And on the flip side, how many potential new players look at the giant pile of material, think "I'll be able to afford or even read all that" and pass it by. Sure, you can play with just a subset, but some won't realize that, some are completists, some know they'll get seduced into buying more and more material or just think they'll be at such a disadvantage without all the good stuff. Even the vast amount available online is intimidating. Not so much classes, but feats and spells and other things.
I definitely have a tendency to go that route. Mostly kept me away from 3.5. Picked up PF when there wasn't that much available, which helped lure me in. :)
This is all true. The number of cards and sets kept me from reinvesting in Magic The Gathering after getting rid of all my cards years ago.
That said, the companies have to weigh scaring possible new people with the people already playing who would love a second or third Race Guide or Class Guide or twice the number of adventures a year and so on. There are people throwing money at the computer screen and saying "Take my money" all the time. Paizo -- and other companies -- have to pick a narrow path of just enough but not too much while doing enough to pay the bills. As The Hanged Man remarked, it's amazing they stay sane.
|
If your saying Nine Swords was balanced...
It definately gave some overpowered abilities that should have never been in the game to non-casters.
But considering that 3.x had spent the prior 6 years giving spellcasters dozens upon dozens of books of overpowered abilities that should have never been in the game, and then spent 2 more years giving spellcasters dozens more books of overpowered abilities that should have never been in the game, I don't think that the Book of Nine Swords was the worst balance problem that 3.x had. If anything, it was sort of a half-hearted attempt to restore balance.
|
|
In Monte's defense, if I remember correctly, much of what he said there was taken out of context or misunderstood in regards to his opinion and thoughts on the matter.I dont think it's likely in this case, but it really was the third edition philosophy according to Monte Cook. Throw out a range of options with a few good ones and a lot of bad ones, and the good players will be rewarded.What a horrible concept. You actively make it harder for new players to have fun. With that concept, I'm surprised that 3.x actually became as popular as it did.
I put Monte Cook on the same level as Byron Hall. Except I think FATAL is likely just Hall trolling everyone who might look at it. Cook actually wrote how he considered Timmy Cards to be a good idea.
There was an article on his own webpage, written by him, explaining that that is EXACTLY what he intended.
I think at some point he actually realized how completely f@!+ed up the concept is, because he pulled that article down. However, you can't hide from the Wayback Machine: Ivory Tower Game Design
I think the overall stratigy that Paizo has with the various lines and AP's is solid. The Companion books are a limited print run, regulated to PDF after it is out of print. I would hope that some thought would be taken into a single adventure type product like the Modules use to be like in a smaller format since the new Module format is as it stands now.
I think PF has avoided the out and out Bloated books that was previlent in the last of the T$R days and the horrid test subjects (like Nine Swords) that was at the tail end of the 3.5 dying and waiting for 4th days.
We can be thankful for this.
Incorrect, in though Nine Swords was regarded happily. 4E is 180 degrees in other direction.
Remember in Nine Swords you could recharge per encounter abilities in the same encounter. 4E you can't do that.|
|
Now the part about it being a trap on purpose is what I don't get. Do you honestly think the designers are sitting around contemplating how many players they can get to fall into their trap? Muwhahaahahahahaha!
Given that there exist feats that don't actually do anything (or even worse, feats that actively make you worse), then the choices are maliciousness or incompetence.
|
Now the part about it being a trap on purpose is what I don't get. Do you honestly think the designers are sitting around contemplating how many players they can get to fall into their trap? Muwhahaahahahahaha!Given that there exist feats that don't actually do anything (or even worse, feats that actively make you worse), then the choices are maliciousness or incompetence.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
In other words, I'd bet on 'incompetence' (actually, in many cases, simply pretty easy mistakes to make, IMO...Prone Shooter and a few others aren't so easily excused, however).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now the part about it being a trap on purpose is what I don't get. Do you honestly think the designers are sitting around contemplating how many players they can get to fall into their trap? Muwhahaahahahahaha!Given that there exist feats that don't actually do anything (or even worse, feats that actively make you worse), then the choices are maliciousness or incompetence."Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
In other words, I'd bet on 'incompetence' (actually, in many cases, simply pretty easy mistakes to make, IMO...Prone Shooter and a few others aren't so easily excused, however).
In the past I thought that too bad or too good options were due to the amount of material they have to publish in order to get money. In these days I still think that is a main reason, but after the water ballon and all that I have no doubt that some horrible/overpowered options are there on purpose.
