There is nothing to modify, except the animal companion templates. There is no base creature. Like, the Big Cat. What creature is being modified? And what about the Triceratops? The only triceratops in the bestiary is Huge.
That would be weird. So like, if you're a druid, releasing your animal companion will make them get stronger? Since I mean, druid animal companions are not the actual animals. I mean, you have pygmy dinosaurs, small sized bears, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe druids are not willing to pay full price, so they get cheaper versions of those animals?
Maybe druid magic power at low levels make animals smaller...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it's not a balance issue really. At levels before 9th, the animals won't be sentient and also have no special bond to you after you've dismissed them, and after that there's sooo many more ways to make powerful allies that an extra animal won't really make a difference if you have access to a powerful animal friend.
It's like yeah, you can know many powerful NPC's who happen to be animals.
I can see an issue from a world-building perspective in a world where decently powerful druids are common (in that every forest would be full of 10 HD wolves), but it's easy to just say that druids generally don't do this because they feel it messes up with the natural order of things.
The animal companion table and templates.
EDIT: You mean what did the designers consult? It could be thin air. The bear seems to be missing one or two things I would expect to see, and the triceratops is rather small.
|
The animal companion table and templates.
That's what I was asking about, what did they consult when determining those.
But fair enough. I obviously can't say with certainty what they did or did not consult. But I see obvious parallels between the bestiary stats and the animal companion templates. I certainly believe they removed abilities due to balance concerns, scaling them down for the low levels and allowing them to regain some as they progressed.
The animal companion table and templates.That's what I was asking about, what did they consult when determining those.
But fair enough. I obviously can't say with certainty what they did or did not consult. But I see obvious parallels between the bestiary stats and the animal companion templates. I certainly believe they removed abilities due to balance concerns, scaling them down for the low levels and allowing them to regain some as they progressed.
My point, which may have been a bit opaque, is that for any given animal companion, it's impossible to point to a base animal from which it was enhanced. In some cases, a direct analog doesn't even exist in the rules (Medium Ticeratops?).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the math in Pathfinder "break down" at higher levels?
It doesn't.
I don't see a problem with a creature coming in being returned to a larger size if it came in size S, anymore then I see a size S Animal Companion evolving to size L. If you can have one, you can certainly have the other.
In both cases, it's totally consistent. It has one set of stats and gets buffs while its an AC, when it's not it goes back to being a normal animal, for better or worse.
The rules are there to give the druid fairly equitable servants and keep the strength of the class feature fairly stable, not to give AC's permanent buffs and debuffs.
==Aelryinth
|
|
My point, which may have been a bit opaque, is that for any given animal companion, it's impossible to point to a base animal from which it was enhanced. In some cases, a direct analog doesn't even exist in the rules (Medium Ticeratops?).
Which I don't find to be true, as I can see direct comparisons in the couple I have looked at. And a medium triceratops is simply one with the young template applied once or twice.
It would definitely give some credence to advanced animals. I mean, advancing HD is in fact something that animals can do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the math in Pathfinder "break down" at higher levels?
It doesn't.
I don't think there is any left in the thread who thinks it does.
Mainly just arguments about various potential class-feature/spell-abuses and whether or not they work or are even abuses if they do work.
My point, which may have been a bit opaque, is that for any given animal companion, it's impossible to point to a base animal from which it was enhanced. In some cases, a direct analog doesn't even exist in the rules (Medium Ticeratops?).Which I don't find to be true, as I can see direct comparisons in the couple I have looked at. And a medium triceratops is simply one with the young template applied once or twice.
I was going to point out that you can't apply a template twice, but now I'm not sure that's actually a rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe "break down" is not the best description. "Becomes very different as the stakes become really high" is probably a better way to put it.
I still think DPR and save DCs considerably outpace AC and saving throws. While it's true that Con modifier is multiplied and damage remains static, it's also true that a single attack can easily take several HD worth of damage, and at high levels, landing 2~3 attacks is pretty easy, even with Power Attack.
