If all added options were balanced and meaningful in ways other than "fill page count" and the horrible design philosophy that is "we need 'Timmy cards' to reward system mastery", I wouldn't call any of them "bloat".any game shouldn't have "Timmy Cards to reward system mastery" and every option should have equal viability, even if some cards are better at some circumstances than others. for example, a grenade should have better area effect ability than a bow or gun, but a bow or gun should be better at damaging single targets than a grenade
Paizo is aware of class imbalances (among other imbalanced things), and that fixing it might not be easy. A few of the options would put the 'Caster Supremacists' on their back (and create rifts between staffers, writers, designers, etc)...
Paizo is aware of class imbalances (among other imbalanced things), and that fixing it might not be easy. A few of the options would put the 'Caster Supremacists' on their back (and create rifts between staffers, writers, designers, etc)...If all added options were balanced and meaningful in ways other than "fill page count" and the horrible design philosophy that is "we need 'Timmy cards' to reward system mastery", I wouldn't call any of them "bloat".any game shouldn't have "Timmy Cards to reward system mastery" and every option should have equal viability, even if some cards are better at some circumstances than others. for example, a grenade should have better area effect ability than a bow or gun, but a bow or gun should be better at damaging single targets than a grenade
everybody should generally have something viable to contribute in every specific scenario, even if it isn't the best contribution. and no, Aid Another is not Viable until Aid Another gets boosted.
everybody should generally have something viable to contribute in every specific scenario, even if it isn't the best contribution. and no, Aid Another is not Viable until Aid Another gets boosted.Paizo is aware of class imbalances (among other imbalanced things), and that fixing it might not be easy. A few of the options would put the 'Caster Supremacists' on their back (and create rifts between staffers, writers, designers, etc)...If all added options were balanced and meaningful in ways other than "fill page count" and the horrible design philosophy that is "we need 'Timmy cards' to reward system mastery", I wouldn't call any of them "bloat".any game shouldn't have "Timmy Cards to reward system mastery" and every option should have equal viability, even if some cards are better at some circumstances than others. for example, a grenade should have better area effect ability than a bow or gun, but a bow or gun should be better at damaging single targets than a grenade
I know, and I agree. What I am saying is there is no easy solution to that... New 'edition' with new mechaniques? it's doable, but it wouldn't be easy, would be time consuming, and what would they do to the current edition?
They could have two ongoing editions/systems at the same time, but that would take way more resources than they have right now.
I don't think all classes should be perfectly balanced.
no one does.
If all added options were balanced and meaningful in ways other than "fill page count" and the horrible design philosophy that is "we need 'Timmy cards' to reward system mastery", I wouldn't call any of them "bloat".any game shouldn't have "Timmy Cards to reward system mastery" and every option should have equal viability, even if some cards are better at some circumstances than others. for example, a grenade should have better area effect ability than a bow or gun, but a bow or gun should be better at damaging single targets than a grenadeI could also accept that grenades are better at damaging any kind of target, but harder to carry and much more expensive than bullets.
and not very stealthy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think all classes should be perfectly balanced.
there is a difference between appearing to resemble something balanced and being identical across the board. everybody should have something to contribute in every scenario, even if it isn't the best and some classes should be better at certain scenarios
for example, a rogue should be slightly better at scouting and gathering information while a warrior should be better at killing things, but they should have the ability to at a lesser extent, viably fill the other's shoes in a pinch.
I don't think all classes should be perfectly balanced.
I agree with this in theory. An individual that has practiced to master weaponry all his life (fighter) simply will not bring the same amount of options or reality-shattering damage potential as someone who has studied the arcane arts (wizard). In practice this can lead to resentment between the players (or at least this has been my experience, YMMV). Class balance is a tricky business.
I don't think all classes should be perfectly balanced.I agree with this in theory. An individual that has practiced to master weaponry all his life (fighter) simply will not bring the same amount of options or reality-shattering damage potential as someone who has studied the arcane arts (wizard). In practice this can lead to resentment between the players (or at least this has been my experience, YMMV). Class balance is a tricky business.
There is the Anime/JRPG option: fighters have one man army techniques too.
