| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Medieval Europe crossbow was banished from use by knight orders because it was so deadly.
No. All bows were banned. Not just CB. No one paid any attention to it, however.
Guys there are already a hundred threads on crossbows. let us not make this the 101st, OK?
PLEASE!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The martial/caster disparity is far far less an issue than it was in 3.5 so that is a good thing.
The real issue with it, though, is the action economy. A fighter's full-attack has incredibly good odds of being just as combat effective against a single target as a caster's spell.
The problem is that a caster just needs a standard action to perform their most impactful ability, and the fighter needs a full-round and to be in range and has just as many, if not more, counters to his ability to attack as the caster does to his spell.
Divination and travel spells will always be very potent, but a good GM can easily sidestep a lot of these issues, and at this point both players and GMs should expect this to be the case.
But the struggles of the action economy push martials backward. This is why 90% of barbarians are going to take the Beast totem... because pounce helps to change that equation. Give a barbarian Pounce and Superstition, and suddenly, that barbarian feels as powerful as any caster.
Because of this, I think fighters who choose a bow over any melee weapons will find that they are very effective. Bows have better feat support, offer many attacks, and most importantly: they maximize the fighter's ability to make a full-attack.
So the problem is not with martials in general, but with the melee action economy, and with a fighter's lack of skill points.
The martial/caster disparity is far far less an issue than it was in 3.5 so that is a good thing.
The real issue with it, though, is the action economy. A fighter's full-attack has incredibly good odds of being just as combat effective against a single target as a caster's spell.
The problem is that a caster just needs a standard action to perform their most impactful ability, and the fighter needs a full-round and to be in range and has just as many, if not more, counters to his ability to attack as the caster does to his spell. <snip>
Especially as the game goes on, I tend to have martial characters acquire mounts to do their moving for them. Usually controlling a mount is a move action, but intelligent mounts don't require a rider's action to, well, move intelligently, and I've homebrewed magical items that reduce the required action to control other mounts. This allows full attack actions without 'everyone must have pounce or be an archer' mentality. Sure, it's just adding a third option in some ways, but mounted combat itself can be fairly varied.
What! You missed the youtube videos which show that a stout crossbowman can split a tank in half?Citation for that level of damage, please.My versimilitude is broken by crossbows not dealing at least 3-4 times as much damage as bows when they are strong enough that they take a full round to reload.
I've seen it done many times on CIV III or IV
Balance... that's what kills Role Play part of RPG. I'm afraid that most new players look at most powerful classes rather than on what it fun to role play. People make builds and choose prestige classes not because they want them to appeal to their imagination of their character but because they can deal 1d8 more damage. Tell me, which character is better? Guy that has 40 AC and can wipe his own team in one turn + 1 shot elder dragon or a the guy whose roleplaying skills made game much better for the rest of group?
Actually my first choices have been what's not optimal. That turns out to be a horrible mistake sometimes... +1 to balance when every option at least has a merit, or when its hard to make mistakes. Some games have been worse than others. I have a few stories about making a mistake that really does kill a character or characters who don't do what they're supposed to.
Also, the question at the end isn't the best. Those two guys can be the same one, and just the same the guy who is poor with mechanics and repeatedly shoots himself in the foot can be an absolutely terrible rolelplayer. Shooting yourself in the foot doesn't actually make you better, and neither does being the best mechanics guy in the world make you any worse. They aren't mutually exclusive at all! Stormwind Fallacy blahblahblah.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance... that's what kills Role Play part of RPG.You are, quite simply, wrong
Have to agree on that. I tend to think a more balanced game actually encourages roleplaying by making more options mechanically viable. I think optimizing wouldn't be quite as ubiquitous in Pathfinder if there weren't such massive power gaps between weak options and strong ones. When option A is twice as good as options B, C, and D you'll quickly end up with most people picking option A.
Mechanically balanced games are much better for roleplaying because mechanically unbalanced games narrow option selection and create arbitrary tension between RP-based character design choices and don't-want-to-lose-based character design choices.
I do think that despite what they've said, the folks behind the scenes are aware to some degree that the game is heavily destabilized at high levels. Adventure paths, for instance, stop going at pretty much the place where the game stops working.
