I love the implication in your wording that wanting to be able to built a character concept as you like is childish.
Who said anything about rolling stats for balance?
Who said anything about rolling stats for balance?
You said the problems with the synth summoner come from point buy.
That implies that rolling for stats would be more balancing. Which it's not as your question implies. So rolling for stats doesn't really address the problems with the synthesist summoner in terms of balance.
Who said anything about rolling stats for balance?You said the problems with the synth summoner come from point buy.
That implies that rolling for stats would be more balancing. Which it's not as your question implies. So rolling for stats doesn't really address the problems with the synthesist summoner in terms of balance.
Because rolling and point buy are the only stat generation methods that exist?
Point buy comes from a stigma that people have that I believe has adapted the name 'balance at all costs' on this board, and I don't really wanna turn this into an edition war thread, but that is where such a construct leads as far as game design goes. For point buy to truly put all players on an equal bedrock of starting points then every class needs a serious overhaul to propagate that game design.
The Synthesist is the perfect example of why point buy is such a flawed system. It is practically inferior to its base class, and yet ends up being mechanically superior due to an unreasonable exploitation of an already flawed system.
Rolling stats to fix Synth would be about as effective as using a band-aid on a gunshot wound.
Again, I feel I must ask, who said anything about rolling stats being superior?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread makes me sad. OP hasn't even commented, but in case he's not a troll but simply away and comes back to this flamewar confused:
OP, the sole reason synth was banned in PFS was because the rules were extremely messy and complex, which was slowing down society play. PFS does not traditionally ban based on power or percieved 'OP-ness'.
Synth summoner however was attracting a certain type of playstyle which the class could not facilitate (strong optimisation in a class too dependent on DM interpretation of hazy rules). This was slowing games down due to constant bickering on the specifics of rules. It had nothing to do with synth 'blitzing encounters' or balance issues at all.
Considering the extremes of balance are both contained within core (roughly rogue/monk ---> wizard) I find it difficult to understand any argument based on balance or 'OP-ness'. This gap has existed since 3.5 so we have to assume Paizo understands the nature of class balance and, for their own reasons, generally choose to ignore it.
Because rolling and point buy are the only stat generation methods that exist?
There is also array and deciding "Oh, he's a bit clumsy, so lower Dexterity, maybe." One of those is manageable, but provides less variance than all the others.
I'm confused... Rolling stats ends with the exact same sort of thing, except that sometimes the good stats are lower or the dumped stats are higher. If I'm playing someone who can afford to dump some stats, my lowest ones are going into those stats probably, whether or not they're rolled or point-buy.
The same is true of pretty much any other stat-generation method in the game. No matter what method you use to get the numbers players will put good numbers in the stats they get the most use out of, and bad numbers in the stats they don't expect to use very often. Pretty much the only way a GM will ever stop dump-stats is by forcing all his players to use poorly-optimized pregenerated characters.
I'm confused... Rolling stats ends with the exact same sort of thing, except that sometimes the good stats are lower or the dumped stats are higher. If I'm playing someone who can afford to dump some stats, my lowest ones are going into those stats probably, whether or not they're rolled or point-buy.The same is true of pretty much any other stat-generation method in the game. No matter what method you use to get the numbers players will put good numbers in the stats they get the most use out of, and bad numbers in the stats they don't expect to use very often. Pretty much the only way a GM will ever stop dump-stats is by forcing all his players to use poorly-optimized pregenerated characters.
Besides, Would it not make sense for a character in a certain occupation to be optimized for those abilities? I mean, Sure you see fit scientists, but you really don't see scientists who answer things with muscles over brawn. The same thing goes here. If a person decided to pick wizard as a occupation, they probably have a fairly high intelligence score (or they will just utterly suck as a wizard.
Honestly, I really hate the argument some people make about stat optimization. I mean, it seems like if you have anything more than a 14 in your primary stat, you are being an optimizing munchkin who only cares about "roll playing" and not "roleplaying." As if they only RP builds much be frail old men who are trying to be a fighter
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point buy is evil, guys, plain and simple. We need to have everyone roll 3d6 six times in a row, assigning each result as determined in the following order: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Then, instead of the players getting to choose what they play as, there should be a table that is consulted that tells you what class you will be playing based on the scores you rolled.
THAT is the only way to avoid min-maxing, the evils of optimization, and finally usher in a glorious rebirth of roleplaying in our favorite table-top miniatures wargame RPG. Nobody wants to play at a table with Simon Belmont, Link, Merlin, and Ryu Hayabusa. That's stupid! What we're looking for is that perfect Lord of the Rings balance of Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. If everyone's got the same level of power, that's just not possible!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point buy is evil, guys, plain and simple. We need to have everyone roll 3d6 six times in a row, assigning each result as determined in the following order: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Then, instead of the players getting to choose what they play as, there should be a table that is consulted that tells you what class you will be playing based on the scores you rolled.