There is the Anime/JRPG option: fighters have one man army techniques too.I don't think all classes should be perfectly balanced.I agree with this in theory. An individual that has practiced to master weaponry all his life (fighter) simply will not bring the same amount of options or reality-shattering damage potential as someone who has studied the arcane arts (wizard). In practice this can lead to resentment between the players (or at least this has been my experience, YMMV). Class balance is a tricky business.
i like Anime and JRPGs too but generally the big thing i dislike about the majority of JRPGs is the massive grind you have to do to have anything resembling plot advancement. generally, what you do is after you advance a chapter of plot, you spend 2 sleepless weeks killing random foes and if the JRPG is sophisticated enough, maybe doing quests to gain levels so you can enter the next dungeon, and generally, doing late game or post game dungeons can increase that to anywhere from 2 months to 2 years of grinding to do the next dungeon. i do however like the playstyle and semblance of something resembling balance in some of the newer ones, which generally involves giving martial characters a series of techniques that while purely martial, are more spammable and mimick some of the more basic spell effects in a physical format, like wind slicing instead of magic missile or first aid instead of cure.
i like Anime and JRPGs too but generally the big thing i dislike about the majority of JRPGs is the massive grind you have to do to have anything resembling plot advancement. generally, what you do is after you advance a chapter of plot, you spend 2 sleepless weeks killing random foes and if the JRPG is sophisticated enough, maybe doing quests to gain levels so you can enter the next dungeon, and generally, doing late game or post game dungeons can increase that to anywhere from 2 months to 2 years of grinding to do the next dungeon. i do however like the playstyle and semblance of something resembling balance in some of the newer ones, which generally involves giving martial characters a series of techniques that while purely martial, are more spammable and mimick some of the more basic spell effects in a physical format, like wind slicing instead of magic missile or first aid instead of cure.There is the Anime/JRPG option: fighters have one man army techniques too.I don't think all classes should be perfectly balanced.I agree with this in theory. An individual that has practiced to master weaponry all his life (fighter) simply will not bring the same amount of options or reality-shattering damage potential as someone who has studied the arcane arts (wizard). In practice this can lead to resentment between the players (or at least this has been my experience, YMMV). Class balance is a tricky business.
:)
One of the reasons most PnP RPG don't go there is the increase of 'rule bloating'. in some case it might be a sign that the system needs streamlining (in video games, the programmers took care of the mechaniques, so we don't need 500 pages of rules and explanations, unfortunately PnP RPG can't do the same for obvious reasons).
Expanding & evolving games like MTG and Pathfinder are prime examples of Sturgeon's Law in effect.
For those not familiar with the Law, it's "90% of Everything is Crap"
As more expansions are put out, the 90% ratio remains constant, but the physical number of "Crap" grows. That is just what happens.
At the same time, the more areas for adding options means more things will have the Law attached to it.
First & Second Edition AD&D didn't have a lot beyond Class, Race, Equipment, and Psionic Abilities, so the Law only had a few areas it could affect. That also meant that many characters were photocopies of one another but for backstory.
3rd Ed through Pathfinder have: Class, Archetype, Race, Alternate Racial Traits, Favored Class Options, Skills, Feat, Traits, Equipment, Companions, Class-Based Multiple-Choice Abilities.
More areas to customize means more areas where Sturgeon is proven right.
Even if you spent years on testing, there will always be "Crap," there will always be "Gold," and there will always be options which fall in the Timmy, Spike, and Johnny categories.
---
The big problem, however, is that people shout "IVORY TOWER DESIGN!" at Pathfinder, D&D, and other games like it was MTG, without really processing that TCGs are vastly different animals than RPGs.
TCGs are competitive games - you WANT to be "better" than your opponent, and by choosing the most optimal options for your strategy, you are rewarded with victory. But, then again, not everyone plays highly-competitively like in tournies, so you have Timmy and Johnny players as well.
RPGs, especially Pathfinder, are not a competition. One thing that's kept me far, far away from PFS is that the general mentality of PFS players seems to be "I have to be the best and most eternally-useful player at the table, or else I'm losing".
The point of cooperative play is (ostensibly) that the various classes compliment the others' weaknesses, and that every class will have times when it's ineffective while others shine; by design, you're not SUPPOSED to be able to solo adventures, and thus classes really aught not to be designed that way.