If your saying Nine Swords was balanced....That depends, are you comparing against Full Casters? Then it's underpowered.
Are you comparing against partial casters (Bard, Magus, Alchemist etc)? Pretty well balanced.
Are you comparing against Fighter/Rogue/Monk? Overpowered.
hurr durr
Spells > Not Spells
It was either overpowered or it wasn't.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your saying Nine Swords was balanced....That depends, are you comparing against Full Casters? Then it's underpowered.
Are you comparing against partial casters (Bard, Magus, Alchemist etc)? Pretty well balanced.
Are you comparing against Fighter/Rogue/Monk? Overpowered.
It was either overpowered or it wasn't.
This actually is a good way of determining it.
Power is comparative. A Wizard is incredibly powerful compared to a Commoner.
Without a comparison point you can't determine whether something is overpowered or not.
With multiple comparison points you'll determine if it's overpowered or not over different circumstances.
Yes, in regards to full casters, Bo9S was still underpowered.
In regards to partial casters it was pretty well balanced.
Compared to old martial options, it looked overpowered.
This is all true. The number of cards and sets kept me from reinvesting in Magic The Gathering after getting rid of all my cards years ago.And on the flip side, how many potential new players look at the giant pile of material, think "I'll be able to afford or even read all that" and pass it by. Sure, you can play with just a subset, but some won't realize that, some are completists, some know they'll get seduced into buying more and more material or just think they'll be at such a disadvantage without all the good stuff. Even the vast amount available online is intimidating. Not so much classes, but feats and spells and other things.
I definitely have a tendency to go that route. Mostly kept me away from 3.5. Picked up PF when there wasn't that much available, which helped lure me in. :)
Trading card games are a plain racket.
If your saying Nine Swords was balanced....That depends, are you comparing against Full Casters? Then it's underpowered.
Are you comparing against partial casters (Bard, Magus, Alchemist etc)? Pretty well balanced.
Are you comparing against Fighter/Rogue/Monk? Overpowered.
It was either overpowered or it wasn't.
This actually is a good way of determining it.
Power is comparative. A Wizard is incredibly powerful compared to a Commoner.
Without a comparison point you can't determine whether something is overpowered or not.
With multiple comparison points you'll determine if it's overpowered or not over different circumstances.
Yes, in regards to full casters, Bo9S was still underpowered.
In regards to partial casters it was pretty well balanced.
Compared to old martial options, it looked overpowered.
That's assuming spells > not spells pre Bo9S.
I don't buy that and I doubt the devs did either or else every class would have spells.
Spells>not spells in almost every case.
Can a Bard beat a Barb in a straight up fight? Maybe, maybe not. Will a Bard have to do a straight up fight against the Barb? Well with proper application of spells, no.
Can a Wizard beat a Barb in a straight up fight? After he hits 4th level spells, yes, 100% of the time.
Well then why doesn't every class have spells? I dunno, I am not Paizo.
How good are Martial Maneuvers? Depending on which disciplines the classes have access to they are worth 6/9 spellcasting or just a bit less. I am using Path of War for reference in that statement.
How good are Martial Maneuvers? Depending on which disciplines the classes have access to they are worth 6/9 spellcasting or just a bit less. I am using Path of War for reference in that statement.
Path of War isn't really ToB, or a great reference imo. Daily resources and alignment restrictions on a martial. Gross...
Martial Adepts were definitely not world conquering powerhouses like casters, but they had options other than full attack and to help solve problems out of combat and in. They worked different than spells and often had different affects, much more martially inclined, though some disciplines did have some supernatural effects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There weren't any alignment restrictions on PoW classes, well a couple PrC had them, but no base class did. The classes also have very few class features that are daily resources. I really suggest checking out PoW one more time.
Also the only supernatural disciplines in ToB belonged to the Swordsage who was mystic. Similarly in PoW the only supernatural abilities belong to the Stalker, who is mystic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Monte's defense, if I remember correctly, much of what he said there was taken out of context or misunderstood in regards to his opinion and thoughts on the matter.I dont think it's likely in this case, but it really was the third edition philosophy according to Monte Cook. Throw out a range of options with a few good ones and a lot of bad ones, and the good players will be rewarded.What a horrible concept. You actively make it harder for new players to have fun. With that concept, I'm surprised that 3.x actually became as popular as it did.
I put Monte Cook on the same level as Byron Hall. Except I think FATAL is likely just Hall trolling everyone who might look at it. Cook actually wrote how he considered Timmy Cards to be a good idea.
