It is self-evident that the more books allowed in a campaign, the more powerful the PCs will be.
Some campaigns allow the PF book only.
Others allow "core" only, however that may be defined.
Others allow any book the DM owns.
Others allow all of the above plus any 3.5 books where those books do not contradict PF rules.
A group of PCs built with the original PF book only are going to be inferior, on average, to a group of PCs whose players were free to use all core books and all 3.5 books including the Magic Item Compendium and the Spell Compendium.
Question -- about how much of a power bump does allowing more books grant to a party?
+1 to the party LA if 3.5 material is allowed?
+2?
It seems like there should be some kind of general rule available to DMs. Obviously it wouldn't apply to NPC encounters because the NPCs with class levels and equipment could benefit from the additional books as well. But when fighting monsters and NPCs in modules where the additional books aren't used...
You get my drift. What do you think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't really quantifiable like that. You can build some very powerful things very easily using only the crb and it's even easier to build something completely useless the more material you have available. The sheer number of choices means the are many (i.e. most of them) that are subpar ore worse. So no, it isn't really self-evident that they will be more powerful. The more books, the more chance to f+$@ up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard is in the CRB.
Wizard is in the CRB.
"Obviously it wouldn't apply to NPC encounters because the NPCs with class levels and equipment could benefit from the additional books as well. But when fighting monsters and NPCs in modules where the additional books aren't used..."
Try again.
It isn't really quantifiable like that. You can build some very powerful things very easily using only the crb and it's even easier to build something completely useless the more material you have available. The sheer number of choices means the are many (i.e. most of them) that are subpar ore worse. So no, it isn't really self-evident that they will be more powerful. The more books, the more chance to f++$ up.
What you are saying makes a lot of sense, if players roll randomly to determine their character creation and development choices.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard is in the CRB."Obviously it wouldn't apply to NPC encounters because the NPCs with class levels and equipment could benefit from the additional books as well. But when fighting monsters and NPCs in modules where the additional books aren't used..."
Try again.
What are you even talking about, what does that have to do with my post at all?
You were asking about PC's getting stronger by book allowance, I was pointing out that the strongest class is in the core rulebook. This has zero to do with NPC's or whatever you're on about now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on why/what you're including from v3.5. If you're just cherry-picking the most powerful things, then yes the power level will creep. But if I'm petitioning the GM to let me use "Double Wand Wielder", it's because I never got a chance to try that back in the day. It also depends on the book from v3.5. There's a big difference between allowing the Skill Tricks from Complete Scoundrel and allowing the classes from Book of Nine Swords.
Edit:fixed link
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard is in the CRB.
Yes, but if you were building the best wizard you could, would you ignore all of the options in the other books? Just because there is an imbalance (or at least a percieved imbalance) between CRB classes, that doesn't mean that adding more options (feats, spells, etc...) from the other books has no effect on wizard power level.
It could very well be that other books add to other classes more than they add to a wizards power and thus they tend to even things out, but I don't really think that is the case. DMs should allow what they feel comfortable with and disallow whatever they think will upset the balance of their game, and this includes magterial in the CRB
LA is terrible.
Always.
Don't use it.
If you think your PCs are a bit beefed up from using other books, increase the game's challenge, not impose arbitrary restrictions on them.
Wizard is in the CRB.Yes, but if you were building the best wizard you could, would you ignore all of the options in the other books? Just because there is an imbalance (or at least a percieved imbalance) between CRB classes, that doesn't mean that adding more options (feats, spells, etc...) from the other books has no effect on wizard power level.
It could very well be that other books add to other classes more than they add to a wizards power and thus they tend to even things out, but I don't really think that is the case. DMs should allow what they feel comfortable with and disallow whatever they think will upset the balance of their game, and this includes magterial in the CRB
Exactly right. Also, I'm not really talking about "party balance" as it pertains to one PC compared to another, but in the sense of the party compared to the monsters in the core PF books.