The point of RPGs is also to create and play a character. A lot of people like actually having a stat'ed out character who's mechanically different that everyone else who fits their general archetype, rather than simply a fluffy backstory that has no mechanical impact on the game. Options for that run the gammut of Timmy (cool abilities but ultimately not "effective"), Johnny (weird abilities that can combo with others), and Spike ("most optimal" and best at, usually, killing things hard and fast). As long as an option actually functions, it's not a "waste of ink".
Just 'cause an option doesn't "win you the game" in a game that you can't actually "win", doesn't mean it's useless - it's just not your cup of tea. Other players may, and probably do, feel otherwise.
The real problem with Timmy options in RPGs isn't that they're not optimal. In any reasonable complex system there are going to be some combination of things that isn't very effective, but in many cases in complex RPGs that apparently useless ability combines with a few others to be the cornerstone of very effective build.
The real problem options are the ones that seem to be good ones at first glance, but either don't really work well or don't stay effective long.
The traps.
this tend to go with 'linear warrior, quadratic wizard', or basically; by relevent early, or be relevent later.
The real problem with Timmy options in RPGs isn't that they're not optimal. In any reasonable complex system there are going to be some combination of things that isn't very effective, but in many cases in complex RPGs that apparently useless ability combines with a few others to be the cornerstone of very effective build.
The real problem options are the ones that seem to be good ones at first glance, but either don't really work well or don't stay effective long.
The traps.
i can agree those are the things that shouldn't be included and mistook every Timmy option for a trap. as if they were synonymous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The differences in power options can be narrowed, but never eliminated; even if you dumped 90% of the options, people would still b*+@# about the 10% that remained having a set of inferior choices being "traps" by relative comparison.
Some people just like to b*+@#. Period.
The differences in power options can be narrowed, but never eliminated; even if you dumped 90% of the options, people would still b*+@# about the 10% that remained having a set of inferior choices being "traps" by relative comparison.
Some people just like to b*+@#. Period.
yeah, but there are differences between designing a system that way by accident (or mistake) and doing it on purpose.
The problem with labeling things "Traps" is that it gives the impression that things are placed in books because they're intended to punish players for "choosing the wrong thing".
They're not; honestly, they're added most often because a designer goes "hey, this'd be pretty cool, but I think I have to put some limiting factors on it to make it balanced" and it ends up being janky either because of the limitations or because it was an awful idea from inception.
Just look at the Suggestions & Homebrew forums to see prime examples of just that. Designers are generally better than your average player - and in theory they should be MUCH better at designing things as your average player - but even they come up with awful ideas, as well.
Classes get a lot of playtesting, but not everything can afford the fine-toothed-comb treatment that Classes can. So a lot of the smaller things fall through the cracks, since they have to be eye-balled for balance, rather than tested extensively, and can thus end up being very "meh"; traits, spells, and feats get this problem the most.
Most options are put into books with the assumption they'll be fairly useful in one way or another, and that some will be more "optimal" than others (since some players are obssessed with "optimality" while others just want to make a character they like, and yet others specifically avoid "optimal" stuff). It's actually pretty rare that an option is literally unusable, though it does happen.
The problem with labeling things "Traps" is that it gives the impression that things are placed in books because they're intended to punish players for "choosing the wrong thing".
They're not; honestly, they're added most often because a designer goes "hey, this'd be pretty cool, but I think I have to put some limiting factors on it to make it balanced" and it ends up being janky either because of the limitations or because it was an awful idea from inception.
Just look at the Suggestions & Homebrew forums to see prime examples of just that. Designers are generally better than your average player - and in theory they should be MUCH better at designing things as your average player - but even they come up with awful ideas, as well.
Classes get a lot of playtesting, but not everything can afford the fine-toothed-comb treatment that Classes can. So a lot of the smaller things fall through the cracks, since they have to be eye-balled for balance, rather than tested extensively, and can thus end up being very "meh"; traits, spells, and feats get this problem the most.
Most options are put into books with the assumption they'll be fairly useful in one way or another, and that some will be more "optimal" than others (since some players are obssessed with "optimality" while others just want to make a character they like, and yet others specifically avoid "optimal" stuff). It's actually pretty rare that an option is literally unusable, though it does happen.
would be a bit less bad if the 'traps' weren't in the same book as their better options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Organizing abilities into presorted power tiers would be interesting but it would change a fundamental feel to the system.
