Balance discussions come up frequently on these boards with many of the same people weighing-in with similar positions. I am not trying to start such a discussion here, though.
I just want to know if any of the game designers/producers/etc... have ever weighed in with their thoughts and opinions.
What do they think of the whole "tier system" and its effect on party balance?
Are they happy with the relative power levels of "underpowered" classes like the Fighter, Cavelier, Rogue, etc...?
How much comparison do they do between classes/spells/feats when writing new material? (Comparing Rogues and Archaeology Bards, "worst feat ever" threads, and spells of different power-levels for example...)
Finally, if they have spoken up, can anyone link their responses? I for one would be very curious to see what they have to say in response to some of these points.
Thanks!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
"Depends heavily on what you mean by balanced. In terms of combat effectiveness, no, they are not, nor were they designed to be. We understand that each class has a niche to fill and sometimes that means better advantages in one area of play over another. A lot of folks get really hung up over combat effectiveness, and for them, there are certainly some classes that rise above the rest. That is ok. I can live with that so long as we are also providing a bounty of options for players that are more interested in other parts of the game."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've seen, they don't believe that there's anything wrong with the Rogue or the Monk despite people saying otherwise.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've seen, they don't believe that there's anything wrong with the Rogue or the Monk despite people saying otherwise.
People and math, at least in the case of the Monk.
Although I hear the Rogue thread is showing similar things.
80% of the time when you actually get all the details, the problem was poor reading of the rules.
15% of the time it was a weak GM hand
5% it is an actually thing to look at to address, but probably is fine with most groups who don't try to look for ways to break the game.
If you have an engine, and you look for ways to make the car not run properly, no matter how well built it is you can find a way.
It is easier to destroy than to build.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, according to JJ "Caster-Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas", and SKR has said that crossbows and unarmed combat (and by extension the Monk) were INTENTIONALLY made bad because it wouldn't be realistic for them to be good, if that counts.
They have also said that balance does not mean that all classes are equal across the board, so that means magic will be able to get more results than someone with only a sword and shield.
As for the fighter, rogue, and monk, well it depends on the game you run, and how well the player is at building and running characters, but that is another topic for several other threads, which already exist. :)
Well, according to JJ "Caster-Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas", and SKR has said that crossbows and unarmed combat (and by extension the Monk) were INTENTIONALLY made bad because it wouldn't be realistic for them to be good, if that counts.
Last I checked my knowledge of history, the crossbow ended up being one of the things that eventually replaced the regular bow.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, according to JJ "Caster-Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas", and SKR has said that crossbows and unarmed combat (and by extension the Monk) were INTENTIONALLY made bad because it wouldn't be realistic for them to be good, if that counts.
Actually, his statements have been a fair bit more nuanced than that.
"I think the martial/caster disparity is mostly present in the view of folks who favor martial characters who are jealous of casters, or from the point of view of folks who favor caster characters who are jealous of martial characters.
AKA: I don't think its as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be. In my games, casters and non-casters tend to be equally valuable to the party, and equally dangerous in various situations as enemies. I've seen parties get into big trouble when their only strong spellcaster wasn't at the game, and I've seen them get into big trouble when their only strong non-spellcaster wasn't at the game.
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
| 17 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.
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 theory rafters 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.
At least, that's my sense of it. Much of my own perspective sneaked in there, though, I admit.
Marry me.
Marry me.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 theory rafters 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.
At least, that's my sense of it. Much of my own perspective sneaked in there, though, I admit.
That's a dangerous proposition, you know. ;)
What I don't understand is how in a world with things that can lift a thousand times their weight [without being ants], flying dragons, giant mechanoids and MAGIC AND ACTUAL GODS, what is "realistic" is still based on real life as opposed to something more consistent with the world they're in.
You'd think fighters with unnatural abilities matching what they fight, crossbows with a higher tech level than "basic early greek models, and even then let's not be TOO realistic as those draw weights might actually hurt something you aim it at, unlike the water balloons we want these to be beneath in power" and, oh, I dunno, the modern guns being easier to reload than the ancient 'jam that powder in, buddy' ones would exist within this setting.
How is "realistic" on Golarion ANYTHING related to earth instead of Monster Hunter or the such? How is only "You CAST magic, specifically CAST spells" the only thing that gets to go above and beyond real life?
Even a cursory examination of a high level martial character shows they possess abilities that go well beyond what is realistically possible by any stretch of the imagination. To borrow from another post I made...
"A high level fighter with a 30 strength can, statistically, smash through many walls in seconds. They can effortless kick down most doors, bend iron bars, burst through pure strength alone both rope and chain bonds, and with enough effort even break out of manacles with nothing but raw strength. As you note they can bench press cars with ease. All of that seems pretty fantastic and outside the bonds of what is conventionally possible for a human being...
