I was thinking the other day that it is pretty much a lost cause to try and foresee every possible combination of character build. Invariably some combination will be far superior to others.
However as your all probably aware this can sometimes cause issues in group dynamics where there is a power disparity between the optimised and un-optimised in the group.
So it got me to thinking how could you possibly curb things you can't even foresee in an effort to keep the playing field vaguely level ?
What if paizo released a new type of rule, call it a global rule. A simple yet definitive cap to what characters can and can't do. so that even if it says in your class you can get 3 attacks at first level a global rule might say "sorry you can only attack once per 4 character levels per round". Perhaps you class will lets you cast 2 or 3 spells per rounds "sorry global rule says maximum one spell per round".
Now I have no idea exactly what global rules would be appropriate to encapsulate pathfinder but it seems a few simple rules that specifically trumps anything you might find in a class or feat seems like it might just curb the top end without requiring a massive number of specific rules to combat certain combinations.
I don't know. How would you feel about a small set of global rules that put level caps on very basic mechanics like number of attacks and the like? You could still make your character however you want, but you might not be able to use him to his full extent until he achieves a sufficiently high level.
They tried with rules on free action but it backfired horribly
The only place i've seen this is the summoner's eidolon's max number of attacks per round.
But i would approve such a measure.
|
I have seen something similar in other RPGs, stuff like only having a maximum of 3 bonuses apply to a roll (so you don't have to worry about every tiny bonus, just identify the 3 best). I think it was Earthdawn that had that rule.
It can simplify things, but to be honest, if Paizo were to implement this they would be best to do so as optional "Campaign Limits". Basically just listing stuff like you have "max total bonus to a roll / stat", "max number of attacks", "max number of skills" etc.
Of course there is nothing stopping anyone implementing such campaign limits themselves in their home games.
Why not talk to the player(s) that are more optimized than the rest of the party and ask them to tone it down? Or give the less optimized players a bonus to keep up?
This game does require a social contract, hopefully people will be willing to adjust their style of play to make a better game for everyone.
Personally I find that restricting the sources available to players and using point buy can go a long way to removing excessive disparities between characters.
There is a global rule for that. It's called 'Dude, don't f*** up the game for everybody else'.
Why would you want to Paizo to force your playstyle on their entire audience?
Yeah, this kind of rule would just lead to DIFFERENT optimization, and you would still have the same problem.
This is a player issue, not a system one. It's virtually impossible to create a system that doesnt (in some fashion) reward system mastery, so I dont think global rules will have much effect.
Why would you want to Paizo to force your playstyle on their entire audience?
In this case I'm fairly certain a GM could simply choose not to impose said global rules. Just like he can choose not to use material from any one of a number of existing supplements.
I tend to think this global rule already exists, it's rule zero, it's why the game has a human GM instead of just following a bunch of tables to generate a random dungeon (ah, I do miss Advanced Heroquest though!).
As you've illustrated in the opening post, a ruleset this complex just can't contain enough individual checks and balances to ensure everything works out the way it should. That's why there's a human being interpreting and ruling on things.
More importantly, it's a human being that can decide how to balance such things, or whether to leave it alone and not interfere at all, if that's how the group wants to play.