Again, people will still pick apart within the tiers themselves and complain that one ability is higher tier than it's rated, or lower, etc.
You could have the only two choices for a feat at a certain level be power attack or piranha strike, and there'll still be a multitude of whiners who complain that piranha strike can't be two-handed for 1.5 damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HAve youe ver read the water balloon thread?. The game have options purposely designed to be the best and options purposely designed to be inferior.
Yeah, but wasn't that another SKR "gem?"
Sounds like an interesting thread. Link?
I would like the link also. I somehow missed that one even though my search pulled a lot of water ballon quotes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like an interesting thread. Link?I would like the link also. I somehow missed that one even though my search pulled a lot of water ballon quotes.
It was interesting...
Having read it, I remember it now. I don't mind some options being worse. In the specific case of the "water balloons" they are not something you are spending a resource on unless you are using EWP, but that feat is another topic.
It is like expecting for a dagger to be on part with a greatsword or glaive.
Not to many people in the game or in real life think a dagger(which is almost borderline good enough to be a martial weapon) should be comparable to a greatsword.
Now if you are spending a feat to get X or Y then depending on the case it might be good for X and Y to be "not too far apart".
As an aside, I see Sean is tagged as a designer again. Is he back at Paizo?
The thread you are discussing is rather old iirc. I'd assume that since he was a designer at the time that the post reflects that and the boards don't retroactively add/remove titles to older posts. No idea if that's actually correct or not though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The options are nice to have, some are just better in certain situation. All Aquatic options for example are not very good most of the time, but become excellent in an underwater campaign. Basically if your DM told you that you were going to be fighting army of oozes in his campaign and went ahead and made a sneak attack or crit build, no matter how good it is, it wouldn't work in this specific campaign.
In brief I'm not worried, I mostly see these new options as opportunity for new adventures and styles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People always mention daggers and greatswords in these discussions, but those two reflect the best kind of balance. They are both equally effective but in different ways. If there's a gap between them, it's narrow enough that it doesn't affect balance.
Compare it to longbows and crossbows. Where both weapons perform exactly the same function in exactly the same way, except one of them is far superior to the other (and before someone mentions the martial/simple weapon thing, remember thar bows are far better than repeating crossbows as well).
It is like expecting for a dagger to be on part with a greatsword or glaive.
Not to many people in the game or in real life think a dagger(which is almost borderline good enough to be a martial weapon) should be comparable to a greatsword.
There are many situations where having a dagger would be preferable to having a sword. If you are fighting someone in a tightly confined space (like a small alley), the guy with the dagger has the definite advantage. If you need to sneak up on someone and stab them, the dagger is by far the superior weapon.
Combat is always dependent on a lot of situational factors.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a complete and total aside:
One thing that's kept me far, far away from PFS is that the general mentality of PFS players seems to be "I have to be the best and most eternally-useful player at the table, or else I'm losing".
While this attitude is definitely there, it's very much not the attitude of all PFS players. It is a very vocal minority, and you can probably without much trouble find people who complain about other character's who "don't contribute" (which is code for "not being optimized the way I would have done it"). But, in my experience, it's a minority of players, and not even that large a minority.
I have been at tables where I felt like I couldn't do anything because the hyperoptomized combat monsters quickly turned everything into combat and dominated the situation. That's a little depressing. But most PFS tables I've been at have been far more fun than that, with a mix of characters that all are able to contribute different amounts at different times.
I've seen this same extreme-powergaming attitude outside of PFS as well. It's just one of the pathological behaviors of our hobby.
In addition to the CRB, which books should they get to have everything they need to make characters that will be viable in a game where the other party members are a blaster wizard, a summoner, and a druid?
How are they any less "viable?" They aren't in competition with their own party members. They may not be as powerful at certain levels (or in certain circumstances), but that doesn't make them totally unviable.
You're seeing this too much like a multiplayer videogame, rather than a roleplaying game.
Sounds like an interesting thread. Link?I would like the link also. I somehow missed that one even though my search pulled a lot of water ballon quotes.It was interesting...
Bah. SKR needs to watch some "one of these things are not like the other" videos from Sesame Street.