THAT is the only way to avoid min-maxing, the evils of optimization, and finally usher in a glorious rebirth of roleplaying in our favorite table-top
miniatures wargameRPG. Nobody wants to play at a table with Simon Belmont, Link, Merlin, and Ryu Hayabusa. That's stupid! What we're looking for is that perfect Lord of the Rings balance of Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. If everyone's got the same level of power, that's just not possible!
Troll post is trolling.
What's ironic is that you are suggesting that point buy actually grants players the same level of power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point buy is evil, guys, plain and simple. We need to have everyone roll 3d6 six times in a row, assigning each result as determined in the following order: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Then, instead of the players getting to choose what they play as, there should be a table that is consulted that tells you what class you will be playing based on the scores you rolled.
THAT is the only way to avoid min-maxing, the evils of optimization, and finally usher in a glorious rebirth of roleplaying in our favorite table-top
miniatures wargameRPG. Nobody wants to play at a table with Simon Belmont, Link, Merlin, and Ryu Hayabusa. That's stupid! What we're looking for is that perfect Lord of the Rings balance of Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. If everyone's got the same level of power, that's just not possible!Troll post is trolling.
What's ironic is that you are suggesting that point buy actually grants players the same level of power.
Okay, so I'll try being more agreeable and see where that gets me, because I'm not sure you're not just trolling in a less spectacular fashion.
I get your argument that point buy is a large part of what makes the Synthesist unbalanced compared to other characters. You have sound mathematical evidence to back up the argument and it pretty much pans out.
But you seem to have a deep-seated, eternal grudge against point buy in general for reasons that appear to be based in a "optimization is wrongbad," and "I roleplay my characters, so I'm better than you min/maxers" kind of way. If that's not your intention, explain yourself. What is your problem with point buy aside that it attempts to make building characters more fair for everyone at the table? Do you have any other reasons to dislike the system than your ill-conceived and logically-indefensible notion that it has ushered in an era that makes optimization matter more than roleplaying?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problems from PFS before the ban typically came down to player expectation and power:
Reason one is the flavor reason, and the official reason for the ban.
1) Synthesists don't want to take off their "eidolon suit."
If your group enters a social setting (say a dinner party) servants often demand the "animals" be left outside. So the druid and ranger animal companions along with the paladin and cavalier mounts would be put into the stable. Regular summoners would dismiss their eidolon or leave it outside (usually less than 100 feet away). For a synthesist it's a much bigger deal. "It's taking away the core of what my build is. It will take me 10 rounds to get it back if we have combat. With my 7 Con I'm a sitting duck. I'm not doing it." I did sit at several tables where things like this happened. One player got up in a huff and left the table. One stayed outside, missing out on over an hour of roleplay. One GM caved and let the eidolon in. Several reluctantly did dismiss the eidolon but all of them complained about it the whole time. (I'm not trying to be perjorative, it's just what I witnessed.)
Reason 2 is the power reason.
2) It simply wasn't possible to challenge a maxed Synthesist without making the scenario beyond deadly to the rest of the party.
Remember, PFS is "run as written." GMs can't just add in an "anti-synthesist" bit in a scenario to power them down to the rest of the group. At the time of the ban somewhere around 90 scenarios were available to be played that would need modification. Yes, there's plenty of other builds that could do as much (or more damage). You could get better saves or better defenses with other classes. But you couldn't get the same combination of survival, versatility, and damage with other classes.
Could you make a combat that challenges a flying pouncing synthesist? Absolutely. But the amount of "tricks" you would have to throw in to get up to difficult is going to make many other classes suffer even worse. And writing something that particularly targets synthesists - and only synthesists - flies in the face of PFS principles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with optimization at all. I have a problem with point buy because it makes assumptions about the class system as a whole that simply isn't true.
The very fact that MAD and SAD classes even exist, and so many feats, options, and abilities are created for the purpose of facilitating stat dumping by use of the point buy system. Dervish Dance, like every other Oracle Mystery, they are all designed around getting past the problems with the point buy system in the first place, and at the end of the day we always end up at this conversation.
When talking about the need for a point buy system, the first argument that everyone brings up is balance. Balance is relative, for starters, and putting all the players on an equal playing field so no one player at the table feels superior to everyone else can be seen as a noble cause in the name of fun. In practice, it is a complete disaster.
Don't get me wrong, I am not about to preach to you that 'balance at all costs' should be the goal. It is not. If it was, there are other editions of the game that do a much better job at dealing with not only the stat thing, but the other more considerable 'balance at all costs' issues that exist in our current and in previous editions.