There are some real, genuine advantages to having unbalanced options in the game. For example, it provides an easy avenue for a player to feel smart (by taking the powerful options). People like to feel smart, so that's another avenue by which the game can provide pleasure. In a competitive game that's a problem because it leads to centralization, but in a TTRPG it doesn't really matter.
Sorry for double post but I can't edit my first post.
No. All bows were banned. Not just CB. No one paid any attention to it, however.
Bows were banned for knights, but not for regular units. Crossbows were banned for christians unless used against heretics.
Generally speaking knight ethos required that your enemy had at least small chance of defending himself. Crossbows were so deadly that they could go through few armor types and until around 14th century smiths started to craft fully rounded brestplates that could deflect or slow impact of a bolt. Knight in a fullplate armor has padded jack (gambeson), chain armor and plate armor on top of it. Total weight of entire armor is around 20 KGs which is opposite to popular believe that they were incredible heavy - ofc you can't really sprint in this thing. There is no single space where you can stick your sword (even armpits and eyes were protected). Knight in that armor had no need to protect himself, while regular soldiers had to avoid his attacks - that was huge advantage. Arrows at greater distance couldn't do no harm to knights, especially when they were using their shield to protect weaker parts like helmet. If armor was made-on-measure of the customer then it didn't hindered his movements - yes, techniclly you could swim in this thing. But here comes a crossbow bolt that can penetrate through three different layers of armor and even go through a knight. I've seen breastplates in Castle Malbork museum (Marienburg in German) that had holes from bolts, which only proves how devastating this weapon was.
From game perspective crossbows are far from what they were in Medieval times. Crossbow should have much greater damage (and chance of crit), but at the same time it should have much longer reload. Also it shouldn't suffer same close-combat disadvantages as long as bolt is loaded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that not everything is balanced, and I hate the whole 'not fair my wizard can't wield a two handed axe in armour' or 'not fair my fighter can't instakill stuff', and as GM I reward those people who don't go for the optimised build with better adventure hooks and the likelihood of more loot.
In my current game I have a 16yo female charlatan, a half orc wild mage with a stolen spellbook), a pacifist human evangelist, a pacifist gnome paladin, a sub optimal ranger, and the uber optimised dwarf tank, who is probably having the least fun of the team because he's invested everything in being able to bash things with his great hammer and boulder helmet. When the others are negotiating, politicking, spying, studying or otherwise developing their narrative, he came to the table with a build recommended by the experts on the interweb superhighnet.
The notion of 'let's create a new class that's awesome in combat and has some awesome spells too' turns me off bigtime.
The dwarf isn't the least fun because he's optimized, its because of the player most likely. Being a good roleplayer and building a good character aren't mutually exclusive, and being good at one doesn't mean you can't be good at the other. You can have a guy who is a great roleplayer and builds some awesome characters who also happen to have great personality and kick butt mechanically, and you can also have a guy who builds terrible characters and isn't too into the game or just can't roleplay that well. I've met my fair show of both of those and a lot of in between. The important thing is to not blame one for the other, its not a balancing act.
I do think that despite what they've said, the folks behind the scenes are aware to some degree that the game is heavily destabilized at high levels. Adventure paths, for instance, stop going at pretty much the place where the game stops working.
If you're assuming that's the reason that APs end by those levels, you'd be mistaken. Paizo people have said, on a number of occasions, that higher level adventures don't sell as well as lower-level ones. They've said that applies to AP chapters as well - the first ones selling more than the ending ones.
It's true that, because of the number of choices available in this game, the game does become less predictable at high levels. If everyone had much more constrained choices, it would be easier to expect PCs to be built a particular way and make it easier to design consistently good adventures to fit. PF's flexibility does work against itself - or at least against Paizo's desire to sell high level adventures - in that case. However, that doesn't mean the game stops working, rather, safe assumptions about how anybody is playing it stop working.
If you're assuming that's the reason that APs end by those levels, you'd be mistaken. Paizo people have said, on a number of occasions, that higher level adventures don't sell as well as lower-level ones.