This is not so much of a problem, though. Increasing HP and using resources such as DR and miss chances can easily make direct damage rocket tag be much less of an issue... Without these changes, though, I don't see many monsters capable of surviving 2 full-attacks of any moderately optimized martial class.
I think the biggest problem is save DCs. Having a poor Fort or Will save progression is pretty much a death sentence at high levels, since save DCs become really high and failing a single save will often completely remove you from combat. Roll something lower than 15 or whatever in your bad save and you might as well leave the table and go eat something.
This is high-level monsters often have all sorts of immunities (or at least they did in 3.5, not so much in PF).
Did a check myself just now and don't see anything specifically against it either.
In fact, it now occurs to me that some 3.5 monsters gained two size categories through advancement, so you would actually need to make a giant giant monster, in addition to adding HD, to mimic that advancement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe "break down" is not the best description. "Becomes very different as the stakes become really high" is probably a better way to put it.
I still think DPR and save DCs considerably outpace AC and saving throws. While it's true that Con modifier is multiplied and damage remains static, it's also true that a single attack can easily take several HD worth of damage, and at high levels, landing 2~3 attacks is pretty easy, even with Power Attack.
This is not so much of a problem, though. Increasing HP and using resources such as DR and miss chances can easily make direct damage rocket tag be much less of an issue... Without these changes, though, I don't see many monsters capable of surviving 2 full-attacks of any moderately optimized martial class.
I think the biggest problem is save DCs. Having a poor Fort or Will save progression is pretty much a death sentence at high levels, since save DCs become really high and failing a single save will often completely remove you from combat. Roll something lower than 15 or whatever in your bad save and you might as well leave the table and go eat something.
This is high-level monsters often have all sorts of immunities (or at least they did in 3.5, not so much in PF).
This has been pretty much my argument the whole thread, though with the specific note that the "defenses" that protect against being killed in 1-2 rounds are largely the domain of full casters and these many layered defenses turn into games of "Did you think of X, Y & Z or lose." except the only people who even get into the X, Y & Z game are full casters. Also, its mostly casters who are making the most vicious use out of the gap in Save DCs especially since their Save DC has been steadily increasing and applies to all their Fort/Reflex/Will targeting spells.
By the upper teens, there is nothing that is the "domain of full casters." A fighter, if he wanted to, could invest in UMD and become, practically speaking, a part-time spellcaster. That's setting aside stuff like armor of energy resistance, winged boots, and so forth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the upper teens, there is nothing that is the "domain of full casters." A fighter, if he wanted to, could invest in UMD and become, practically speaking, a part-time spellcaster. That's setting aside stuff like armor of energy resistance, winged boots, and so forth.
Ah yes... an exponentially increasing number of single use scrolls will totally be on par to a caster who can do those multiple times a round and doesn't require gear. Yup, Fighters totally have access to reliable castings of Fickle Winds, Aroden's Spellbanes, Moment of Prescience, Contingencies, Permanent Spells, Stored long term castings of Explosive Runes and Shrink Item, defenses that were cast yesterday and last for hours/level, the ability to reapply those on the fly should one go down... etc... etc... etc...
And of course the caster isn't using his savings on anything that might further widen gap...
*Because this is the internet... the above is sarcasm.*
I didn't say a fighter would be on par. What about "part-time spellcaster" sounds like I'm saying they would be on par?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the math in Pathfinder "break down" at higher levels?
It doesn't.
Yeah it does, or at the very least it can unless you take steps to avoid it.
Hey, that was easy.
Sounds like one of the questions monks meditate over to regain Ki.
"Is it broken unless steps are taken to avoid it, or is it not broken until steps are taken to break it?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think how well the math handles higher levels is really going to come down to the party and players. That said, as the levels go up the gaps between different levels of optimization, different playstyles, and different build priorities become more and more marked. That makes it a lot easier to get the sort of situations most people would classify as the math breaking down in a d20 system.