Of course it goes both ways -- if I allow 3.5 books and then give my giants the Brutal Throw feat instead of (say) Improved Overrun, they gain a clear and present bump in power against the PCs. But in those cases where I just leave the monsters as they are, the party is going to get more powerful (on average) the more sourcebooks I allow the players to draw from when making their characters.
LA is terrible.
Always.
Don't use it.
If you think your PCs are a bit beefed up from using other books, increase the game's challenge, not impose arbitrary restrictions on them.
Adjusting CR is not an arbitrary restriction. Its a correction, in fact, of the logical consequence of allowing unrestricted access to a large number of compatible sourcebooks.
And I'm not really talking about LA here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is self-evident that the more books allowed in a campaign, the more powerful the PCs will be.
Since the most powerful classes in the game are in the CRB, this is really not evident at all, much less self-evident.
Also, the CR system is so ... *ahem* ... inaccurate that attempting to modify it based solely on material allowed is impossible. It's always been, at best, a loose guideline.
It depends on why/what you're including from v3.5. If you're just cherry-picking the most powerful things, then yes the power level will creep.
You do have a point, but in general I think it's safe to assume that players will optimize their characters to some degree based on the available sourcebooks.
It is self-evident that the more books allowed in a campaign, the more powerful the PCs will be.Since the most powerful classes in the game are in the CRB, this is really not evident at all, much less self-evident.
You are arguing that a party built using core books ONLY will tend to be equal in power level to a party built using every conceivably compatible sourcebook out there.
Stop and think about that for a moment. Does that really sound like a winning argument?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that you can't possibly just put a numerical value on the amount of increase just based on the fact that additional material is available. The game is not that specific, and the CR system is REALLY not that specific. The CR system simply does not work like that (it barely works at all); worry about what the PCs are actually capable of, not what they are theoretically capable of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is self-evident that the more books allowed in a campaign, the more powerful the PCs will be.Since the most powerful classes in the game are in the CRB, this is really not evident at all, much less self-evident.You are arguing that a party built using core books ONLY will tend to be equal in power level to a party built using every conceivably compatible sourcebook out there.
Stop and think about that for a moment. Does that really sound like a winning argument?
Ranger haven't changed a whole lot. Paladins didn't get a bunch of game breakers. Full casters are still incredibly powerful.
If your question is on whether a min/maxxed party using game breakers built with core rules only will be stronger or one with all books allowed then we have something to talk about.
And this question is obviously answered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are arguing that a party built using core books ONLY will tend to be equal in power level to a party built using every conceivably compatible sourcebook out there.
Stop and think about that for a moment. Does that really sound like a winning argument?
Zhayne is exactly right. More books introduce more options, but that means they introduce options that are worse than the best options in the CRB. Since people don't always pick the best available option, more options can actually make the party weaker on average. For example, say I want to play an Int-based character. The APG is allowed, so I choose to play an alchemist because the flavor of the class appeals to me. If the game was CRB only, then I would have played a wizard. Having more books available means I'll play a weaker character.
Dotting to read. I don't fully have an idea either way and am going to keep an eye on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM´s should sit down with their players and talk about this.
About everyone´s perspective on what is strong and powerful and what not, but also why. About what players want to play and how. Crunch and flavorwise. Then you reach a common point, everyone has fun and feels good.
A GM cooking his own soup there just based on his feelings alone is, well, not something i would do. And i have to say i don´t like it with other GM´s that much. Same is true for houserules actually. Suer the GM spends probably a bit more time, but if you want good players that help you out, by doing their stuff for example and playing good, you have more fun as a GM too.
As said above, some of the most powerful things are in the CRB and APG.
And after all, the system mastery brings the greatest power still.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adjusting CR is not an arbitrary restriction. Its a correction, in fact, of the logical consequence of allowing unrestricted access to a large number of compatible sourcebooks.
And I'm not really talking about LA here.