I have yet to see an actual stat generation system that I liked, that facilitated the different classes needs and let the classes that need more actually get more without everyone complaining about it. This really comes from two things with the point buy system:
- You buy stats, not modifiers
- The game mechanics hold a double standard about assuming all classes are equal and deserve equal opportunity
For point one, it should be obvious. The jump between buying a 15 and a 16 changes what you can do with an entire other stat. If your class requires for its own abilities to even function a set quota of stat arrangement, then forcing the player to adhere to such restrictions only creates the illusion of options and control over character creation rather than propagate actual options. Consider a monk who needs at least four above average stats to gain access to the feats that he needs to play an optimal character, such as Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Power Attack, and this player still wants to be able to take advantage of his ki pool and using his WIS on his AC. Consider a cleric who needs DEX for his AC, CHA for channeling, INT for skills that he actually needs like Kn(religion) and Spellcraft plus godforbid if he wants to put ranks into something else, and all of that is before he even considers his primary casting stat. Buying an array of 14's is what the game demands, but most feats purposely put requirements at 15, purposely screwing the player out of any actual options they may have had the opportunity to give themselves. The damn Swashbuckler class in the ACG had to have an extra clause in there allowing him to switch what stat he used to qualify for the feat he needs to even use his class abilities. If that doesn't cement point #1 in fact, I do not know what would. The fact of the matter is, buying in to higher modifiers should be a bigger deal than just buying in a higher stat.
Point number two comes from experience. That experience being in editions of old where most of the skeletons of the classes we use were directly built upon to create our new game. Older versions of the game, namely 3.5, had actual starting packages and starting gold that differed from class to class. PFRPG still has different levels of starting wealth based on class. The game is already separating the classes by balance. Wizards start with a spellbook and a bunch of spells for free. Fighters start with some pocket change and a set of clothes that it's never really explained whether or not it's actually clean.
IMO, to truly 'fix' the kind of problem you see with the separate classes having such different levels of need, one would need to go through and change exactly how point buy works at each class's foundation, rather than by having all PCs start out the same. Varying point buy values by class fixes nothing, as it just promotes level dipping at 1st level to give yourself better stats. I mean something along the lines of plain giving stat values for each class to choose to start with. Let's say you want to make a wizard, in my proposed hypothetical system, it would give you a base of let's say 15 INT, and it would give you a set number of points to increase that INT. You could spend those points on the INT itself, or spend them on something else you find important, like let's say the STR score that it starts you out at 7.
The game system already has assumptions about how you are going to run your stats baked in, so I would most likely say the 'best' way to truly impose a 'balance at all costs to make all classes playable at the same table to have relatively equal power to each other' would be to set in place pre set stat arrays for classes, with no particular algorithm in place for balance other than actual game practice, testing, and experience, and then on top of that allowing a set number of points to allow buying stats up or down from there, with no particular scaling cost of higher stats.
An example:
wizard base stat array:
STR 7 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 14 WIS 10 CHA 8
Receives 10 points to buy stats up or down from this base value, not to exceed 18, or subceed 7.
Using this, a min maxer could go
STR 7 DEX 16 CON 14 INT 18 WIS 10 CHA 8
and end up roughly at the same power level one would expect from the current point buy system.
Then let's look at a monk
STR 11 DEX 13 CON 11 INT 10 WIS 13 CHA 8
Receives 20 points to buy stats up or down, using the same limits as before.
Now you end up with
STR 16 DEX 18 CON 16 INT 10 WIS 18 CHA 8
Balance wise, this character is not practically superior to the wizard above, but according to the institution of the point buy system of old it is grossly over powered.
Note this is a purely hypothetical suggestion in the spirit of "I want to be able to control what my character's stats are going to look like because I suck at rolling dice" and not a stab at "my system is more balance than point buy so HA."
Myself, I have and always will say that higher stats on characters, even if it means the more powerful classes gain more options, is ultimately a better game. The relative power of a wizard is not going to change if he ended up with a higher STR score because of decent rolls/ higher point buy compared to one that was min/maxed using the standard point buy system. The more MAD classes however seem to magically cross that all but imaginary threshold from 'so underpowered that there are legions and armies of players posting hundreds of thousands of words of literature just to implement ways of making me playable" to "playable with options and capable of as much utility as the other classes at the table."
My thesis on class balance made, it is my personal opinion that the game itself doesn't need to be balanced better, because if that was what I was looking for I would be playing a different edition. I hardly ever play anymore, I am full time DM and I use a very generous stat generation method for my players simply because I like to facilitate fun rather than impose martial law in the form of 'balance at all costs lest ye commit the sin of badwrongfun.'
|
Additionally a Synthesist has many weaknesses. He is going to cause many problems in towns and cities if he is a typical munchkin Synth (with like 6 tentacles, 4 arms, and giant sized).
Summon Eidolon. Plus don't ditch Con completely. Problem solved.
Additionally, his Eidolon is not around when the party is asleep (random encounters!)
More Summon Eidolon. One round, fixes this problem pretty casually.
Oh! And enforce the encumbrance rules. When his Eidolon is not out, his carrying capacity is gonna drop like a rock.
True...but what's he actually carrying? A Str 7 character can carry up to 70 lbs of stuff and suffer no worse penalties than a guy in Full Plate, and most Synthesists aren't carrying much (they don't need to). And it's not like he's got a chance in hell to succeed at physical skill based stuff anyway, given his Str and Dex 7.