The best way to define the math "breaking down" in the d20 system is that you have a situation where there's more than 20 points of difference between bonuses to d20 rolls within the party. Situations where half the party succeeds on anything but a natural one and the other half only succeeds with a natural 20 are problematic for keeping the game balanced.
You can certainly have a high-level game where the math works fine if everyone's in a group that fits together well. However, if the group has any gaps in optimization/playstyle/build priority, those differences will become increasingly pronounced as the levels go up.
Situations where half the party succeeds on anything but a natural one and the other half only succeeds with a natural 20 are problematic for keeping the game balanced.
This is a feature not a flaw.
I would certainly hope that my fighter with 1 rank in a knowledge is completely out-classed by a wizard with full ranks.
I would also hope that my wizard can't beat things with a stick within the same CR-range as my fighter.
EDIT: Saves never get +19 apart unless you are being really dumb (+4 vs +27)
Situations where half the party succeeds on anything but a natural one and the other half only succeeds with a natural 20 are problematic for keeping the game balanced.This is a feature not a flaw.
I would certainly hope that my fighter with 1 rank in a knowledge is completely out-classed by a wizard with full ranks.
I would also hope that my wizard can't beat things with a stick within the same CR-range as my fighter.
I don't recall stating that it was a flaw, just a reality.
I don't think anyone sees those particular carefully crafted examples as especially problematic for game balance. A high-level wizard isn't going to be making ordinary melee attacks unless something has gone terribly wrong.
The two most common culprits for high-level balance concerns are actually AC and saving throws. A high-level fighter who hasn't worked on shoring up his poor base will save is going to be dominated at the drop of a hat, while the high-level cleric can pretty much laugh off any will save thanks to a high base save and being a wisdom-based character.
Sure, an optimized fighter should do something to deal with his low will save. Not all high-level fighters are optimized. God help the fighter player who dumped wisdom down to seven to get one more point of strength and ditched his Cloak of Resistance to take the "Cloak of really cool-sounding 1/day power."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe "break down" is not the best description. "Becomes very different as the stakes become really high" is probably a better way to put it.
I still think DPR and save DCs considerably outpace AC and saving throws. While it's true that Con modifier is multiplied and damage remains static, it's also true that a single attack can easily take several HD worth of damage, and at high levels, landing 2~3 attacks is pretty easy, even with Power Attack.
This is true for most PCs vs monsters for sure. But then, this isn't the game breaking down. It's the same - worse even - back at low levels. For example...
We have a 1st level human ranger. He's moderately optimized. He has a 16 Strength and he dropped his +2 racial for an 18. He wields a club and sometimes swings it with two hands, but otherwise wears a shield a suit of chainmail. His AC with the shield is 20, 18 without (because +2 Dex).
We encounter a Wolf. The wolf has AC 14 and 13 Hp, with a +2 to hit. The wolf only hits our range on a roll of 18+ (15% chance). Our range on average with his 1-handed club deals more than half of the wolf's HP (1d6+4 = 7.5 average damage). If our ranger was to pick up a greatsword his average damage would be 13 damage per swing, though the wolf would no have a 25% chance to hit him. If we're dealing with virtually any enemy below CR 1 (other than orcs), our one-handed club-wielding ranger destroys them in a single hit (a 1st level human warrior has 5-6 hp).
Both martials and spell-casters are the most efficient at killing at these levels. Martial damage vs HP is super high. Caster DCs vs saves are super high. Again, without spell focus, a similarly optimized wizard would have a DC 15 on his sleep spell. Up to DC 17 if he specced enchantment with feats. The wolf has a +1 Will save. That's bad juju for the wolf. Even having a particularly good Will save (such as a blaster druid with iron will sporting a +8 Will at 1st level) is still highly likely to fail the save.
I think the biggest problem is save DCs. Having a poor Fort or Will save progression is pretty much a death sentence at high levels, since save DCs become really high and failing a single save will often completely remove you from combat. Roll something lower than 15 or whatever in your bad save and you might as well leave the table and go eat something.