...Falling in lava and crawling out. Falling 200ft. and walking away from that fall. Using an iron sword to carve apart adamantine or other harder metals. Using a sword to cut through a stone wall. Kicking down a barred door with one kick. Bursting steel chains or manacles that bind you with your bare hands and no ill effect. Leaping thirty, forty, fifty, or more feet (much less weighed down with weapons, armor, and gear that can weigh, as you noted, thousands of pounds). Leaping ten or more feet into the air. Climbing an ordinary brick wall with your bare hands. Fighting while balanced on a 2 inch thick beam. Shooting four arrows at four different birds a five hundred feet away from you in four different directions in 6 seconds – and hitting all four. Fighting through hundreds of men by yourself and emerging victorious."
Basically, a high level martial character even without a single magic item is like unto a god among men. The things he is capable of doing and withstanding go dramatically beyond the capabilities of even peak human condition.
That's a dangerous proposition, you know. ;)Marry me.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 theory rafters 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."
At least, that's my sense of it. Much of my own perspective sneaked in there, though, I admit.
All the same, I can't suffer to let a match this perfect pass me by. You speak the truth I know within my soul that I have such difficulty putting into words. Speak more fair lady. ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, according to JJ "Caster-Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas", and SKR has said that crossbows and unarmed combat (and by extension the Monk) were INTENTIONALLY made bad because it wouldn't be realistic for them to be good, if that counts.
Less good is not = bad.
The sooner some learn this distinction, the more friendly these discussions will be.
Less good is a trap option especially if the option is iconic and flavorful (like the monk). By making them intentionally weaker without telling people that creates the system mastery game which can really diminish people's enjoyment.
Crossbows are weak in the context of the game not because they are weak in real life (they definitely aren't) but because they are considered a simple rather than non-martial weapon and simple weapons have to be inferior than martial weapons according to the overarching design because otherwise I guess Clerics and Wizards would be too strong at low levels or something.
Anyway, it's pretty clear that for the most part Paizo wasn't really interested in designing a game with balance between the classes across levels 1-20 considering that wasn't really a design goal of 3.x either.
Basically the assumption is that it's a popular game and you can make the power differentials between classes slightly smaller and improve gameplay and most groups aren't going to have a problem. It's at the margins of the game that most of the issues arise.
Yes the 2 primary mundane classes are almost certainly weaker in terms of narrative power than their spellcasting brethren but there is a very vocal percentage of the fanbase that is absolutely against the idea that fighters and rogues should be in any way supernatural and it seems Paizo wants to accomodate that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crossbows are weak in the context of the game not because they are weak in real life (they definitely aren't) but because they are considered a simple rather than non-martial weapon and simple weapons have to be inferior than martial weapons according to the overarching design because otherwise I guess Clerics and Wizards would be too strong at low levels or something.
I think you can build a perfectly viable crossbow wielder under the current rules at almost any level. That fact that you will not be as good as a bow wielder in many circumstances does not mean that you are bad. The fact that the optimization crowd has spread this belief that if you aren't first, you're last, throughout the community is a matter of great frustration to me.
Anyway, it's pretty clear that for the most part Paizo wasn't really interested in designing a game with balance between the classes across levels 1-20 considering that wasn't really a design goal of 3.x either.
Basically the assumption is that it's a popular game and you can make the power differentials between classes slightly smaller and improve gameplay and most groups aren't going to have a problem. It's at the margins of the game that most of the issues arise.
Correct.
Yes the 2 primary mundane classes are almost certainly weaker in terms of narrative power than their spellcasting brethren but there is a very vocal percentage of the fanbase that is absolutely against the idea that fighters and rogues should be in any way supernatural and it seems Paizo wants to accomodate that.
I think that the suggestion that high level fighters and rogues aren't at least super human, if not supernatural, is a flawed one for the many reasons I listed above.
I think you can build a perfectly viable crossbow wielder under the current rules at almost any level. That fact that you will not be as good as a bow wielder in many circumstances does not mean that you are bad. The fact that the optimization crowd has spread this belief that if you aren't first, you're last, throughout the community is a matter of great frustration to me.
I agree to a point, however there is definitely a point in which the xbow user will struggle to keep up with most higher CR encounters due to the rate at which HPs scale relative to the damage dealing capacity of a x-bow user and that's mainly a function of how the game as written favors iterative attacks (that x-bows struggle at delivering in comparison to archers).
Now if the game was less geared around delivering a large number of iterative attacks X-bows would be more viable without a major investment in feats but PF decided to not mess with too much of the underlying framework of 3.x for good or ill.
I think that the suggestion that high level fighters and rogues aren't at least super human, if not supernatural, is a flawed one for the many reasons I listed above.
