I'm personally very disappointed with Occult Adventures. I SO wish they just went in cahoots with Dreamscarred Press and made that system "official".I know it would be "cool", but it's unnecessary, you don't need paizo saying it's official. You can make it official in your games.There is PFS. There are also groups that don't allow any 3PP stuff, because it's all dirty and unbalanced and evil. You know, despite the fact that everything that DSP has put out being far better balanced than anything that Paizo has put out.
I also find it amusing that Paizo has supported systems that even they admit aren't all that great in the name of backwards compatibility. Psionics must have some real haters among the Paizoo staff.
Yeah, combine the 3rd party stigma with the psionics stigma, and you have a real uphill battle to get the rules considered in a lot of groups.
And really, Paizo just seems to hate introducing any new mechanics. Everything is either Vancian casting or # uses/day.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's too bad earlier iterations of the game have created such a negative stigma both for 3pp materials and for psionics. The psionics system from 3.5 and particularly Dreamscarred's excellent conversion are actually much better balanced than most of the Vancian casting classes, and the community Pathfinder's fans has created has raised the standards very high for 3pp materials.
Honestly, in many instances 3pp materials from reputable companies are actually better balanced and crafted than a lot of Paizo materials specifically because of the fact that they're 3pp and can't afford to take too many risks. Paizo can afford to experiment and give new authors a chance, but that means that their supporting lines occasionally end up with some real garbage that never gets fixed, like Order of the Flame Cavaliers, Sacred Geometry, etc. If a 3pp puts out unbalanced or poorly designed mechanics, they don't get a buy like Paizo; they either fix it, or it hits their reputation and they don't stay profitable, which means they don't get to keep making stuff.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo can afford to experiment and give new authors a chance, but that means that their supporting lines occasionally end up with some real garbage that never gets fixed, like Order of the Flame Cavaliers, Sacred Geometry, etc.
The Core is the worst balanced book in the system.
They've also stated that they're more interested in protecting that imbalance than fixing it.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo can afford to experiment and give new authors a chance, but that means that their supporting lines occasionally end up with some real garbage that never gets fixed, like Order of the Flame Cavaliers, Sacred Geometry, etc.The Core is the worst balanced book in the system.
They've also stated that they're more interested in protecting that imbalance than fixing it.
That's not true. Sometimes they say that claims of imbalance are nothing but myths propagated by people with an agenda.
|
That's not true. Sometimes they say that claims of imbalance are nothing but myths propagated by people with an agenda.Paizo can afford to experiment and give new authors a chance, but that means that their supporting lines occasionally end up with some real garbage that never gets fixed, like Order of the Flame Cavaliers, Sacred Geometry, etc.The Core is the worst balanced book in the system.
They've also stated that they're more interested in protecting that imbalance than fixing it.
That comment was specifically about caster/martial disparity, not imbalance in general. The two are somewhat different (though definitely related).
Also, I suspect it was not intended entirely seriously (though it certainly does reflect one of James Jacobs' views with which I personally disagree).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never shout psionics in a crowded forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And really, Paizo just seems to hate introducing any new mechanics. Everything is either Vancian casting or # uses/day.
Yeah, and that's the one Paizo-ism I'm not a fan of. I get it that other people have other experiences and other needs, but as someone who's played this ruleset since 3.0 I'm more than hungry for compatible-but-different. That's a huge part of why my groups like psionics and martial initiators. It's fresh Lego in the box, letting us make new things instead of old things with a fresh coat of paint.
|
That's not true. Sometimes they say that claims of imbalance are nothing but myths propagated by people with an agenda.Paizo can afford to experiment and give new authors a chance, but that means that their supporting lines occasionally end up with some real garbage that never gets fixed, like Order of the Flame Cavaliers, Sacred Geometry, etc.The Core is the worst balanced book in the system.
They've also stated that they're more interested in protecting that imbalance than fixing it.
Yeah. The agenda that some vague balance exist. The agenda that spellcasters shouldnt always get superior options than non-spellcasters.
That comment was specifically about caster/martial disparity, not imbalance in general. The two are somewhat different (though definitely related).That's not true. Sometimes they say that claims of imbalance are nothing but myths propagated by people with an agenda.Paizo can afford to experiment and give new authors a chance, but that means that their supporting lines occasionally end up with some real garbage that never gets fixed, like Order of the Flame Cavaliers, Sacred Geometry, etc.The Core is the worst balanced book in the system.
They've also stated that they're more interested in protecting that imbalance than fixing it.