This is true. We basically come back to being low-level again where your weakest save is huge hindrance. We're back to our weak save only succeeding on a 15+. Kind of like how the Fighter with with his +2 Will save at first level feels when the wizard drops sleep on him.
This is high-level monsters often have all sorts of immunities (or at least they did in 3.5, not so much in PF).
I'm very thankful for the lack of immunities to everything at high levels (this includes the nerf to fortification armors/shields). One of the fun parts -- to me -- about high levels is the amount of options. You can overcome and defeat things through methods that are not just "hit it with more damage / more save or dies". Even martials flinging around negative-level delivering life-drinkers get in on this. :P
Back when I ran epic games in 3.x, I found myself getting really burnt out with them. Not for the usual reasons either. It wasn't the horrible mechanics that the ELH presented, it was the fact the game just wasn't fun anymore. Here we had a whole party of characters who were high level, but their high level abilities were nearly universally useless.
GM: "Sorry, this creature - like all the other creatures - is immune to all elements, immune to death effects, has spell resistance infinity, immune to negative levels, immune to poison, immune to disease, immune to breathing effects, immune to critical hits, immune to sneak attacks..."
Paladin: "Hah, but I rolled a 20 on my vorpal sword!"
GM: "...Oh, it's immune to that too."
Paladin: "Dafuq? How is it immune to vorpal weapons?"
GM: "It actually says, right here, on it's statblock, that it's immune to having its head cut off with a vorpal weapon,"
Paladin: "It's a +5 weapon enhancement. It's more than 50% of my weapon's capability. It costs four times as much as a +5 weapon, and it doesn't do anything more than a +5 weapon except occasionally let me roll to lop somebody's head off." D:
GM: "Yeah, this is lame."
Situations where half the party succeeds on anything but a natural one and the other half only succeeds with a natural 20 are problematic for keeping the game balanced.This is a feature not a flaw.
I would certainly hope that my fighter with 1 rank in a knowledge is completely out-classed by a wizard with full ranks.
I would also hope that my wizard can't beat things with a stick within the same CR-range as my fighter.
I don't recall stating that it was a flaw, just a reality.
I don't think anyone sees those particular carefully crafted examples as especially problematic for game balance. A high-level wizard isn't going to be making ordinary melee attacks unless something has gone terribly wrong.
The two most common culprits for high-level balance concerns are actually AC and saving throws. A high-level fighter who hasn't worked on shoring up his poor base will save is going to be dominated at the drop of a hat, while the high-level cleric can pretty much laugh off any will save thanks to a high base save and being a wisdom-based character.
Sure, an optimized fighter should do something to deal with his low will save. Not all high-level fighters are optimized. God help the fighter player who dumped wisdom down to seven to get one more point of strength and ditched his Cloak of Resistance to take the "Cloak of really cool-sounding 1/day power."
IMHO, part of the high level game is learning from your mistakes. By the time you're 15th level, you should have a healthy respect for what it means to fail a saving throw. If not, the GM either hasn't done a very good job in presenting diverse encounters to teach players about the game on the way, or the player willingly accepts this achilles heel.
I'm very thankful for the lack of immunities to everything at high levels (this includes the nerf to fortification armors/shields). One of the fun parts -- to me -- about high levels is the amount of options. You can overcome and defeat things through methods that are not just "hit it with more damage / more save or dies". Even martials flinging around negative-level delivering life-drinkers get in on this. :P
Back when I ran epic games in 3.x, I found myself getting really burnt out with them. Not for the usual reasons either. It wasn't the horrible mechanics that the ELH presented, it was the fact the game just wasn't fun anymore. Here we had a whole party of characters who were high level, but their high level abilities were nearly universally useless.
GM: "Sorry, this creature - like all the other creatures - is immune to all elements, immune to death effects, has spell resistance infinity, immune to negative levels, immune to poison, immune to disease, immune to breathing effects, immune to critical hits, immune to sneak attacks..."