There was an article on his own webpage, written by him, explaining that that is EXACTLY what he intended.
I think at some point he actually realized how completely f%@@ed up the concept is, because he pulled that article down. However, you can't hide from the Wayback Machine: Ivory Tower Game Design
Oh, I know which article you are talking about as does Monte. However, if it was taken down, I believe it was due to so many people mistaking what he meant and what he said.
I think a better way to look at it was that they were creating a 3e edition with 2e sensibilities. They thought the Multi-classing aspect was cool, and neat, as well as the skills and feats ideas...but more in line with what worked with 2e and such.
You also have to remember one of the ideas on 3e design was not just to rebalance (and yes, there was balance) but also to streamline and make things more sensible to a degree as well as easier to understand.
I don't think anyone had any idea of how abused 3e could be...which is one reason why they basically errata'd the heck out of it and came out with 3.5 so quickly.
Their idea of system mastery wasn't in the form of mastery that came out with the 3e abuse of the system that created PunPun...but unfortunately that's how some see it at times. That was more finding the loopholes and abuse of the system, which can be fun and many have that way of using the game rules...but that wasn't the original intent to have that specific type of mastery...IMO.
There weren't any alignment restrictions on ToB classes, well a couple PrC had them, but no base class did. The classes also have very few class features that are daily resources. I really suggest checking out ToB one more time.
I was talking about PoW, not the ToB. I know it lacked daily resources(smite and a capstone), and that no class had an alignment restriction or discipline. Its a reason I like the book.
MrSin, that's clearly a typo. He's talking about Path of War.
I can confirm that it doesn't have any alignment restrictions, and the only daily resources that exist are a handful of class features (Dual Boost a number of times per day, Warder's Mark, and a Ki Pool), none of which have anything to do with maneuvers.
I can confirm that it doesn't have any alignment restrictions, and the only daily resources that exist are a handful of class features (Dual Boost a number of times per day, Warder's Mark, and a Ki Pool), none of which have anything to do with maneuvers.
They've changed it since I last looked at it if it has no alignment requirements or if ki pool and dual boost don't have a thing to do with maneuvers. Last I saw it was obsessive that alignment requirements be a part of it.
Edit: Wasn't this thread about something else entirely?
Fixed my errors and once again suggest checking out PoW one more time. They're right now in very late beta and are very close to finalized release.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spells>not spells in almost every case.
This is true to a large degree, but i think you're overstating the degree.
Can a Bard beat a Barb in a straight up fight? Maybe, maybe not. Will a Bard have to do a straight up fight against the Barb? Well with proper application of spells, no.
That's not necessarily true...and I love Bards. The Bard certainly wins in just about any situation that isn't a straight fight...but I think a Barbarian, if played properly, can force a straight fight at least some of the time.
Can a Wizard beat a Barb in a straight up fight? After he hits 4th level spells, yes, 100% of the time.
Hah, no...not even a little. Spell Sunder and Rage Cycling and Superstition would like a word with you. As would Greater Beast Totem. A few items to give him flight and a way to see Invisible things (both very doable) and a Barbarian has a decent chance against a Wizard in a straight fight. Of course, that remains the only area he can compete with a Wizard in...
Well then why doesn't every class have spells? I dunno, I am not Paizo.
Because not everyone wants to play a spellcaster, basically. I sure don't always want to. Martials having more nice things would be great. Making those things explicitly spells? Sorta defeats the point, really. If you wanted spells, you'd just play a class that has 'em.
How good are Martial Maneuvers? Depending on which disciplines the classes have access to they are worth 6/9 spellcasting or just a bit less. I am using Path of War for reference in that statement.
That sounds about right, IMO.
Sorry, when I said
"Well with proper application of spells, no"
I meant the spellcaster could either escape or make themselves untouchable.
In the case of a Bard ( I picked them randomly as a representative of 6/9 casters) it really just depends who wins initiative, if it's the bard then they can probably just escape.
In the case of wizard (random full caster) they should generally win the initiative race and first turn either auto win with a create pit spell when their flat footed, put up a force shield and buff, fly away, ect
When I said
"Well then why doesn't every class have spells? I dunno, I am not Paizo."
It was in response to the odd statement made by Marthkus
That's assuming spells > not spells pre Bo9S.
I don't buy that and I doubt the devs did either or else every class would have spells.
I was simply answering his question by saying I am not Paizo and do not know or understand their thought process, but I do know that spells> no spells in almost every case.