If he's still confused afterwards, then I hereby offer to allow him to throw a water balloon at me in exchange for him allowing me to throw a spear at him. ;-)
It is like expecting for a dagger to be on part with a greatsword or glaive.Not to many people in the game or in real life think a dagger(which is almost borderline good enough to be a martial weapon) should be comparable to a greatsword.
DO note that the dagger is not inferior to the great sword. Sure, the greatsword do more damage, but the dagger can be TWF, the dager can be used in a grapple, the dagger can be hiddend easier, the dagger can be finessed, adn the archetype that specialize in dagger is not horrible (like the figther archetype that specialize in crossbow).
Finally, note how SKR withdraw his innitial statement
Thread necro!
Related to crossbows being worse than bows in the game (and inviable player choices stemming from that), and my earlier arguments about the game modeling reality, if you read this blog post I just made, it's almost like I'm admitting I was wrong. ;)
I was saying it is better for doing lethal damage is what I was saying.
PS: I like daggers.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, SKR changed his mind shortly after he left Paizo. That makes me think most of his "gems" were him defending the company's official stance, rather than a completely honest opinion. Similar to how politicians will repeat their party's lines even when they don't agree with them.
Another situation where this happened is the class creation guide in the ACG, where the Rogue is referred to as "the most skilled class". At this point, I doubt any of the designers is under the illusion that Rogues are the best at skills (or anything else, really), but that's their official instance and damnit if they won't keep repeating it over and over again.
I'm under impression that since they can't update the physical copies of books already sold and don't like to errata classes out of fear of players feeling like books will be obsoleted by errata and therefore, are not worth buying... The only alternative that Paizo has is pretending everything is well balanced and trying to convince us of the same...
It is like expecting for a dagger to be on part with a greatsword or glaive.
Not to many people in the game or in real life think a dagger(which is almost borderline good enough to be a martial weapon) should be comparable to a greatsword.
There are many situations where having a dagger would be preferable to having a sword. If you are fighting someone in a tightly confined space (like a small alley), the guy with the dagger has the definite advantage. If you need to sneak up on someone and stab them, the dagger is by far the superior weapon.
Combat is always dependent on a lot of situational factors.
In addition to the CRB, which books should they get to have everything they need to make characters that will be viable in a game where the other party members are a blaster wizard, a summoner, and a druid?How are they any less "viable?" They aren't in competition with their own party members. They may not be as powerful at certain levels (or in certain circumstances), but that doesn't make them totally unviable.
You're seeing this too much like a multiplayer videogame, rather than a roleplaying game.
That Wizards can do almost 90% of what the other classes can do, only better is a factual statements.
that Monk and Rogue get the short end of the stick is also true. albeit in the case of the Rogue, a good part of it is adventures/encounters design.
People always mention daggers and greatswords in these discussions, but those two reflect the best kind of balance. They are both equally effective but in different ways. If there's a gap between them, it's narrow enough that it doesn't affect balance.
Compare it to longbows and crossbows. Where both weapons perform exactly the same function in exactly the same way, except one of them is far superior to the other (and before someone mentions the martial/simple weapon thing, remember thar bows are far better than repeating crossbows as well).
there are often complains about bringing 'realism' in a fantasy game.
there are often complains about bringing 'realism' in a fantasy game.People always mention daggers and greatswords in these discussions, but those two reflect the best kind of balance. They are both equally effective but in different ways. If there's a gap between them, it's narrow enough that it doesn't affect balance.
Compare it to longbows and crossbows. Where both weapons perform exactly the same function in exactly the same way, except one of them is far superior to the other (and before someone mentions the martial/simple weapon thing, remember that bows are far better than repeating crossbows as well).
Eh... Kinda...
Most complaints are about favoring realism over playability and fun (like the crossbow thing. IMO, it's FAR more important that crossbows be a viable and fun option than a realistic one. Specially considering the very real advantages of crossbows are often ignored for simplicity's sake).
Most people are usually not bothered about realism... They are, however, often bored by "selective realism" (Where one player can make reality cry all he wants, while other is tied to what a fit person can reasonably do) and "inappropriate realism" (where completely unrealistic aspects of the game are expected to be realist: e.g.: The Demon-hunting, dragon-slaying 20th level Fighter who can't jump 20ft in the air without someone crying foul).