Also, add a Handy Haversack and he's almost certainly good to go.
@master_marshmallow
You run into the problem of multiclassing.
IMHO: as far as rolling for stats goes, I dislike it because average array seems to always look something like this 17 14 16 13 15 12
I consider a 20 point buy just about perfect.
You run into the problem of multiclassing.
IMHO: as far as rolling for stats goes, I dislike it because average array seems to always look something like this 17 14 16 13 15 12
I consider a 20 point buy just about perfect.
Multiclassing will always be a thing, and it will always be done in ways that can exploit stat synergies.
Like I said, it was a hypothetical 'if we were to have a better balance at all costs system' to replace the point buy that currently exists.
I personally find 20 point buy to be horrid and incredibly restricting.
I personally find 20 point buy to be horrid and incredibly restricting.
Eh. Pre race mods I tend to run a few arrays
16 14 14 10 10 10
15 14 14 14 10 8
7 14 12 12 18 8
16 12 10 10 8 16
You can build just about any concept you want with 20 points. My GMs like to give more, so I just spread the points around to random stats. I never need more than 20 to fulfill my concept.
The only thing that makes a Synthesist bad for the game is the fact that its mechanics can be exploited by the Point Buy System.
In fact, most problems inherent with class design comes in one way or another from there being a serious problem with the Point Buy System.
This is logic fail. If I roll for stats or use a stat array I just put my poor stats in the physical scores and put the better ones in my mental scores= Same results as point buy .
This is logic fail. If I roll for stats or use a stat array I just put my poor stats in the physical scores and put the better ones in my mental scores= Same results as point buy .The only thing that makes a Synthesist bad for the game is the fact that its mechanics can be exploited by the Point Buy System.
In fact, most problems inherent with class design comes in one way or another from there being a serious problem with the Point Buy System.
Taking advantage of the mechanics of the class is not the same thing as exploiting them, as exploiting is something you can only do when you have control over your stats which is only possible in a point buy system.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you misinterpret what I am saying is the real problem.
I don't think anyone understands what you mean when you keep talking about "the real problem."
Is "the real problem" that MAD and SAD classes exist?
Is "the real problem" that even should a Wizard be as MAD as a Monk it would still be orders of magnitude more powerful?
Is "the real problem" a combination of the above two?
Because that problem will persist whether or not you're rolling for stats, using point buy, or using class-based arrays.
Furthermore, you undermine your own point when you say that point buy is a serious problem, going on to state that one cannot simply give each class its own different point buy, because in the very next paragraph you suggest not only using point buy, but giving each class its own different point buy...
Yes. We get it. Class imbalance exists. That's not the point buy system's fault. Don't go dumping all of Pathfinder's and D&D's problems into point buy's lap. Point buy doesn't create any fresh imbalances by itself, rather they are baked into the class design and game design as a whole (yes, even Synthesist Summoner). Say it with me, "it's not point buy's fault." There.
Now, your suggestion on the other hand does create plenty of opportunity to dip classes just because they get way better stat adjustments. Why wouldn't a Wizard dip one level of Monk when they can get their 18 Intelligence and a host of other good scores as well as a slight AC and HP boost? Clerics and Druids have been occasionally dipping Monk for years for that crucial Wisdom to AC that everyone wants. Now they'll do it much more often, because they also get much stronger ability scores that way. If you're looking to curb system abuse and make the classes overall more balanced against each other, then point buy is superior to your suggestion and rolling stats doesn't help one way or the other.
And this problem is what? How does point buy cause issues with class design? 'cause in my adventures with class design, both as a homebrewer and with the Harbinger for DSP, point buy's been an aid in keeping the math clean, predictable, and comprehensible.The only thing that makes a Synthesist bad for the game is the fact that its mechanics can be exploited by the Point Buy System.
In fact, most problems inherent with class design comes in one way or another from there being a serious problem with the Point Buy System.
Not that I know the other guy's argument, but I have a few personal gripes with the point buy system.
It favors full casters. Especially casters with little or no use in charisma.
A cleric needs
-Wisdom
-Con
A wizard needs
-int
-con
-maybe a little dex
ect that's all they need to bring their strongest class features to bear.
Meanwhile my Ranger needs
-str
-dex
-con
-wis
My Warlord needs
-str
-con
-dex
-cha
-can't dump wis
Lower point buys favor casters as they really only need 2 stats to be useful (Primary casting stat and con).
That all said, Point buy is the current fairest and best option for games.
In my current system I actually use a 25 point buy, but don't additional points for dumping a stat below 10. I find this set up allows martials and casters to get a more even set up than 20 or 15 point buy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread makes me sad. OP hasn't even commented, but in case he's not a troll but simply away and comes back to this flamewar confused:
OP, the sole reason synth was banned in PFS was because the rules were extremely messy and complex, which was slowing down society play. PFS does not traditionally ban based on power or percieved 'OP-ness'.