You didn't say CR, you said "Party LA". With this post as a sort of clarification, I think you meant "APL" (average party level).
In that case, yes, up their APL and send harder challenges after them, by all means. It's what I do when I feel like the party is breezing through things.
However, you can't really say "+1 APL per X books" because books don't linearly increase power like that. One book might have something really good for one class, and some neat but not any more powerful than already released stuff for everyone else.
Some of the most powerful things in the game are in the CRB too, so it just doesn't work that way.
You just need to throw some varying challenges at your group. If they're breezing through APL and APL +1 challenges, make APL+2 the "standard" encounter, either by adding templates to enemies or increasing the number.
Likewise, if they're flubbing on APL+1 challenges, dial it back a bit.
Zhayne is exactly right. More books introduce more options, but that means they introduce options that are worse than the best options in the CRB. Since people don't always pick the best available option, more options can actually make the party weaker on average. For example, say I want to play an Int-based character. The APG is allowed, so I choose to play an alchemist because the flavor of the class appeals to me. If the game was CRB only, then I would have played a wizard. Having more books available means I'll play a weaker character.You are arguing that a party built using core books ONLY will tend to be equal in power level to a party built using every conceivably compatible sourcebook out there.
Stop and think about that for a moment. Does that really sound like a winning argument?
You are arguing that a party built using core books ONLY will tend to be equal in power level to a party built using every conceivably compatible sourcebook out there.
Stop and think about that for a moment. Does that really sound like a winning argument?
Stop and think about that for a moment. Does that really sound like a winning argument?
Yes.
You didn't say CR, you said "Party LA". With this post as a sort of clarification, I think you meant "APL" (average party level).
Ah, my bad. You are, of course, correct.
In that case, yes, up their APL and send harder challenges after them, by all means. It's what I do when I feel like the party is breezing through things.
However, you can't really say "+1 APL per X books" because books don't linearly increase power like that. One book might have something really good for one class, and some neat but not any more powerful than already released stuff for everyone else.
Fair enough, but surely there could be a general bump? For example, I allow (most) 3.5 stuff as well as most PF sourcebooks. Enough that I feel that (combined with the player involved and their general aptitude for and interest in min/maxing their characters) it's fair to consider a blanket +1 to APL.
Some of the most powerful things in the game are in the CRB too, so it just doesn't work that way.
You just need to throw some varying challenges at your group. If they're breezing through APL and APL +1 challenges, make APL+2 the "standard" encounter, either by adding templates to enemies or increasing the number.
Likewise, if they're flubbing on APL+1 challenges, dial it back a bit.
All very reasonable, and in the end what I was really getting at anyway. I'd have to agree that not every group of players will take equal advantage of sourcebook availability (but I maintain that increasing the number of sourcebooks allowed will TEND to increase party power level, and any argument to the contrary is kind of silly).
At the very least, I think this is something that GMs should certainly consider.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(but I maintain that increasing the number of sourcebooks allowed will TEND to increase party power level, and any argument to the contrary is kind of silly).
Not really. IF your group had the desire to heavily optimize, the system mastery to do so, and the time to do so then you might see an increase in power from added sorce material. But 90% of tables don't have that happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having more books available means I'll play a weaker character.How do I set this as a quote at the bottom of my posts? It's hilarious!
Bookmark this page or save it in a text file or something. Include a link to my post in that. Whenever you post, copypaste it in to the end of the post.
Boo twice.
*shrug* I think it's kinda humorous. The idea of Werebat quoting me out of context in this way is so absurd it's funny.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it is crystal clear that adding more books beyond the crb is going to increase the potential power level of the characters. Those that disagree are not used to playing core-only and don't like core only.
As far as setting a certain modifier to CR, its not that easy. You'll have to get a feel for it and modify it on the fly.
Yes, it is crystal clear that adding more books beyond the crb is going to increase the potential power level of the characters.