Paladin: "Hah, but I rolled a 20 on my vorpal sword!"
GM: "...Oh, it's immune to that too."
Paladin: "Dafuq? How is it immune to vorpal weapons?"
GM: "It actually says, right here, on it's statblock, that it's immune to having its head cut off with a vorpal weapon,"
Paladin: "It's a +5 weapon enhancement. It's more than 50% of my weapon's capability. It costs four times as much as a +5 weapon, and it doesn't do anything more than a +5 weapon except occasionally let me roll to lop somebody's head off." D:
GM: "Yeah, this is lame."
Yeah, the problem is not that those options exist, but that SoD effects are... Well... Boring.
Admittedly, this is personal taste more than anything, but at least for me, having a battle be decided by a single die roll (maybe 2 rolls, if we count initiative) is boring. You never have the chance to make any actual decision, you're simply hoping you roll as 12 or whatever so you can keep playing and force your own SoD effect on the enemy (which my be a spell or a full attack).
Its boring for both the target and the user of the SoD effect. Debuffing is fun, but when a single bad roll puts you out of the game, it's frustrating and boring... I don't need battles to last 6+ rounds (really, considering each round is likely to have 6~12 different turns, having the combat last too long would be annoying), but killing/being killed by a natural 1 on the 1st round is infuriating.
Those immunities from 3.5 were there so that SoL effect were less effective, and thus, the game would be more exciting (maybe the Wizard would need more than a single spell). But because SoD are by their very nature, completely binary (instead of having increasingly harmful effects depending on how bad you rolled), the only wait to avoid them is being completely immune.
Unfortunately, being immune to those SoD effects means you're mean immune to lots of other stuff too... So players end up having less options as a side-effect of designers trying to make sure monsters were not defeated by a single spell.
This is one of the reasons I hate SoL effects and wish they were more gradient, instead of binary.
e.g.: Petrification could make you staggered on a failed save, but if your saving throw is below the DC by 4 or more, and/or you have 4 HD less than the CL of the spell, you are petrified.
Raising DC and saves would still make sense and reward you for your investment, but spell wouldn't such an all-or-nothing deal, so immunities wouldn't be necessary.
Why does the math in Pathfinder "break down" at higher levels?
It doesn't.
Yeah it does, or at the very least it can unless you take steps to avoid it.
Hey, that was easy.
Sounds like one of the questions monks meditate over to regain Ki.
"Is it broken unless steps are taken to avoid it, or is it not broken until steps are taken to break it?"
Ideally, its broken if you had to fix it. That said, table tops have a lot of variables. Ideally math in core is one of the smallest variables, while math such as a spell caster's exponential options or a player's creativity are darn near impossible to chart(though you can certainly limit spell casting).
|
An entire group of fully optimized, well synergized and otherwise absurdly well prepared characters can break the game pretty damn hard at higher levels. The only way around it as a GM is to try and exploit their weaknesses, but uh... I've seen groups that literally do not have any weaknesses; they have everything covered. There is nothing in the entire bestiary (including the great old ones) that this party would not destroy inside of 3-4 (pit fiends, balors and even solars are doomed in the first round even if they attack en masse) rounds maximum. I could add the advanced template to a pit fiend six times over and they'd be able to kill it using their level ten characters, let alone the high level ones. If they were able to do that to pit fiends by level 10, what's that say for things actually in tier for them?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An entire group of fully optimized, well synergized and otherwise absurdly well prepared characters can break the game pretty damn hard at higher levels. The only way around it as a GM is to try and exploit their weaknesses, but uh... I've seen groups that literally do not have any weaknesses; they have everything covered. There is nothing in the entire bestiary (including the great old ones) that this party would not destroy inside of 3-4 (pit fiends, balors and even solars are doomed in the first round even if they attack en masse) rounds maximum. I could add the advanced template to a pit fiend six times over and they'd be able to kill it at level 10. If they were able to do that to pit fiends by level 10, what's that say for things actually in tier for them?