I'm surprised to find a "how to generate stats" debate here hahah, but yeah I haven't taken a good look at the Synthesist and didn't know about the rules being so confusing that they often came with errors that slowed down society play.
As for rolling random stats, my favorite way of doing that is the DM rolls a set of stats and the players choose whichever ones that suits them.
-Everyone chooses from the same set, so no party disparity
-Random generation leads to interesting results that may inspire a quirky character
It's the best of both worlds. I've played games of ACKS using that method and it worked out.
*Though another HUGE DIFFERENCE was that in AD&D era the difference between 10 and 15 in most stats was piddly if non-existant and an 18 gave you a lot less. +1 to hit and +2 damage vs +4 to hit/damage is a BIG difference.
AD&D characters are also generated very quickly and have less mechanical parts so sometimes the only difference between two Fighters is their stats and gear.
Besides you aren't suppose to name an AD&D character until he hits 4th level :p
I don't think anyone understands what you mean when you keep talking about "the real problem."
Is "the real problem" that MAD and SAD classes exist?
Is "the real problem" that even should a Wizard be as MAD as a Monk it would still be orders of magnitude more powerful?
Is "the real problem" a combination of the above two?
Because that problem will persist whether or not you're rolling for stats, using point buy, or using class-based arrays.
Furthermore, you undermine your own point when you say that point buy is a serious problem, going on to state that one cannot simply give each class its own different point buy, because in the very next paragraph you suggest not only using point buy, but giving each class its own different point buy...
Yes. We get it. Class imbalance exists. That's not the point buy system's fault. Don't go dumping all of Pathfinder's and D&D's problems into point buy's lap. Point buy doesn't create any fresh imbalances by itself, rather they are baked into the class design and game design as a whole (yes, even Synthesist Summoner). Say it with me, "it's not point buy's fault." There.
Now, your suggestion on the other hand does create plenty of opportunity to dip classes just because they get way better stat adjustments. Why wouldn't a Wizard dip one level of Monk when they can get their 18 Intelligence and a host of other good scores as well as a slight AC and HP boost? Clerics and Druids have been occasionally dipping Monk for years for that crucial Wisdom to AC that everyone wants. Now they'll do it much more often, because they also get much stronger ability scores that way. If you're looking to curb system abuse and make the classes overall more balanced against each other, then point buy is superior to your suggestion and rolling stats doesn't help one way or the other.
The "real problem" is that those problems exist in the game and we (subjective term) are trying to fix it with something like point buy.
And don't go criticizing my hypothetical solution, I came up with it in 5 minutes as an example of how a baseline could be made if we hold ourselves to the caveat of 'balance at all costs.'
The "real problem" is that we want to play Pathfinder with the classes that exist, and still want to preach 'balance at all costs' as if it was an achievable goal.
Power gamers will never accept anything other than a very strict point buy system, and they will tell themselves and the internet anything to justify it, that doesn't mean it's not the source of almost all problems with class imbalance.
Power gamers will never accept anything other than a very strict point buy system, and they will tell themselves and the internet anything to justify it, that doesn't mean it's not the source of almost all problems with class imbalance.
Now you are just being silly.
Point buy or Arrays is how PF works. Random rolling should be reserved for one-shots.
Power gamers will never accept anything other than a very strict point buy system, and they will tell themselves and the internet anything to justify it, that doesn't mean it's not the source of almost all problems with class imbalance.Now you are just being silly.
Point buy or Arrays is how PF works. Random rolling should be reserved for one-shots.
Again, didn't say stat rolling.
Also complete fallacy, you are assuming that your method is superior before even bothering to evaluate the method you are criticizing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "real problem" is that those problems exist in the game and we (subjective term) are trying to fix it with something like point buy.I don't think anyone understands what you mean when you keep talking about "the real problem."
Is "the real problem" that MAD and SAD classes exist?
Is "the real problem" that even should a Wizard be as MAD as a Monk it would still be orders of magnitude more powerful?
Is "the real problem" a combination of the above two?
Because that problem will persist whether or not you're rolling for stats, using point buy, or using class-based arrays.
Furthermore, you undermine your own point when you say that point buy is a serious problem, going on to state that one cannot simply give each class its own different point buy, because in the very next paragraph you suggest not only using point buy, but giving each class its own different point buy...
Yes. We get it. Class imbalance exists. That's not the point buy system's fault. Don't go dumping all of Pathfinder's and D&D's problems into point buy's lap. Point buy doesn't create any fresh imbalances by itself, rather they are baked into the class design and game design as a whole (yes, even Synthesist Summoner). Say it with me, "it's not point buy's fault." There.
