
Ah, I think that doing the best you can is a worthy goal; that said, I think that the devs and the company are doing quite a good job. Some people (maybe just on the boards?) are unhappy with some things they believe are unbalanced, broken, or not how they want them.
YMMV of course. Some people don't even buy pathfinder, some people buy White Wolf games like Exalted, or Big Eyes Small Mouth, or Savage Lands, or Gurps! Some people have sworn of Pathfinder altogether! Though we all have our reasons and what we think can be done or should be done, and we all have our own personal reactions.
It would be a perfect world where they could take the time to go back over everything and listen to all the complaints/discussions and make changes where they are needed. But that time comes from making new products, new adventures, and so on. Is addressing some of what the arguments are worth the time and energy is the real question.
Actually things like martial-caster disparity or alignment or the paladin code came up in beta... Among other things. I'm not particularly inclined to discuss anything about that since I'm completely uninvolved, but many of those things existed in the past edition and were concerns of people before pathfinder released its core rule book.
Ah, I think that doing the best you can is a worthy goal; that said, I think that the devs and the company are doing quite a good job. Some people (maybe just on the boards?) are unhappy with some things they believe are unbalanced, broken, or not how they want them.YMMV of course. Some people don't even buy pathfinder, some people buy White Wolf games like Exalted, or Big Eyes Small Mouth, or Savage Lands, or Gurps! Some people have sworn of Pathfinder altogether! Though we all have our reasons and what we think can be done or should be done, and we all have our own personal reactions.
Of course. But then, those games have boards with people complaining about them as well. I think gamers would be very unhappy if the perfect game existed -- what would we have to discuss!
It would be a perfect world where they could take the time to go back over everything and listen to all the complaints/discussions and make changes where they are needed. But that time comes from making new products, new adventures, and so on. Is addressing some of what the arguments are worth the time and energy is the real question.
Actually things like martial-caster disparity or alignment or the paladin code came up in beta... Among other things. I'm not particularly inclined to discuss anything about that since I'm completely uninvolved, but many of those things existed in the past edition and were concerns of people before pathfinder released its core rule book.
Right. Some of this has been going on forever and a day. Like you, I try to stay out of most of these disagreements -- after the first thirty or so of the threads, I lost my taste. But yes, there have been arguments about fighters being worse than mages since I started playing in 78 or so. It's like an old friend. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course. But then, those games have boards with people complaining about them as well. I think gamers would be very unhappy if the perfect game existed -- what would we have to discuss!
I'm sure we'd find something. We could umm... Argue about the color of the cover? I wanted it to come with more blue. I mean, I'm color blind, but it still could use more blue.
The internet finds a way, I'm sure!
The crossbow replaced the bow because it was a simple weapon that required a lot less training and skill to use. A skilled archer was actually very valuable, but not as efficient.
As the saying goes, "If you want a good longbowman, start with his grandfather."
If I have a stick and a gun, the stick is less good than the gun. But if I hit you with the stick, it will still hurt you.And then I shoot you and wonder what kind of idiot brings a stick to a gunfight.
That's very clever. But everybody bringing a gun isn't medieval fantasy. It's a Quentin Tarantino flick.
In fantasy, cavemen carry clubs, knights carry swords, gnolls like flails, the men manning the wall prefer crossbows, and pirates like flintlocks, etc.
Ciretose is right, of course. The game is full of variety because fantasy is full of variety. Various combatants come with various options depending on their individual cultures, styles, tastes and origins. The game can try to balance that to some extent, but just giving everybody a flat 3d6 damage across the board would not be a fix. It would cause for the complainers to complain about something else.
Not every weapon is meant to be an optimized insta-killer. The game reflects the variety inherent in the genre.
That's very clever. But everybody bringing a gun isn't medieval fantasy. It's a Quentin Tarantino flick.If I have a stick and a gun, the stick is less good than the gun. But if I hit you with the stick, it will still hurt you.And then I shoot you and wonder what kind of idiot brings a stick to a gunfight.