I do think that despite what they've said, the folks behind the scenes are aware to some degree that the game is heavily destabilized at high levels. Adventure paths, for instance, stop going at pretty much the place where the game stops working.
"Mistaken"? *chuckle* You could both be saying the same thing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, the way you play the game is not in any way harmed by the game being balanced, it is only helped.
Platitudes like "The game is about more than numbers!" just sidestep the issue that imbalances in a game are flaws. Flaws should be fixed.
Combat being balanced helps the mechanics, and doesn't affect RP.
Combat being imbalanced hurts the mechanics, and MAY (but also may not) impact the RP.
Leaving the game imbalanced is worse for everyone involved.
And yes, there are standards you can assume. Published adventure are a good starting point. They assume certain levels of challenge at certain levels, and assign monsters, traps, and skill checks appropriately.
They also assume 15-20 PB.
That has already limited the outside factors at work. It's pretty easy to tell in-game with those whether power comes from strategy or actual power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, the way you play the game is not in any way harmed by the game being balanced, it is only helped.
I guess that depends on how "balance" is defined.
Making all classes able to contribute an approximately equal amount to the game in some way (with some being more combat-focused than others) wouldn't be a problem to me. If that means things like adding some extra skill points to the fighter (one of the few things I agree is obviously needed), then I'm all for it.
Trying to balance all weapons of the same category DPR-wise would be, as some weapons are just supposed to be worse than others (arguments aside about how some shouldn't be quite as good or bad as they currently are, I just don't want to see it all calculated as an exact science that leaves inferior weapons equal to others just for the sake of balance.)
As long as there are ways and means, within the rules, to intentionally cripple my character in various ways if I wish to do so in order to represent a particular concept I have (e.g. by using an obviously inferior weapon, or by taking options that leave them as more of a non-combatant), then I'm happy. If the game forces a balanced-for-combat design on my characters, then it's no longer the same game. Allowing for combat balance is good. Forcing it isn't.
I'd also not want Paizo to make it a major focus that takes them away from producing more material. Assigning someone to do reviews and balance tweaks is good, but pulling half the staff off other projects to do a major rewrite is something I'd rather they didn't feel they need to do.
Obviously it's their decision at the end of the day, but I'm pretty confident they wouldn't go halting other projects just to do a giant balance review, based upon what I've seen of their opinions on the subject so far.
So to summarize:
Getting an admittance that there is some scope for some balance tweaks and that they can be addressed - that is something I could support. That could involve checking that there are options for every class that, if the player takes them, allow them to be roughly level in combat ability (along with ensuring there are also non-combat-focused options, where appropriate, they can take instead if they prefer.)
Changing the concept of the game to be mostly balanced around combat effectiveness (along with the inevitable shifts to ensure spells all have a combat use, etc.) - that's something I'd prefer to see left for other games to do.
I do think that despite what they've said, the folks behind the scenes are aware to some degree that the game is heavily destabilized at high levels. Adventure paths, for instance, stop going at pretty much the place where the game stops working.
If you're assuming that's the reason that APs end by those levels, you'd be mistaken. Paizo people have said, on a number of occasions, that higher level adventures don't sell as well as lower-level ones. They've said that applies to AP chapters as well - the first ones selling more than the ending ones.
It's true that, because of the number of choices available in this game, the game does become less predictable at high levels. If everyone had much more constrained choices, it would be easier to expect PCs to be built a particular way and make it easier to design consistently good adventures to fit. PF's flexibility does work against itself - or at least against Paizo's desire to sell high level adventures - in that case. However, that doesn't mean the game stops working, rather, safe assumptions about how anybody is playing it stop working.
One could make the argument that part of why high-level material doesn't sell as well is because the Pathfinder ruleset starts getting a lot messier at upper levels.
I guess that depends on how "balance" is defined.
Making all classes able to contribute an approximately equal amount to the game in some way (with some being more combat-focused than others) wouldn't be a problem to me. If that means things like adding some extra skill points to the fighter (one of the few things I agree is obviously needed), then I'm all for it.
Yes.