Potential, sure. I think everyone agrees with that. Or, at least, everyone agrees that adding more books doesn't decrease the potential power level. A book of entirely bad options won't increase potential power level; it'll stay the same. But Werebat hasn't been talking about potential. From the OP:
It is self-evident that the more books allowed in a campaign, the more powerful the PCs will be.
That doesn't say that with more books the PCs will potentially be more powerful, it says they will be more powerful. Not the same.
And that doesn't get into how significant a power increase that is.
|
|
There certainly is no linear measurment that can tell you how much more powerful things are going to get by adding book X. Too many variables, but I know that the people I play with make more powerful characters when more books are available.
It comes down to the choices made, not by just one PC but by the whole party since synergies between PCs often increase the power level to much higher than the sum of the partys individulal parts.
Werebat, are you trying to argue that the alchemist is not a weaker class than the wizard?
In order for her statement to be silly in the way she presented it, you would have to be arguing that. I, personally, would love to see that argument; it would enlighten me on aspects of the game mechanics that I have missed and would aid me for when I start GMing Pathfinder games, as it would give me a better idea of the class balance and allow me to more properly tailor my adventure designs around the party.
I am not arguing against you. I am just pointing out what appears to be a flaw in your claim and then asking you to enlighten me on it.
Werebat, are you trying to argue that the alchemist is not a weaker class than the wizard?
Nope. And that doesn't make the statement that more options leads to less powerful characters any less silly.
Vivianne said -- AND I QUOTE -- "Having more books available means I'll play a weaker character." That's what she said.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Werebat, are you trying to argue that the alchemist is not a weaker class than the wizard?
In order for her statement to be silly in the way she presented it, you would have to be arguing that. I, personally, would love to see that argument; it would enlighten me on aspects of the game mechanics that I have missed and would aid me for when I start GMing Pathfinder games, as it would give me a better idea of the class balance and allow me to more properly tailor my adventure designs around the party.
I am not arguing against you. I am just pointing out what appears to be a flaw in your claim and then asking you to enlighten me on it.
MagusJanus, Are you saying that a wizard who only selects spells from the CRB will be more powerful than one who gets to select spells from both the APG and CRB?
I am not in complete agreement with Werebat about things here, but you seem to be intentionally misrepresenting his argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree that allowing more source books can increase the power level of the party, there isn't any strong correlation between what is allowed and how powerful your party will be. In my experience if they breeze through APL encounters then make then APL+1. If that's not enough then APL+2. If that's not enough APL+3. So forth and so on until you get to the challenge level you desire for the party.
And there are lots of way to achieve this. More monster, higher level monsters, terrain, traps (in the combat area). There's actually a good guide on here, GM’s Guide to Creating Challenging Encounters.
I almost slipped into explaining myself further here, but there really isn't any need. Anyone who doesn't get off on splitting hairs to make pedantic points already knows full well why Vivianne, while technically correct, is making a silly argument.
Man, I'm just happy you can spell "Vivianne" correctly. You'd be surprised how many people cannot.
Werebat, are you trying to argue that the alchemist is not a weaker class than the wizard?Nope.
I don't see why you think what I said earlier was silly then. If I play an alchemist---instead of a wizard---because the option is available to me, how is that not a case of allowing more than the CRB leading to me making a weaker character?
|
|
While I agree that allowing more source books can increase the power level of the party, there isn't any strong correlation between what is allowed and how powerful your party will be. In my experience if they breeze through APL encounters then make then APL+1. If that's not enough then APL+2. If that's not enough APL+3. So forth and so on until you get to the challenge level you desire for the party.
And there are lots of way to achieve this. More monster, higher level monsters, terrain, traps (in the combat area). There's actually a good guide on here, GM’s Guide to Creating Challenging Encounters.
Best advice so far in this thread
MagusJanus, Are you saying that a wizard who only selects spells from the CRB will be more powerful than one who gets to select spells from both the APG and CRB?
I am not in complete agreement with Werebat about things here, but you seem to be intentionally misrepresenting his argument.