A few things...
1. I'm highly skeptical. Pit fiends are terrifying opponents. A advancedx6 pit fiend by all accounts should one-shot every 10th level character who gets near him. A DC 38 trap the soul or DC 39 mass hold monster without spell components at will alone assures this. The fact it also has an AC of 54, Fort +40, Ref +37, Will +34, and 590 Hp with a DR 15/good and silver is just icing.
2. It sounds like the encounters you are describing are bad. The golden rule of encounter design is "more than one". In the same way that 4 CR 1/4 kobolds will slaughter a 1st level PC virtually every time, you can not expect even a single enemy even of great strength to stand toe to toe with a party of super heroes.
3. It also sounds like the creatures in these encounters are not being used to their potential. If the pit fiend is treated like an ogre and just rushes into melee, it's going to die a horrible death. If it acts like it's got a pair of braincells, it is going to be an absolutely terrible foe to encounter. Pit fiends are one of my favorite monsters.
First off, pit fiends get to summon a CR 19 devil with 100% success (that basically means you're likely facing a devil with class levels on top of the pit fiend itself). Their lairs are crawling with mohrgs and mummies because anything that has died in their domain can be turned into an undead creature at will. Admittedly they aren't in control of the undead, but they are basically something else that is going to try to kill or pester you while you're dealing with the pit fiend proper.
Getting close to a pit fiend is dangerous. They have trap the soul as an at-will SLA, and mass hold monster as well, both with respectable save DCs. They thrash summoned creatures (or potentially party members if fighting the fiend on its home plane) because it can cast blasphemy at will as well (anything extraplanar has to make a save at -4 or be banished for 24 hours, in addition to other effects).
Power word stun allows them to take anyone who's wounded out of the fight for several rounds, no save. And they can play mind games with persistent image.
Also, true seeing is useless beyond a range of 120 ft. They also have constant magic circle against good, and unholy aura for all intents and purposes. Their wall of fire spells last 18 rounds at a time and can be layered for some good fun. Also invisibility.
Finally, greater teleport at will, devil shaping, and their mobility, coupled with the 134,000 gp worth of shwag that they have to customize them with and you have an epic fight on your hands. One that 10th level characters will not ever win without something extremely fishy going on.
The insanity of an Advanced x6 pit fiend would be a CR 26 encounter. That would be the equivalent of: 2,457,600 XP worth of enemies. You could fit an entire army of devils in that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agree with Ashiel - I'd be very interested in seeing the character sheets for level ten characters that could kill even a single pit fiend consistently, much less an advanced x6 pit fiend.
I'm pretty confident I could TPK a party of 16th, 17th, or even 18th level characters with a single pit fiend pretty easily, and if we went Core only I could probably do the same with 20th level characters. The sheer number of options available, combined with extraordinary intellect and tons of treasure should make a pit fiend the sort of nightmare foe you only want to fight when you can pin it against its own objectives / desires and make it stand and fight in a way that it really doesn't want to.
Incidentally, the same is true for a balor.
Can you stack the same template over and over again???
Arguably it would fall under the general rule of "like-named bonuses, or multiple bonuses to the same stat from multiple identical sources, do not stack."
It's why you can't have a half-blue, half-green, half-red, half-bronze dragon.
That said, if a DM slapped on the "Advanced" template more than once, I might personally consider it to be kind of lazy, but I wouldn't complain or have any problem with it.
My god, I'm agreeing with Ashiel. Everything he said is pretty much assumed for a pit fiend. There's no way your 10th level characters can handle a single pit fiend, let alone one that just had +24 to all stats and +12 natural armor slapped on him.
The balor Peter mentions has less encounter building abilities (lacks create undead and wall of fire, though it has dominate monster), but can be just as formidable in the mix, with a higher caster level and more hit points.