I'm not familiar with the tarintino flick in question... I do know that Alkenstar exist in pathfinder though.
Maybe we'd discuss what a great game we had where everyone contributed equally at the table and nobody felt like they were less useful because of a stylistic choice they made.
We have that! I'm a lot more convinced that despite the gaming system, it is how you and your group are contributing at the table -- be it via combat, skills, role play, right place right time or just bringing the chips -- rather than an argument that the crossbow is better or worse than the longbow, or that the rogue isn't as cool as the fighter which is overshadowed by the wizard.
But we don't have these problems at our tables, so I cannot comment on others.
Maybe we'd discuss what a great game we had where everyone contributed equally at the table and nobody felt like they were less useful because of a stylistic choice they made.We have that! I'm a lot more convinced that despite the gaming system, it is how you and your group are contributing at the table -- be it via combat, skills, role play, right place right time or just bringing the chips -- rather than an argument that the crossbow is better or worse than the longbow, or that the rogue isn't as cool as the fighter which is overshadowed by the wizard.
But we don't have these problems at our tables, so I cannot comment on others.
Well, to be fair whether crossbows vs. longbow matters and whether crossbows are viable compared to crossbows are different questions. Some guys would be fine playing a commoner next to a level 20 wizard, others would really like to stay on the same page. It can really suck when you have to invest a whole lot and still be worse than the guy to the right to you, and really that's on the system but whether you like it or not isn't so much. At least with pathfinder, other games might give you a reason to pick one style over another, such as special abilities or unique effects. Flat damage is easy to measure.
Maybe we'd discuss what a great game we had where everyone contributed equally at the table and nobody felt like they were less useful because of a stylistic choice they made.
I like paying mechanic costs for flavor benefits. Not everyone would be happier.
Maybe we'd discuss what a great game we had where everyone contributed equally at the table and nobody felt like they were less useful because of a stylistic choice they made.I like paying mechanic costs for flavor benefits. Not everyone would be happier.
Why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we'd discuss what a great game we had where everyone contributed equally at the table and nobody felt like they were less useful because of a stylistic choice they made.
That's every campaign I run.
That's very clever. But everybody bringing a gun isn't medieval fantasy.Neither is Pathfinder.
Close enough.
In any case, you know what I am saying, I have no doubt. Picking at it and pretending you don't is just useless.
Why?Maybe we'd discuss what a great game we had where everyone contributed equally at the table and nobody felt like they were less useful because of a stylistic choice they made.I like paying mechanic costs for flavor benefits. Not everyone would be happier.
Because I value something more if I've paid for it, I suppose. I should hasten to point out that I dont think it's a superior way of thinking about it, but it's an aesthetic preference I've come to realise I have and not one that people who favor balance in RPGs tend to give much credence to. (I regularly get told "you can just nerf yourself in a balanced game anyway" for example).
.RPGs which have "flaws" for which you get compensating benefits (via extra points in character development or some kind of extra ability tied to your limitation) are not as enjoyable to me. I lose all interest in navigating my way through a bunch of 'balanced' options and just come up with something bland.
There's a comment attributed to Sean Reynolds (although I havent seen his original post, so it might be unfair) about Vow of Poverty - essentially saying that taking that is supposed to make your character worse. It's a noble thing and isnt meant to be compensated for via some other boost. That's exactly the kind of choice I like to make.
I know this has nothing to do with whether bows should be better than crossbows, but I think everyone knows that topic's been done to death.
"To a large extent as well the responsibility to keep things fair and fun for all involved lands on the GM's shoulders. If every single fight is against flying creatures that use ranged attacks, the characters who focused on melee stuff are going to be cranky. Likewise, if every single fight is against golems or high SR foes, the spellcasters are going to be cranky.
It's a balancing act."