Sorry about any confusion man, most everything I see you post on these boards is pretty level headed and well thought out, so keep up the awesome discussion!
|
|
Sorry, when I said
"Well with proper application of spells, no"
I meant the spellcaster could either escape or make themselves untouchable.In the case of a Bard ( I picked them randomly as a representative of 6/9 casters) it really just depends who wins initiative, if it's the bard then they can probably just escape.
That's probably fair to a large degree...though I'll repeat that with Rage Cycling, Spell Sunder, Strength surge and a way to see invisible stuff doing so is quite a bit harder. Not impossible, but more difficult and necessitating more impressive spells.
In the case of wizard (random full caster) they should generally win the initiative race and first turn either auto win with a create pit spell when their flat footed, put up a force shield and buff, fly away, ect
I dunno. Again, the standard 'optimized Barbarian' with, say, Winged Boots you probably need Teleport (or maybe Dimension Door) to really get away...but yeah, the basic concept's usually true.
When I said
"Well then why doesn't every class have spells? I dunno, I am not Paizo."
It was in response to the odd statement made by MarthkusI was simply answering his question by saying I am not Paizo and do not know or understand their thought process, but I do know that spells> no spells in almost every case.That's assuming spells > not spells pre Bo9S.
I don't buy that and I doubt the devs did either or else every class would have spells.
Ah, gotcha. That makes sense.
Sorry about any confusion man, most everything I see you post on these boards is pretty level headed and well thought out, so keep up the awesome discussion!
Thanks! I'm blushing here. I try very hard to remain calm and reasonable, and hopefully to bring said calm and reason to the discussions I participate in...and it's nice to know someone thinks I'm succeeding. :)
That's probably fair to a large degree...though I'll repeat that with Rage Cycling, Spell Sunder, Strength surge and a way to see invisible stuff doing so is quite a bit harder. Not impossible, but more difficult and necessitating more impressive spells.
That's a lot to have at 7th-8th level. o_o
|
|
That's a lot to have at 7th-8th level. o_oThat's probably fair to a large degree...though I'll repeat that with Rage Cycling, Spell Sunder, Strength surge and a way to see invisible stuff doing so is quite a bit harder. Not impossible, but more difficult and necessitating more impressive spells.
Maybe a little (though it's doable), but not by 10th if you've invested a Feat or two into Rage Powers (which you should). So Spellcasters have the edge being spoken of for two to three levels at most.
I do really appreciate the barbarian. She's like magic-lite done-right. :P
|
|
Not really, the disparity becomes greater as you go up in level and the caster has access to an ever wider array of options. I wouldnt give a barbarian a chance against a moderately well prepared and out together sorcerer from level 10 onwards. Superstition is great but there are simply too many waves to force multiple saves against weaker saves or to ignore saves entirely to give them any real chance.
I disagree. A Sorcerer or other caster is certainly better than the Barbarian outside combat, and has a chance in combat...but it's not a one-sided fight by any means.
And what weaker saves? If we're talking a well-built Barbarian they're getting +7 to all of them from Superstition alone if they're Human. Or +8 from that plus Steel Soul if they're a Dwarf. Or +9 from that plus Fate's Favored and Sacred Tattoos as a Half Orc.
That doesn't leave weak saves in any meaningful sense. Forcing multiple saves can force a fail...but the odds of that are less than certain, and if they don't fail, the Barbarian tends to pounce and horribly murder you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nine Swords and it's broad stroke of cheese aside, my point is that PF has avoided such pitfalls and made a very viable schedule of products that can work in concert with one another instead of superseding past entries.
Not sure if ToB counts as a broad stroke of cheese. Only iron heart surge and White Raven tactics are exceptionally cheesy, and they're notably badly worded. Its also within the range of balance of 3.5 fighter to 3.5 wizard, which is a pretty wide gap, and the fighter is considered underpowered and martials without many if any options beyond full attacking, both of which are things that Pathfinder inherited and has chosen to keep and actually enforce more than 3.5.
Sometimes new options aren't a bad thing. Sometimes your old options sucked. If you choose not to make feats better than Galley Slave, then your setting a low standard.
That said, I'm pretty sure they aren't setting the standards at galley slave and thank the nine for that.
Not to mean to resurrect this thread but I must!
So Mystery Cultist is only for Empyreal Lord Worship per Celestial Obedience?
While Evangelist is only for regular deities because of deific obedience?