Now, your suggestion on the other hand does create plenty of opportunity to dip classes just because they get way better stat adjustments. Why wouldn't a Wizard dip one level of Monk when they can get their 18 Intelligence and a host of other good scores as well as a slight AC and HP boost? Clerics and Druids have been occasionally dipping Monk for years for that crucial Wisdom to AC that everyone wants. Now they'll do it much more often, because they also get much stronger ability scores that way. If you're looking to curb system abuse and make the classes overall more balanced against each other, then point buy is superior to your suggestion and rolling stats doesn't help one way or the other.
No one is saying that point buy fixes those problems! No one is trying to use point buy to fix those problems!
And don't go criticizing my hypothetical solution, I came up with it in 5 minutes as an example of how a baseline could be made if we hold ourselves to the caveat of 'balance at all costs.'
No one is arguing that Pathfinder must be balanced at all costs!
The "real problem" is that we want to play Pathfinder with the classes that exist, and still want to preach 'balance at all costs' as if it was an achievable goal.
Ah. Well, if that's your real problem, then you have nothing to worry about. Because, wait for it, no one is preaching balance at all costs and very few people want to play Pathfinder with the classes that exist as written. Or have you not noticed the dozens, if not hundreds, of threads about fixing Fighters and Rogues and talking about how Wizards are overpowered?
Power gamers will never accept anything other than a very strict point buy system, and they will tell themselves and the internet anything to justify it, that doesn't mean it's not the source of almost all problems with class imbalance.
Okay, buddy. Keep telling yourself that.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
@master_marshmallow:
The Synthesist is the perfect example of why point buy is such a flawed system. It is practically inferior to its base class, and yet ends up being mechanically superior due to an unreasonable exploitation of an already flawed system.
Can you show us an example of how some other stat generation system would lead to a more balanced Synthesist build than one made using point buy?
@master_marshmallow:
The Synthesist is the perfect example of why point buy is such a flawed system. It is practically inferior to its base class, and yet ends up being mechanically superior due to an unreasonable exploitation of an already flawed system.Can you show us an example of how some other stat generation system would lead to a more balanced Synthesist build than one made using point buy?
Balance is relative, and also I already said I personally don't give a flack about balance.
You are asking me to disprove my own point about balance not needing to be imposed, which it being imposed is the very purpose of the point buy system in the first place.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@master_marshmallow:
The Synthesist is the perfect example of why point buy is such a flawed system. It is practically inferior to its base class, and yet ends up being mechanically superior due to an unreasonable exploitation of an already flawed system.Can you show us an example of how some other stat generation system would lead to a more balanced Synthesist build than one made using point buy?Balance is relative, and also I already said I personally don't give a flack about balance.
You are asking me to disprove my own point about balance not needing to be imposed, which it being imposed is the very purpose of the point buy system in the first place.
If you don't care about balance, then why do you complain about point buy leading to a "mechanically superior" Synthesist?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@master_marshmallow:
The Synthesist is the perfect example of why point buy is such a flawed system. It is practically inferior to its base class, and yet ends up being mechanically superior due to an unreasonable exploitation of an already flawed system.Can you show us an example of how some other stat generation system would lead to a more balanced Synthesist build than one made using point buy?Balance is relative, and also I already said I personally don't give a flack about balance.
You are asking me to disprove my own point about balance not needing to be imposed, which it being imposed is the very purpose of the point buy system in the first place.
A simple "No, I can't, because another stat generation system wouldn't help." would have sufficed don't you think?
A simple "No, I can't, because another stat generation system wouldn't help." would have sufficed don't you think?@master_marshmallow:
The Synthesist is the perfect example of why point buy is such a flawed system. It is practically inferior to its base class, and yet ends up being mechanically superior due to an unreasonable exploitation of an already flawed system.Can you show us an example of how some other stat generation system would lead to a more balanced Synthesist build than one made using point buy?Balance is relative, and also I already said I personally don't give a flack about balance.
You are asking me to disprove my own point about balance not needing to be imposed, which it being imposed is the very purpose of the point buy system in the first place.
Probably, but I really do hate being asked Loaded Questions as if that isn't what it is.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably, but I really do hate being asked Loaded Questions as if that isn't what it is.A simple "No, I can't, because another stat generation system wouldn't help." would have sufficed don't you think?@master_marshmallow:
The Synthesist is the perfect example of why point buy is such a flawed system. It is practically inferior to its base class, and yet ends up being mechanically superior due to an unreasonable exploitation of an already flawed system.Can you show us an example of how some other stat generation system would lead to a more balanced Synthesist build than one made using point buy?Balance is relative, and also I already said I personally don't give a flack about balance.
You are asking me to disprove my own point about balance not needing to be imposed, which it being imposed is the very purpose of the point buy system in the first place.
Since when is asking for evidence to back up your claim considered a loaded question?
The problem with the synthesist and to a lesser but significant extent are two fold. One the rules are messy. Turns out, trying to make a class whose primary focus is a wildly adaptable variety of abilities summoned in the form of a potentially lovecraftian outsider is difficult to put into clear and consise rules.