-James Jacobs
Does James Jacobs not know about the Conjuration school? Or just his players? High SR and the spell immunity of golems don't protect against spells that don't allow SR. That golem isn't very scary when it's at the bottom of an acid pit. Those drow aren't very scary when they're in the middle of a cloudkill.
The mechanic cost could be that you fire half as often for twice as much damage.Maybe we'd discuss what a great game we had where everyone contributed equally at the table and nobody felt like they were less useful because of a stylistic choice they made.I like paying mechanic costs for flavor benefits. Not everyone would be happier.
That doesnt seem like much of a cost to me - just another in a series of equal options.
That doesnt seem like much of a cost to me - just another in a series of equal options.The mechanic cost could be that you fire half as often for twice as much damage.Maybe we'd discuss what a great game we had where everyone contributed equally at the table and nobody felt like they were less useful because of a stylistic choice they made.I like paying mechanic costs for flavor benefits. Not everyone would be happier.
Yep, which is pretty cool really. You get your style and its unique relative to the other thing. Double win!
Yep, which is pretty cool really. You get your style and its unique relative to the other thing. Double win!That doesnt seem like much of a cost to me - just another in a series of equal options.The mechanic cost could be that you fire half as often for twice as much damage.Maybe we'd discuss what a great game we had where everyone contributed equally at the table and nobody felt like they were less useful because of a stylistic choice they made.I like paying mechanic costs for flavor benefits. Not everyone would be happier.
Except for the bit about wanting to pay a cost, rather than pay a cost and get a compensating boon.
.I appreciate it's not a popular preference amongst Pathfinder players (especially in the rules forums) but it's nonetheless my preferred structure in an RPG, so I for one am glad there are inferior choices. I'm not trying to persuade you my view is correct - merely that "make everything balanced" is not actually a scenario where everyone wins.
@Steve Geddes
What you want needs no mechanical support. You can take Vow of poverty with no benefit without having to trade away your Still Mind class feature; you just say "my character doesn't want to possess anything but the most bases of necessities and maybe a stick". You can say that your character only has one eye, and so should take a -2 penalty on ranged attack checks without there being a trait or a feat for it. You can say you are using a broken gun because it's the one that your father was killed with that you refuse to repair and eat the penalties while using it.
These need no mechanical backing. You can do this regardless if the basic options included in the game are balanced or not.
Yes, I know. Houseruling is always an option.
Yes, I know. Houseruling is always an option.@Steve Geddes
What you want needs no mechanical support. You can take Vow of poverty with no benefit without having to trade away your Still Mind class feature; you just say "my character doesn't want to possess anything but the most bases of necessities and maybe a stick". You can say that your character only has one eye, and so should take a -2 penalty on ranged attack checks without there being a trait or a feat for it. You can say you are using a broken gun because it's the one that your father was killed with that you refuse to repair and eat the penalties while using it.
These need no mechanical backing. You can do this regardless if the basic options included in the game are balanced or not.
Right... but you want everyone else to shoot themselves in the foot or something? Its not even a house rule really; Its a roleplaying decision.
Its great for you, but does everyone else have to suffer in the same way?
That's not even a houserule.
-2 penalty to ranged attacks for only having one eye? Inventing the vow of poverty feat in a game that doesnt have it (or has something with superior benefits?)
Maybe I misunderstood the example.
Yes, I know. Houseruling is always an option.@Steve Geddes
What you want needs no mechanical support. You can take Vow of poverty with no benefit without having to trade away your Still Mind class feature; you just say "my character doesn't want to possess anything but the most bases of necessities and maybe a stick". You can say that your character only has one eye, and so should take a -2 penalty on ranged attack checks without there being a trait or a feat for it. You can say you are using a broken gun because it's the one that your father was killed with that you refuse to repair and eat the penalties while using it.
These need no mechanical backing. You can do this regardless if the basic options included in the game are balanced or not.
Right... but you want everyone else to shoot themselves in the foot or something? Its not even a house rule really; Its a roleplaying decision.