I was generally referring to tendency of some within the user community to be absolutely against the idea of attaching any sort of limited use maneuver system onto the fighter or rogue chassis that makes them more competitive with spellcasters. Bot9S is still regarded with a high degree of antipathy even though it could easily be used as the model for a more narratively engage martial class.
Personally I don't necessarily want fighters and rogues to be reliant on limited use maneuvers and would be more happy if the fighter was better in non-combat (more skills and narrative functionality) while the rogue could be better in combat (less dependent on sneak attack damage).
Honestly the verisimilitude argument is pretty bogus anyway due to the fact that D&D and PF in no way function as a real world simulator. In terms of simulationism they best simulate D&D physics rather than anything resembling reality.
And honestly I'm okay with realism being abandoned in order to make a better game. Ultra realistic combat goes down the Phoenix Command route and that's madness and it's not D&D. That being said having clearly inferior options that aren't clearly labeled as such isn't a great design either.
Is there such a compelling reason why simple weapons have to be significantly weaker than martial weapons? Does using an x-bow have to be inferior to the archer always? Does that create a good game?
Obviously there are ways to fix the crossbow to reflect it's superior power (such as boring the ability of PF firearms to deliver touch attacks) which would definitely fit from a verisimilitude perspective but wouldn't fit from a game balance perspective, etc.
I understand that the current design represents over a decade of iterative changes to the existing 3.x mechanics but part of me kinda would like more examination of the underlying mechanics if and when we ever get a new version.
In the meantime I can continue to not use the monk and homebrew variations of the fighter and rogue that better match the narrative vision I have for those classes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Less good is a trap option especially if the option is iconic and flavorful (like the monk).
Less good is less good.
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.
Iconic and flavorful is itself a value. You need to define what bad is, as an actual thing, rather than saying anything that is not the best at a specific thing is inherently bad.
Uniformity is not a good design goal.
I'm not going to do calculations but a Heavy Crossbow is going to have a shorter draw length and the quarrel is liable to weigh less so even though the initial velocity is probably significantly higher some of that is going to be negated.
That being said the heavy crossbow should do significant damage. Of course in general weapons really don't scale correctly in D&D at all because most of the damage tends to come from strength bonuses rather than damage dice. The result is that big massive weapons that don't have strength bonuses such as catapults and ballistas don't really do much damage comparatively even though their mass and velocity would actually be quite devastating.
Another possible fix would be to give heavy x-bows bonus damage based upon relative strength rather than just a larger damage dice. Strength rating would be rated on how much strength it would require to load the crossbow without a handcrank. Stirrups could be used to multiply character strength by 1.5 or some ratio.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's no bad choices then there's not really any choices. I like the fact that I can choose from amongst a variety of weapons, some of which are better than others and some of which are only good in specific situations. There are other inclusions in the game I don't like.
Paizo have to make lots of groups happy. When we discuss how to improve the game we only have a constituency of our group.
It is to me and that's the source of the problem.
A game built to cater to my preferences is going to be very different to a game built to cater to yours. Paizo are trying to straddle that divide and both of us are going to have elements of the game we don't like as a consequence.
Crossbows shouldn't get strength bonuses. However, in my opinion there should be purchasable bonuses for crossbows with higher pull strength, in similar fashion to composite bows (except without the wielder's own strength making a difference). For instance, I'd like an option to buy more expensive crossbows with flat bonuses in the +1 to +5 range, or thereabouts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, his statements have been a fair bit more nuanced than that.
"I think the martial/caster disparity is mostly present in the view of folks who favor martial characters who are jealous of casters, or from the point of view of folks who favor caster characters who are jealous of martial characters.
AKA: I don't think its as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be. In my games, casters and non-casters tend to be equally valuable to the party, and equally dangerous in various situations as enemies. I've seen parties get into big trouble when their only strong spellcaster wasn't at the game, and I've seen them get into big trouble when their only strong non-spellcaster wasn't at the game.
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
Here's one from this year, however. The one I'm talking about.
5) what do you think abut the martial/caster disparity at high levels?5) I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas.
I think it would be fair to make crossbows with higher crank strength requirements. It totally makes sense and is consistant with reality. You could never pull a bow with the level of tension that a heavy crossbow would be built with.
Well, if you can, then forget full action reload, you pull that thing by hand as well.
Do you mean that it should take longer than a full action? So one shot per two rounds is too many versus a bow that can fire six or so in a round? I'm not sure I can follow your there. In fact, that kind of rate of fire is similar to what I would imagine a guy with a glock would do really.
|
|
You can't really quantify damage using real world standards, so I'm just going to abstract it away, since that's what the game is doing.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.
Actually you can. It's called Physics. And they've measured the damage each does, and it isn't "3-4 times as much damage".