Its a bunch of exceptions that never should have been made. Its a bunch of 'well in this one case this is how it works' rules. And while it sort of accomplishes its goals, a new class creating a whole bunch of rules exceptions is going to be a problem. And things that are clear everywhere else get mirky. For instance the idea that the synthesist and eidolon are targeted as a single entity. In a home game, you can logic out the results of that reasonably well without issue. But pfs needs to be raw. GM interpretation (much to my chagrin) is not an option. And even if you faq it on current situations, there might be something released further downt the line that clashes with the synthesist's exceptions again. The stat replacement instead of enhancement is a big issue, but its only part of the mirky nature of the synthesist eidolon suit intermingling.
Dont get me wrong I LOVE the concept. I just think it probably wasnt executed as well as it could have been. Its like power rangers meets gundam. The problem being this class is trying to be all things to all people. It needed more focus.
Which brings me to my second problem. The eidolon and summoner in general is TOO flexible. Even druids get SOME of their stuff picked for them. Animal companions of scent, or sprint, or something that isnt directly combat related. The druid has wild empathy and trackless step. The eidolon need not pick any of that stuff. He can put ALL of his 'power' into whatever he wishes to do well (usually being a big badass monster that kicks butt). The eidolon and summoner are PAINFULLY easy to optimize. A druid would required considerable effort to match it in terms of squeezing every bit of power out of every ability. It might not even be possible without delving into things not allowed in pfs.
Both these issues tie into an issue with organized play in general. At my table if someone wants to play a summoner, they can. But they have to deliberately NOT optimize it. Taking some non power options(like skilled) for the eidolon equaling to at least a quarter (rounded up) of their evolution points. If my player shows up with a rediculously powerful character with any class, I can say no, try again. Same with mirky rules, I can sort it out at my table. A PFS gm literally cant do that. They dont have control of their table, and neither to the other players. Its just whats in the rules. The synthesist doesnt work in that context.
Both the druid and cleric have enough checks and balances on them that they do.
Since when is asking for evidence to back up your claim considered a loaded question?Probably, but I really do hate being asked Loaded Questions as if that isn't what it is.A simple "No, I can't, because another stat generation system wouldn't help." would have sufficed don't you think?@master_marshmallow:
The Synthesist is the perfect example of why point buy is such a flawed system. It is practically inferior to its base class, and yet ends up being mechanically superior due to an unreasonable exploitation of an already flawed system.Can you show us an example of how some other stat generation system would lead to a more balanced Synthesist build than one made using point buy?Balance is relative, and also I already said I personally don't give a flack about balance.
You are asking me to disprove my own point about balance not needing to be imposed, which it being imposed is the very purpose of the point buy system in the first place.
Because your question made the assumption that 'balance at all costs' was my goal when my thesis upthread was that 'balance at all costs' being the goal is 'the real problem' with the Synthesist Summoner.
Balance is not the goal, and when something(in this case the Synthesist) uses your infallible point buy system and ends up disproving your stigma that point buy is infallible then you ban the class and call it OP or unbalanced.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since when is asking for evidence to back up your claim considered a loaded question?Probably, but I really do hate being asked Loaded Questions as if that isn't what it is.A simple "No, I can't, because another stat generation system wouldn't help." would have sufficed don't you think?@master_marshmallow:
The Synthesist is the perfect example of why point buy is such a flawed system. It is practically inferior to its base class, and yet ends up being mechanically superior due to an unreasonable exploitation of an already flawed system.Can you show us an example of how some other stat generation system would lead to a more balanced Synthesist build than one made using point buy?Balance is relative, and also I already said I personally don't give a flack about balance.
You are asking me to disprove my own point about balance not needing to be imposed, which it being imposed is the very purpose of the point buy system in the first place.
Because your question made the assumption that 'balance at all costs' was my goal when my thesis upthread was that 'balance at all costs' being the goal is 'the real problem' with the Synthesist Summoner.
Balance is not the goal, and when something(in this case the Synthesist) uses your infallible point buy system and ends up disproving your stigma that point buy is infallible then you ban the class and call it OP or unbalanced.
BS.
I never claimed that "balance at all costs" was your goal. But I did quote you when you complained that the Synthesist was "mechanically superior" to the base Summoner. And complaining that one option is mechanically superior to another is the very definition of complaining about balance. So you're contradicting yourself.
And again, you insist that the Synthesist "proves" that point buy is flawed, but refuse to provide any examples or explanation to back that claim up, because apparently that would disprove your other claim that you don't care about balance. So again, you're contradicting yourself
Add that to all the strawman arguments you're throwing out to attack anyone who questions you (like claiming that I think point buy is "infallible"), and it's abundantly clear that you're just blowing smoke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is logic fail. If I roll for stats or use a stat array I just put my poor stats in the physical scores and put the better ones in my mental scores= Same results as point buy .The only thing that makes a Synthesist bad for the game is the fact that its mechanics can be exploited by the Point Buy System.