Its great for you, but does everyone else have to suffer in the same way?
No, of course not. I'm just describing the games I like (unbalanced) and you're describing the games you like (balanced). I'm not imposing anything, just expressing a preference. You arguing for a balanced game (which I would enjoy less) isnt an attack on my rights or anything. Neither is me advocating the style of game I prefer an attack on yours.
.My only point is that everything being balanced is not, in fact, an "everyone wins" situation. Playing a balanced game and inventing my own penalties isnt something I enjoy as much as an unbalanced game where I have a variety of options suggested to me (some of which are worse than others).
That's not even a houserule.-2 penalty to ranged attacks for only having one eye? Inventing the vow of poverty feat in a game that doesnt have it (or has something with superior benefits?)
Maybe I misunderstood the example.
Those do exist in some games actually, as flaws. Which means they're designated as something that hurts you and you can optionally receive a benefit from them, rather than being presented as an option like any other. If taken as a feat, it means you can't take another feat that might've added a layer of customization to your character. Additionally, it sucks if a whole style of play is of the penalized kind like crossbows, because its not even an option to use it without being penalized and everyone has to suffer who doesn't find a good houserule for them.
I feel like we went off topic.
I could have sworn the one-eye penalty was in the SRD. Gonna look for it.
The rest are not house rules though. Your character can make a vow of poverty without a feat. You just give all your money away.
Okay, I did misunderstand.
I dont mean I just like inventing penalties. I mean I like choosing options, even if they arent the most optimal. I still like getting something cool, I just dont care if it's as good as other options.
So I like the Vow of Poverty - I'm a hardcore monk and I get some boost to my monk abilities due to my asceticism. I can always invent the "+1 ki point per monk level" thing in a balanced game, but that's a houserule.
Maybe I misunderstood the example.I was focused on the vow part, missed the others.
Yeah me too. It was my bad though. I didnt explain what I meant terribly well. I dont mean "I like just being poor". I meant I like the whole kit-and-kaboodle of VoP, even though it's probably not the best choice to take mechanically.
Because I value something more if I've paid for it, I suppose. I should hasten to point out that I dont think it's a superior way of thinking about it, but it's an aesthetic preference I've come to realise I have and not one that people who favor balance in RPGs tend to give much credence to. (I regularly get told "you can just nerf yourself in a balanced game anyway" for example).
.
RPGs which have "flaws" for which you get compensating benefits (via extra points in character development or some kind of extra ability tied to your limitation) are not as enjoyable to me. I lose all interest in navigating my way through a bunch of 'balanced' options and just come up with something bland.There's a comment attributed to Sean Reynolds (although I havent seen his original post, so it might be unfair) about Vow of Poverty - essentially saying that taking that is supposed to make your character worse. It's a noble thing and isnt meant to be compensated for via some other boost. That's exactly the kind of choice I like to make.
I fail to see why there is some sort of prize for taking a deliberately suboptimal stylistic choice. I played a lot of AD&D and the Bastard Sword was a pretty common choice for front-line fighters back in the day. However with the shift of Bastard sword to exotic weapon proficiency it's one of the poorest uses of a precious feat slot.
So I ask why a weapon that really isn't that much more difficult to use than a longsword (of course a D&D longsword hardly represents a real world long sword but that's a different argument) requires a stylistic cost?
Or why does using a non-western weapon suddenly impose a feat tax? Is a kama really that difficult to use in real life? Especially since it's basically a improvised farm implement.
Why are polearms martial even though conscripts have used them for ages? Why do spears suck? Why is there not an option for a one-handed spear? Even though you can use a trident one handed?
There are tons of decisions that were made in 3.0 in regards to weapon balance that simply haven't proven to be particularly great from a verisimilitude or a gamist perspective but because it's a relatively minor issue it basically seems to get ignored in the shifts between 3.0 and 3.5 because by the time you get to mid levels most weapons become a relatively minor percentage of the overall dpr of a fighter.