True, though I would say that the martial/caster disparity is the single biggest balance issue currently in the game, if only because a lot of the game's other issues ultimately rest there. The rogue certainly wouldn't look as pathetic if there weren't so many ways to out-rogue the rogue using spells.
And really, Paizo just seems to hate introducing any new mechanics. Everything is either Vancian casting or # uses/day.Yeah, and that's the one Paizo-ism I'm not a fan of. I get it that other people have other experiences and other needs, but as someone who's played this ruleset since 3.0 I'm more than hungry for compatible-but-different. That's a huge part of why my groups like psionics and martial initiators. It's fresh Lego in the box, letting us make new things instead of old things with a fresh coat of paint.
That was my big issue with the ACG. The classes didn't really feel "advanced" at all: it was just all the old familiar abilities with slight reshuffling of how they were arranged.
|
|
True, though I would say that the martial/caster disparity is the single biggest balance issue currently in the game, if only because a lot of the game's other issues ultimately rest there.
That's probably fair, in general.
Though I do feel like the 6-level casters aren't generally too badly overpowered compared to the good martial classes like Barbarian, Slayer, or spell-less Paladin (well, barring Summoner...which is a 9 level caster that just won't admit what it is). It's the 9 level casters that really tend make with the absurdity.
The rogue certainly wouldn't look as pathetic if there weren't so many ways to out-rogue the rogue using spells.
Yes it would. Or close enough to make no difference. You can tell by how pathetic it looks compared to Slayer.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not true. Sometimes they say that claims of imbalance are nothing but myths propagated by people with an agenda.Paizo can afford to experiment and give new authors a chance, but that means that their supporting lines occasionally end up with some real garbage that never gets fixed, like Order of the Flame Cavaliers, Sacred Geometry, etc.The Core is the worst balanced book in the system.
They've also stated that they're more interested in protecting that imbalance than fixing it.
They have a point, to be fair.
People who complain about the martial/caster disparity do have an agenda.It's just hugely disappointing that 'wanting the game to be closer to balanced' is an agenda they hold in such contempt.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance was certainly not a consideratio in the Dragonrider product, nor in a few others I've seen. 3p products seel to a more specialised niche than Paizo and really only have to please the standards of that group to get their products sold. Also since many of them are only PDFs, the exposure is commensurately less.I
Honestly, in many instances 3pp materials from reputable companies are actually better balanced and crafted than a lot of Paizo materials specifically because of the fact that they're 3pp and can't afford to take too many risks.
If you're referring to Rogue Genius Games' Dragonrider class, that's actually brutally underpowered to compensate for its level 1 access to flight. Considering that there are numerous ways to gain flight at level 1, including at least 2 animal companions available to anyone capable of gaining one, it's too bad that they had to be so cautious with its design.
The rest of your premise is blatantly wrong as well. Having a smaller audience doesn't open the door for bad design, it guarantees that you cannot afford bad design. I am personally very familiar with the work of Rite, Rogue Genius, Dreamscarred, Legendary, and most of the well-known 3pp, and off the top of my head I can't think of a single example of a class that isn't as or better balanced than the materials found in Paizo's core product line.
In regards to your other post, the Aegis, Vitalist, and Tactician from Dreamscarred all feature substantial swaths of new mechanics, and they've taken the shells of other old mechanics, like the Soulknife, and turned them into something entirely new and vastly better. The position that Paizo tends to be very conservative in their design and avoid new mechanics is both fair, and true. Even their "original" psychic magic materials are obviously based on old mechanics; the Kineticist has mechanics that are almost copied word for word from the 3.5 Warlock, the Spiritualist is just a refined Summoner, the Occultist obviously was inspired by Magic of Incarnum and then converted to fit PF's Vancian, limited resource dynamic, and the traces of recycled material are very evident in the other classes as well.
DSP's psionics are balanced as anything else in the Paizo setting. I had an elan thrallherd that played in Kingmaker, and while he could charm a mix of creatures and used telepathy to link the group together, he didn't dominate encounters as much as you might think. Of course, you could do the same with an enchanter specialist wizard and the mindbender prestige class from 3.5 back in the day, or the beguiler.
What I truly think the issue is that people become afraid of new/3rd party content, and it's up to the player or GM that suggests it to cover it with those players that wish to take advantage of it. The GM should read all new content that he or she or the player wants to use thoroughly, and then they can make the decision yea or nay. Once that decision has been made, then you move forward with the game. If the new content proves to be too much of an issue, then you sit down with the users of the new content and express your concern that it may be too disrupting to your game. Unless the player or GM is really unreasonable, most people will agree and find a nice compromise. Heck, I have seen this with regular Paizo content such as ninjas in a European setting or a gunslinger. No matter that the gunslinger and the ninja are balanced to the regular core, but it's a knee jerk reaction that could be quickly controlled upon a bit more forethought.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I just had a thought related to the topic of balance, 3rd-party products, and human perception.