Trying to balance all weapons of the same category DPR-wise would be, as some weapons are just supposed to be worse than others (arguments aside about how some shouldn't be quite as good or bad as they currently are, I just don't want to see it all calculated as an exact science that leaves inferior weapons equal to others just for the sake of balance.)
I think that at the very least, each weapon should have something interesting going for it if it's strictly inferior to another option. Bows vs Crossbows is a good example. Making crossbows slower, but more powerful and with some DR or armor punching ability or something like that would make them more equal, but not the same in DPR terms.
As long as there are ways and means, within the rules, to intentionally cripple my character in various ways if I wish to do so in order to represent a particular concept I have (e.g. by using an obviously inferior weapon, or by taking options that leave them as more of a non-combatant), then I'm happy. If the game forces a balanced-for-combat design on my characters, then it's no longer the same game. Allowing for combat balance is good. Forcing it isn't.
Drawbacks, Flaws, Traits, Homebrewed rules, broken weapon, Weapon Materials. Lots of ways to do it without forcing everyone to be subpar.
Forcing others to be subpar isn't exactly the best alternative.
I think that at the very least, each weapon should have something interesting going for it if it's strictly inferior to another option. Bows vs Crossbows is a good example. Making crossbows slower, but more powerful and with some DR or armor punching ability or something like that would make them more equal, but not the same in DPR terms.
I'm absolutely cool with that idea. Anything that recognizes additional flavor in the mechanics can only help, IMO. Sometimes even if it's a slight exaggeration for the sake of making that flavor noticeable ;)
As long as there are ways and means, within the rules, to intentionally cripple my character in various ways if I wish to do so in order to represent a particular concept I have (e.g. by using an obviously inferior weapon, or by taking options that leave them as more of a non-combatant), then I'm happy. If the game forces a balanced-for-combat design on my characters, then it's no longer the same game. Allowing for combat balance is good. Forcing it isn't.Drawbacks, Flaws, Traits, Homebrewed rules, broken weapon, Weapon Materials. Lots of ways to do it without forcing everyone to be subpar.
Forcing others to be subpar isn't exactly the best alternative.
Again, if there's options for both - that would seem to fit the bill. Archetypes come to mind as one of the better alternatives - include some that boost combat effectiveness at the cost of non-combat abilities, and vice-versa. e.g. one for the sneak attack-style thief, and one for the more skilled one with little combat experience because he tries to break in, find what he wants, and escape without getting noticed.
If PFS, the scenario system that Paizo itself supports, works in a certain way, then the disparity needs to be addressed, if just specifically for the PFS system.In PFS anyway, the disparity does not exist. Everyone does pull their weight in PFS missions, largely because the campaign restrictions keep casters from running away with the campaign, while the martials still depend heavily on having them around.
It does exist in PFS. Casters aren't restricted enough for it not to be. The fact the mundane martials can still end up depending on them isn't really helping.
The thing is, the way you play the game is not in any way harmed by the game being balanced, it is only helped.
I guess that depends on how "balance" is defined.
Making all classes able to contribute an approximately equal amount to the game in some way (with some being more combat-focused than others) wouldn't be a problem to me.
Trying to balance all weapons of the same category DPR-wise would be, as some weapons are just supposed to be worse than others (arguments aside about how some shouldn't be quite as good or bad as they currently are, I just don't want to see it all calculated as an exact science that leaves inferior weapons equal to others just for the sake of balance.)As long as there are ways and means, within the rules, to intentionally cripple my character in various ways if I wish to do so in order to represent a particular concept I have (e.g. by using an obviously inferior weapon, or by taking options that leave them as more of a non-combatant), then I'm happy. If the game forces a balanced-for-combat design on my characters, then it's no longer the same game. Allowing for combat balance is good. Forcing it isn't.
Getting an admittance that there is some scope for some balance tweaks and that they can be addressed - that is something I could support. That could...
Changing the concept of the game to be mostly balanced around combat effectiveness (along with the inevitable shifts to ensure spells all have a combat use, etc.) - that's something I'd prefer to see left for other games to do.
Right. Very good post. Look, the game isn't all that unbalanced. Sure, from levels 1-4 warriors rule, and 17-20 spellcasters rule, but that doesn't bother me.