In fact, most problems inherent with class design comes in one way or another from there being a serious problem with the Point Buy System.
Taking advantage of the mechanics of the class is not the same thing as exploiting them, as exploiting is something you can only do when you have control over your stats which is only possible in a point buy system.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you misinterpret what I am saying is the real problem.
In both cases I control where the stats go. The fact that one gives me greater control does not change much.
It is pretty much the difference between me being able to cheat someone out of a random amount of money/rolling and me choosing to be specific about how much money/point buy I cheat them out of. Either way I am cheating someone out of money. Being able to choose the amount is really irrelevant for the sake of ethics at that point.
Since when is asking for evidence to back up your claim considered a loaded question?Probably, but I really do hate being asked Loaded Questions as if that isn't what it is.A simple "No, I can't, because another stat generation system wouldn't help." would have sufficed don't you think?@master_marshmallow:
The Synthesist is the perfect example of why point buy is such a flawed system. It is practically inferior to its base class, and yet ends up being mechanically superior due to an unreasonable exploitation of an already flawed system.Can you show us an example of how some other stat generation system would lead to a more balanced Synthesist build than one made using point buy?Balance is relative, and also I already said I personally don't give a flack about balance.
You are asking me to disprove my own point about balance not needing to be imposed, which it being imposed is the very purpose of the point buy system in the first place.
Because your question made the assumption that 'balance at all costs' was my goal when my thesis upthread was that 'balance at all costs' being the goal is 'the real problem' with the Synthesist Summoner.
Balance is not the goal, and when something(in this case the Synthesist) uses your infallible point buy system and ends up disproving your stigma that point buy is infallible then you ban the class and call it OP or unbalanced.
BS.
I never claimed that "balance at all costs" was your goal. But I did quote you when you complained that the Synthesist was "mechanically superior" to the base Summoner. And complaining that one option is mechanically superior to another is the very definition of complaining about balance. So you're contradicting yourself.
And again, you insist that the Synthesist "proves"...
I was calling the Synthesist mechanically superior in response to a post that did the math and showed a character dumping all their physical stats to exploit the point buy system. Mechanically speaking using the point buy system is is numerically superior, and that is a large factor considered for the class being banned.
Design Manager
|
I for one would be happy enough with classes which were at least roughly in the same ball park as each other throughout the levels rather than trying to play Spiderman next to Dr Strange at level 10+.
That was so eerily accurate I laughed out loud, picturing Spiderman as a monk running next to Doctor Strange the Sorcerer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I recall, the complexity of the rules was the main factor in the PFS ban. Like others have mentioned, the base summoner is stronger since he gets an Eidolon with the same statline as the Synthesist, while the summoner himself keeps his own action economy and a very nice spell list.
As far as I'm aware, PFS generally bans things on account of them not working well in organized play, or brushing up against the no evil characters rule. I don't follow every single PFS decision, but I'm not aware of any that were handed down solely due to balance concerns. The closest example I can think of is the Crane Wing nerf, which was a dev ruling based on PFS input.
This, pretty much. Most PFS bans are due to complexity, thematic problems, or confusion, not strength. The goal is to have sessions that run smoothly with limited numbers of rulings GMs have to make on the fly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This, pretty much. Most PFS bans are due to complexity, thematic problems, or confusion, not strength. The goal is to have sessions that run smoothly with limited numbers of rulings GMs have to make on the fly.As I recall, the complexity of the rules was the main factor in the PFS ban. Like others have mentioned, the base summoner is stronger since he gets an Eidolon with the same statline as the Synthesist, while the summoner himself keeps his own action economy and a very nice spell list.
As far as I'm aware, PFS generally bans things on account of them not working well in organized play, or brushing up against the no evil characters rule. I don't follow every single PFS decision, but I'm not aware of any that were handed down solely due to balance concerns. The closest example I can think of is the Crane Wing nerf, which was a dev ruling based on PFS input.
As an only occasional GM at PFS events, summoners in general can be a headache.
As far as I can remember, every single summoner that I really looked at had an eidolon build that did not follow the rules. Most more powerful (but at least one significantly less powerful) than what the rules actually allowed. A couple were so minor that I didn't really do anything except mention to the player that they needed to fix it before the next game. Some were majorly way too powerful.
Since the synthesis is significantly more complex, I am glad they are not allowed at PFS. At a home game, where I can take time and go over it without cutting into the group game time and just ask "what did you add?" at level advancements it would be fine.
It favors full casters. Especially casters with little or no use in charisma.
A cleric needs
-Wisdom
-ConA wizard needs
-int
-con
-maybe a little dexect that's all they need to bring their strongest class features to bear.
Meanwhile my Ranger needs
-str
-dex
-con
-wisIn my current system I actually use a 25 point buy, but don't additional points for dumping a stat below 10. I find this set up allows martials and casters to get a more even set up than 20 or 15 point buy.
A cleric needs CHA for Channneling.
But yes, I agree- a higher point buy with no pay-back for dumping.