I expect there's some serious confirmation bias involved when people accuse 3rd-party materials of being overpowered. Certainly not every time, but there's a very real assumption that 3PPs have to deal with.
Here's why: new stuff steals the show.
It's that simple. When someone rolls up a core-only Power Attacking two-handed monster and deals butt-tonnes of damage each round, everyone "knows" it's balanced because they've seen it a million times. High-crit build? Yeah, yeah, old news. Mind-controlling wizard? Meh.
But when you pull out the new class with the new rules and the new feats with the new equipment that uses new rules and new mechanics it blows people's minds. You can do half the damage but if it's flashy, if it's visible, if it's memorable it's going to fire up balance-alarms. It's just like when a DM describes a room/NPC/item differently, players perk up and get paranoid.
Now is cool and cool must be imbalanced. If it's new and cool by Paizo, well, people whack the alarm cut-off because they'll give it the benefit of the doubt (by and large). But if it's 3PP... "I knew it couldn't be Paizo... that's so broken!"
Confirmation bias. You interpret evidence to confirm your existing bias and discard evidence that doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I just had a thought related to the topic of balance, 3rd-party products, and human perception.
I expect there's some serious confirmation bias involved when people accuse 3rd-party materials of being overpowered. Certainly not every time, but there's a very real assumption that 3PPs have to deal with.
Here's why: new stuff steals the show.
It's that simple. When someone rolls up a core-only Power Attacking two-handed monster and deals butt-tonnes of damage each round, everyone "knows" it's balanced because they've seen it a million times. High-crit build? Yeah, yeah, old news. Mind-controlling wizard? Meh.
But when you pull out the new class with the new rules and the new feats with the new equipment that uses new rules and new mechanics it blows people's minds. You can do half the damage but if it's flashy, if it's visible, if it's memorable it's going to fire up balance-alarms. It's just like when a DM describes a room/NPC/item differently, players perk up and get paranoid.
Now is cool and cool must be imbalanced. If it's new and cool by Paizo, well, people whack the alarm cut-off because they'll give it the benefit of the doubt (by and large). But if it's 3PP... "I knew it couldn't be Paizo... that's so broken!"
Confirmation bias. You interpret evidence to confirm your existing bias and discard evidence that doesn't.
Pretty much sums up my experience. Between the Dragon Rider 3PP, Psionics, and some other woefully underpowered options I've dabbled with (any of the pre-magus magus-styled ones, Malefactor, Direlock, god forbid the Theurge [though that one may have been because I was shoehorned into playing it due to everyone else wanting to be martial so we had 'arcane and divine covered' ><]).... I find that anything non-paizo gets a hell of a kneejerk.
To which we have to stop the game for almost an hour while the more mechanic savvy player & myself had to explain that, no, it's not doing more dpr or damage or control than the Wizard, Druid, Barbarian, or whatever other munchkin'd character in the party was doing (my old group was notorious for being the munchkin outcasts that couldn't get a game with any of the other groups in the area).
Basically, it boils down to "Broken = Noticeable, therefore Noticable = Broken". I never did get them to let me use the Words of Power system as a sorcerer, and THAT was from Paizo. Why? Because they saw the how customizable it was and immediately started crowing about how it could replicate and overshadow the best spells the party's resident wizard could do. The conversation of which revealed they only skimmed how it worked, and not the words themselves.
Which I think is another problem, something I've seen many times over. IME, as a general rule, we gamers are rather a proud lot. We tend to think we know how a game plays, so we really only skim the rules when we've got years of experience to fall back on. So when something challenges those years of experience and the sensibilities garnered from them, it tends to raise a red flag. On the other hand, because we skim, we miss important parts of the new thing. Can't spend more points than your manifester level on a power in DSP's psionics, for example.
But, YMMV, just my 2 cents I've observed over 20 years of gaming.
That was my big issue with the ACG. The classes didn't really feel "advanced" at all: it was just all the old familiar abilities with slight reshuffling of how they were arranged.