It doesn't bother me that the LB is better than the CB or the greatsword better than a club. That's not "balance' that's "realism" and "choices". I don't really care that at 20th level a LB archer has 150% the DPR of a Crossbowman or whatever the figures are. As James Jacobs sez: "Meh. Lost interest in the topic... not a big fan of DPR races." Either reskin the CB or get your DM to houserule, or use a LB or just live with less DPR. It's not a competition, you won't be banned from play.
No doubt there's a number of "balance" tweaks I'd like to see, like 4SkP for fighters. But would I want a 2nd ed that makes all my books obsolete overnite? Not to mention the huge fan bad reaction?
Look, most of the "balance' issues are minor, conner cases, legit choices, or blown out of proportion. I am not interested in a complete rewrite to "fix" what ain't that broke.
It does exist in PFS. Casters aren't restricted enough for it not to be. The fact the mundane martials can still end up depending on them isn't really helping.If PFS, the scenario system that Paizo itself supports, works in a certain way, then the disparity needs to be addressed, if just specifically for the PFS system.In PFS anyway, the disparity does not exist. Everyone does pull their weight in PFS missions, largely because the campaign restrictions keep casters from running away with the campaign, while the martials still depend heavily on having them around.
Sure. My Fighter depends on me for a couple buff spells. I depend on him to Tank and protect me. That's TEAMWORK. It's not a contest or a one on one PvP arena battle.
Lots of ways to do it without forcing everyone to be subpar.
Forcing others to be subpar isn't exactly the best alternative.
"Forcing"????
The casters depend on those mundane martials as much or even more. That's the point of PFS play, it's a cooperative game where everyone depends on each other. If it wasn't for a "mundane martial" in Elven Entanglement, most of those "casters" in that group, would have been centipede food.It does exist in PFS. Casters aren't restricted enough for it not to be. The fact the mundane martials can still end up depending on them isn't really helping.If PFS, the scenario system that Paizo itself supports, works in a certain way, then the disparity needs to be addressed, if just specifically for the PFS system.In PFS anyway, the disparity does not exist. Everyone does pull their weight in PFS missions, largely because the campaign restrictions keep casters from running away with the campaign, while the martials still depend heavily on having them around.
My summoner and cleric and magus friends all do pretty darn well without a fighter in front of them. Even my wizard packs summon monster for the day you need it, and quiet a few crowd control abilities and illusion spells for defense.
Not all casters are squishy guys in robes without defenses. I make sure I'm not dependent, especially in PFS where I have no idea who I'm going to be with.
Sure. My Fighter depends on me for a couple buff spells. I depend on him to Tank and protect me. That's TEAMWORK. It's not a contest or a one on one PvP arena battle.
Who said not to use teamwork or to PvP one on one?
"Forcing"????Lots of ways to do it without forcing everyone to be subpar.
Forcing others to be subpar isn't exactly the best alternative.
Context is important. The difference between something being inherently inferior and optionally flawed.
1 to attack rolls for the party for a minute, or a 1d4 Burning Hands spread, or sleeping 4 HD of creatures... Okay, the last one can be useful early, if you can afford the full-round action it requires of you, without getting hit. But do you see the disparity there?
Well... to be fair, it would help if your comparing things like entangle, color spray, Murderous Command, Cause Fear, or Grease instead of bless and burning hands. Sleep can be pretty awesome depending on the situation, I've seen four npcs go down to it a number of times. Chances are that won't every time though.
. Even my wizard packs summon monster for the day you need it, and quiet a few crowd control abilities and illusion spells for defense.
Ah, I can cast a buff spell on my Fighter, or you can cast Summon Monster. So?
. Even my wizard packs summon monster for the day you need it, and quiet a few crowd control abilities and illusion spells for defense.Ah, I can cast a buff spell on my Fighter, or you can cast Summon Monster. So?
In context, it was removing the dependency on the fighter and having a backup plan. Why would I be buffing a fighter who isn't there? Also there's some pronoun trouble there...
Right.
Color Spray can be a real game-ender no doubt. But you gotta get REAL close. And, once you get that close, if they actually make that save, then it’s a full attack on the squishie.