I am not addressing that at all. I was questioning him for clarification on his statements about the bit from Vivianne's post. Nothing I said in any way addressed the rest of his argument at all.
Like I said in my first post: I have no idea on this discussion. And, in fact, I'm pretty certain there's plenty of things from APG, ARG, and several other books that Werebat can cite to back his stance. Just as there are several items for the other side, including what they have already posted.
So, I'm just a spectator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree that allowing more source books can increase the power level of the party, there isn't any strong correlation between what is allowed and how powerful your party will be.
There is if your players are reasonably competent min/maxers.
Best advice so far in this threadWhile I agree that allowing more source books can increase the power level of the party, there isn't any strong correlation between what is allowed and how powerful your party will be. In my experience if they breeze through APL encounters then make then APL+1. If that's not enough then APL+2. If that's not enough APL+3. So forth and so on until you get to the challenge level you desire for the party.
And there are lots of way to achieve this. More monster, higher level monsters, terrain, traps (in the combat area). There's actually a good guide on here, GM’s Guide to Creating Challenging Encounters.
I'm going to agree -- although I personally would not raise APL, as it will just make the party rocket up in level. I would raise encounter levels and then award xp as if the encounters were lower than they actually were.
Anyway, this isn't a hypothetical thing. In a CRB-only game, the classes I'd want to play are bard and the full casters. I do like the barbarian and paladin, but without archetypes, feats, and abilities from other books, I'd have a hard time wanting to play one. Ranger's in a similar boat. And CRB-only fighter, monk, and rogue are... not for me.
If more sources are allowed, then the list of classes I'd want to play grows. That lowers the power of the average character I'd want to play. Instead of playing a cleric, maybe I play an inquisitor. Or a paladin with the right archetype. Maybe I'll do something really suboptimal like play a kobold character (Pathfinder tries really hard to make kobolds overly weak, but I still like them!). In a CRB-only game, I couldn't play any of these. I'd stick with an elf wizard or a half-orc cleric or whatever and be much more powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to agree -- although I personally would not raise APL, as it will just make the party rocket up in level. I would raise encounter levels and then award xp as if the encounters were lower than they actually were.Best advice so far in this threadWhile I agree that allowing more source books can increase the power level of the party, there isn't any strong correlation between what is allowed and how powerful your party will be. In my experience if they breeze through APL encounters then make then APL+1. If that's not enough then APL+2. If that's not enough APL+3. So forth and so on until you get to the challenge level you desire for the party.
And there are lots of way to achieve this. More monster, higher level monsters, terrain, traps (in the combat area). There's actually a good guide on here, GM’s Guide to Creating Challenging Encounters.
First of all, as the GM you get to award however much XP you want. You will find that many people (including several in this thread) support the idea of getting rid of XP entirely and leveling when it is appropriate for the storyline. But beyond that, saying that because a group will level up faster that you shouldn't give them more difficult challenges is silly. Either you can make encounters more challenging so that players actually are actually challenged, or you can do nothing and they will continue to breeze through the game. Even if they do level up more quickly what difference does that really make? You're the GM, you can always increase the challenge to keep pace.
While I agree that allowing more source books can increase the power level of the party, there isn't any strong correlation between what is allowed and how powerful your party will be.There is if your players are reasonably competent min/maxers.
I can't see anywhere yet in this thread where you've talked about your players.. Which is odd, because to me, this is an issue of you being concerned about how powerful your players will be.
ARE they reasonably competent min/maxers? If yes, regardless of how many source books are available to them, they will build something useful/competent/potentially strong.
I know I've had character concepts that could not be fully realized with what was just available in the CRB. All over the boards you can find information on "trouble" classes and archetypes, such as the gunslinger, synthesist (and summoner in general), zen archers, etc. Maybe do something along the lines of "CRB, UM, UC, all allowed explicitly, anything else must be run by me first". That way everybody is satisfied.