Well, if they had redone something like the Witch but had been multiple Hexes (they'd need more and get more) instead of spells:
That would be more unique and probably more balanced (High Tier 3 instead of 2) but it is easier t- just give/day spells.It would be more like 3.5's Warlock I guess, but still not sure hard to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to like new and different as far as mechanics go. That said I have every intention of using DSP Ultimate Psionics with Paizo's Occult Adventures. Im explaining it this way. Psionics can only be taken by those who are awoken from the Silver Mount crashed ship in Numeria, and Psychic Magic is whats native to Golarion. In my homebrew I haven't decided what the explained difference is going to be yet.
My only real complaint about Paizo not making new mechanics is the fact that I have to go elsewhere for material I want. For instance I love Incarnum so I have to get Akashic Mysteries (which is fine I like what I see and would love to see more clones like that), but the problem comes from other GMs. Our group takes turns GMing different games, and when its my brothers turn to run Pathfinder he doesn't allow non-paizo stuff no matter how balanced it is or who wrote it. Believe me I Keep trying. So I don't get to play with all the new stuff, when I run only my players do.
I tend to like new and different as far as mechanics go. That said I have every intention of using DSP Ultimate Psionics with Paizo's Occult Adventures. Im explaining it this way. Psionics can only be taken by those who are awoken from the Silver Mount crashed ship in Numeria, and Psychic Magic is whats native to Golarion. In my homebrew I haven't decided what the explained difference is going to be yet.
My only real complaint about Paizo not making new mechanics is the fact that I have to go elsewhere for material I want. For instance I love Incarnum so I have to get Akashic Mysteries (which is fine I like what I see and would love to see more clones like that), but the problem comes from other GMs. Our group takes turns GMing different games, and when its my brothers turn to run Pathfinder he doesn't allow non-paizo stuff no matter how balanced it is or who wrote it. Believe me I Keep trying. So I don't get to play with all the new stuff, when I run only my players do.
I hand wave it this way.
There are different "languages" of magic. They have different grammar and thus can work differently.
I, too, would like Paizo to do more with new mechanics. Don't get me wrong, I like most of the ACG and from what I've tested from OcA most of it seems nice, but it would be nice to see something radically different.
Yeah, combine the 3rd party stigma with the psionics stigma, and you have a real uphill battle to get the rules considered in a lot of groups.
Might be an outlier but my experience has been basically the exact opposite.
Pathfinder players seem far more supporting of third party (and psionics in particular) than I've ever seen in any other edition. It's been really easy to get fresh DMs to consider psionics too and I've had way more luck doing that than I ever did getting 3.5 or 4e or 5e homebrew/third party into games.
I tend to like new and different as far as mechanics go. That said I have every intention of using DSP Ultimate Psionics with Paizo's Occult Adventures. Im explaining it this way. Psionics can only be taken by those who are awoken from the Silver Mount crashed ship in Numeria, and Psychic Magic is whats native to Golarion. In my homebrew I haven't decided what the explained difference is going to be yet.
My only real complaint about Paizo not making new mechanics is the fact that I have to go elsewhere for material I want. For instance I love Incarnum so I have to get Akashic Mysteries (which is fine I like what I see and would love to see more clones like that), but the problem comes from other GMs. Our group takes turns GMing different games, and when its my brothers turn to run Pathfinder he doesn't allow non-paizo stuff no matter how balanced it is or who wrote it. Believe me I Keep trying. So I don't get to play with all the new stuff, when I run only my players do.
Many GM's are under the assumption that Paizo's stuff is quality just because it is a bigger company, but fail to realize that Paizo is smaller than WoTC, and they still put out good stuff when they were a 3PP company. If Paizo(3pp version) can have quality content then so can these other companies. Many of the current people working with the 3pp companies have also written for Paizo. (shrugs shoulders)
You might want to point this out to them. :)
Many GM's are under the assumption that Paizo's stuff is quality just because it is a bigger company, but fail to realize that Paizo is smaller than WoTC,
What's interesting is that, right now, Paizo is larger than the entire D&D division of WotC though. They have more devs working.
But then Paizo puts out a lot more books than D&D 5th does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realize the conversation has moved on, but I guess I should amend my statement:
I am very disappointed in Occult Adventures (and does anyone really believe you can't judge a book because it's missing a couple of feats and spells? Gimmie a break) AND I wish DSP's Psionics would be made PFS legal.
There are Laser Guns, Androids and Space Ships in Pathfinder's official setting, I think you can find a place for Psionics in there too.
I also disagree with the melee caster disparity. It's not nearly as large as everyone makes it out to be. In my 30+ years of gaming, I've never heard anyone at any table I've been sitting at say "Man the Wizard destroyed every encounter we ran across, I never even got a chance to go" but I have heard that about, Archers, Barbarians, Rangers, and Fighters. I usually hear "Man that one fight would have been impossible, that was awesome Wizard"... but that's an argument that will never go anywhere on the internet, sort of like arguing against the monk being under powered.