Amiel didn't bother to suggest that some level dependent abilities could increase, like the summoning for CR 19 that the fiends have. A pit fiend that wanted to be cheesy could even summon a young templated pit fiend to double the fun with SLAs, assuming it didn't want to make use of one of the terrifying CR 18-19 devils extant in the bestiaries. That's all before a DM might assume that the advanced pit fiend can summon better than CR 19.
Shenanigans.
I didn't see a rule about only applying templates once. It's certainly not elegant, but doable.
+1
JJ says you can, but probably shouldn't. IMO the main legitimate reason to do this is if you want to apply young or giant twice and don't have the time or inclination to rebuild the monster.
However, if the group has any gaps in optimization/playstyle/build priority, those differences will become increasingly pronounced as the levels go up.
I think if you play a regular campaign from 1st to 20th level, those gaps will narrow considerably. Even if one player has very little interest in optimization, the others are likely to offer some basic guidance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With monsters are actually supposed to use their wealth? If so then they become much stronger. I published adventures I never see monster use wealth.
No of course not...the pit fiend's weapon proficiencies and +28 Use Magic device are just for show. It's also naked, and carrying the 134,000 gp worth of treasure around in a ziplock back stuffed in its pooper. :P
EDIT: In case it's not clear that I'm joking sarcastically, yes, monsters use their wealth. See monsters like the Ghaele who carries around a +4 weapon. Also see Full Body Cavity Search on the Demon for more on this topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Uh, that's not mine. Someone must have dropped it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Throw me in the camp of "The math is broken, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can't have fun with the system." The problem with the math is that even without much optimization at a certain point, the system gets to a point where the random element hardly matters; If you're good at something (full BAB, full investment in a certain skill, ect) you're almost guaranteed to succeed, but if you're not (poor BAB, low investment in a skill) you won't succeed no matter what you roll. (Of course there's also the issue at lower levels, where there's hardly any difference between two characters in accomplishing a certain task, even if one should be significantly better at it than the other, since static bonuses are generally very low.) For some people that's fine. For me, I dislike it, but there's nothing I can really do about it, until Paizo decides they want to do a Pathfinder 2.0, so until then, I just won't play above a certain level.
So, yes the math is broken. People obviously can have fun with a system where the math isn't perfect, but the math doesn't get any less broken just because some people can enjoy the system even at high levels.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Throw me in the camp of "The math is broken, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can't have fun with the system." The problem with the math is that even without much optimization at a certain point, the system gets to a point where the random element hardly matters; If you're good at something (full BAB, full investment in a certain skill, ect) you're almost guaranteed to succeed, but if you're not (poor BAB, low investment in a skill) you won't succeed no matter what you roll. *****
I consider that a feature, not broken math. A character with a poor defense who doesn't shore it up should fail when faced with a potent attack that targets that defense, and then the other party members who don't share that weakness hopefully have the resources to help them recover. Similarly, a Fighter who has reached the absolute pinnacle of heroic advancement and has become an absolute expert at hitting things should be virtually guaranteed to hit with his primary attack. An epic level fighter with a 65% or smaller chance to hit a level appropriate challenge's AC isn't very epic.
I think the disparity in ability is a promise made by the party-role system.
Can you stack the same template over and over again???
in 3.5 you couldn't unless specified otherwise if I remember correctly. Not that that keeps half-troll trolls from existing...
I think the disparity in ability is a promise made by the party-role system.
Don't suppose you could give details? Didn't know pathfinder uses roles either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, if the group has any gaps in optimization/playstyle/build priority, those differences will become increasingly pronounced as the levels go up.I think if you play a regular campaign from 1st to 20th level, those gaps will narrow considerably. Even if one player has very little interest in optimization, the others are likely to offer some basic guidance.
That depends on the players/table, to an extent. Ideally, those gaps should narrow down as the players with lower system mastery learn and get some good advice from the other people at the table. However, that doesn't always happen in actual games. Some people just don't figure the system out, and don't take advice well. When stuff like that happens, it definitely contributes to high-level math "breaking down."