You can't be a worshipper of Arshea and become a Evangelist then by having the Deific Obedience feat on top of the Celestial Obedience?
Not to mean to resurrect this thread but I must!
So Mystery Cultist is only for Empyreal Lord Worship per Celestial Obedience?
While Evangelist is only for regular deities because of deific obedience?
You can't be a worshipper of Arshea and become a Evangelist then by having the Deific Obedience feat on top of the Celestial Obedience?
I've tried arguing it in favor of Empyreal Lords, but in my opinion there isn't a clear answer.
RAI? No, you cannot benefit from an Empyreal Lord's boons early through Evangelist.
RAW? Eh. Maybe? Deity is an extremely loosely defined term. It's tossed around with multiple meanings throughout rulings. For example, PFS requires clerics to have a deity, yet Empyreal Lords are allowed.
As reference:
What deities are legal choices for PCs?The deities legal for use in Pathfinder Society Organized Play are compiled in this messageboard post.
If you look at the Deific Obedience feat, it would seem to be compatible with Empyreal Lords if you assume they are deities. Up until the following line, Deific Obedience and Empyreal Obedience are functionally identical.
Certain prestige classes gain access to these boons at lower levels as a benefit of their prestige class. If you have no levels in one of these prestige classes, you gain the boons marked as exalted boons. If you later take levels in sentinel or evangelist, you lose access to the exalted boons and gain access to the new boons appropriate to your class.
The question then becomes what happens. Previous lines state that you gain the first, second, and third boon. If the deity has no Exalted/Evangelist/Sentinel breakdown, the feat breaks down. I would think you would just ignore the meaningless clauses, but that's obviously me trying to benefit the feat into my interpretation.
TL;DR: You seem to fit all requirements for Deific Obedience with an Empyreal Lord. But by a strict reading, it doesn't function really.
|
While some see being told they don't have to use the new material as a cop-out. It's not. Unless one has a gun being held at their head no one is forced to use anything in the books.This is false. If you are playing in PFS, you have no ability to control what material the other players may/may not use. Newly published material WILL affect your game regardless of your personal choices.
This is not entirely accurate. New material MAY or PROBABLY will affect your game. There is no guarantee that it WILL, as you state. There are published materials that are not legal for Society play, or may be legal but heavily restricted. In fact, there's an entire book whose material is only used in one specific scenario, and that's it - it is not otherwise legal for society play. That book is Mythic Adventures.
So, while most new material is largely incorporated into, and legal for, Society play, it isn't automatic.
In fact, there are some things in the Inner Sea Gods book (which was at the heart of this thread) that may not be used in Society play.
@mark
I will say againb it wasn't my intention to bring up a thread that may have been settled. However I believed my question was valid in this thread alone.
I will say though that everyone's points are interesting and informative.
Very interesting to hear this as j have only been just getting into PFS gaming on the boarda.
Alaska doesn't have much for local gaming....
I appreciate the feedback guys very much. :)
Oh, I know which article you are talking about as does Monte. However, if it was taken down, I believe it was due to so many people mistaking what he meant and what he said.
I think a better way to look at it was that they were creating a 3e edition with 2e sensibilities. They thought the Multi-classing aspect was cool, and neat, as well as the skills and feats ideas...but more in line with what worked with 2e and such.
You also have to remember one of the ideas on 3e design was not just to rebalance (and yes, there was balance) but also to streamline and make things more sensible to a degree as well as easier to understand.
I don't think anyone had any idea of how abused 3e could be...which is one reason why they basically errata'd the heck out of it and came out with 3.5 so quickly.
Their idea of system mastery wasn't in the form of mastery that came out with the 3e abuse of the system that created PunPun...but unfortunately that's how some see it at times. That was more finding the loopholes and abuse of the system, which can be fun and many have that way of using the game rules...but that wasn't the original intent to have that specific type of mastery...IMO.
Speaking as someone who was playing DnD at the time? 3.5 did not make class balance better. It made it worse. Druids, for example, actually saw a rise in power from 3.0 to 3.5. So if their goal was class balance, they failed on an epic level.
They then spent the next few years on errata for 3.5, and for a long time every single exploit they fixed was a martial exploit. The group I had at the time actually stopped playing martials because there was simply no point.
Pathfinder, while having class balance issues, is massively more balanced by comparison. Which only goes to show just how bad 3.5 was at class balance.
Just use the books that the campaign focuses on.
Yes, communication is key.
I often say, if a player wants to use something obscure, they have to buy me the book.