AND I wish DSP's Psionics would be made PFS legal.
I seriously doubt that will ever happen. Paizo would have to add staff members just to try to verify if all such mechanics was perfectly compatible with the core - not that it wouldn't be, but verification would still be a requirement. I don't know if such an added cost would be beneficial to Paizo.
Additionally, if DSP Psionics were accepted into PFS, it wouldn't be fair to allow one 3PP and not everyone else. I would love to see the various archetypes made available for samurai based classes from Rite Publishing's Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), not to mention content from many other 3PP.
That's too much work for Paizo and very little return on investment, so I doubt that such will ever come to pass.
In my 30+ years of gaming, I've never heard anyone at any table I've been sitting at say "Man the Wizard destroyed every encounter we ran across...
I certainly have. I have seen many, many encounters where the wizard or equivalent powerful caster flies toward an approaching aerial combatant and cast repeated discintegrate spells utterly destroying a monster before its even reached the rest of the party. To the point that such happens with almost every encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also disagree with the melee caster disparity. It's not nearly as large as everyone makes it out to be. In my 30+ years of gaming, I've never heard anyone at any table I've been sitting at say "Man the Wizard destroyed every encounter we ran across, I never even got a chance to go" but I have heard that about, Archers, Barbarians, Rangers, and Fighters. I usually hear "Man that one fight would have been impossible, that was awesome Wizard"... but that's an argument that will never go anywhere on the internet, sort of like arguing against the monk being under powered.
Quality GMing can mask the issue.
If your enemies are never in melee reach, if your encounters are not in cramped spaces, if your fighter has to roll a skill check every-time he opens his mouth, if you cannot interact with the environment through creative non-mechanically explicit means, if you play at levels higher than 10, then you will really see the issue.
Most GMs actually want their players to have fun, so they cover up the issue. Other GMs are really annoyed that they are expected to put on kid gloves to not invalidate iconic character concepts.
However the Kineticist was a nod to the 3.5 Warlock. At-will SLA for ranged damage and a smattering of other at-will abilities as you level up.
It finally struck me with Occult Adventures playtest that Warlock is in fact a weak Binder. And we already have Binder in form of Radiance House Occultist. One from Pact Magic Unbound book. Thanks Paizo, now I always have to type which Occultist I mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the discussion of third party usability the main reasons I see to not use third party are;
1) A surprising number of GMs generally perceive them as inherently unbalanced.
2) GMs can be unfamiliar with a product and not want to have to deal with unknown things, particularly if a product presents new paradigms that they aren't used to. For example, remember what Crane Style was like? It was easy to deal with but was seen as degenerate because dealing with it required some kind of adjustment. Sure this can happen without third party material but third party happens unexpectedly if the GM isn't fully familiar with whats going on.
3) Some players, a lot of players have some level of option/system paralysis already with splat books and numerous hardcover options. They don't feel compelled to use third party material that would require they learn more things or be aware of more options. I make the suggestion in each of my games to stay in the Core Rulebook if they have option paralysis and a lot take me up on that.
4) Some players feel like having material available that they aren't familiar with actively decreases their level of game mastery making them less effective as characters and players and thus reducing their fun.
5) Some players feel like they have low accesibility to the rules information and will not take anything that they cannot pull up on their phone.
6) Some GMs do not appreciate material that they feel is 'out of genre'. I may want to use Legendary Game's 'Way of Ki' to kind of beef up my monk but sometimes its denied to me because it makes the monk too 'street fighter'/'Dragonball Z'. Same applies to many third party alchemist stuff as well. Basically if it's too weird or outside of medieval stasis/middle earth it doesn't fly.
7) Some GMs will not allow any material that the player asks for on the assumption that they player is most likely asking for it for the purpose of powergaming.
Note that these are not my views these are reasons that have been explained to me. In regards to psionics, I have been denied using it because it is 'overpowered' or 'too sci-fi'.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also disagree with the melee caster disparity. It's not nearly as large as everyone makes it out to be. In my 30+ years of gaming, I've never heard anyone at any table I've been sitting at say "Man the Wizard destroyed every encounter we ran across, I never even got a chance to go" but I have heard that about, Archers, Barbarians, Rangers, and Fighters. I usually hear "Man that one fight would have been impossible, that was awesome Wizard"... but that's an argument that will never go anywhere on the internet, sort of like arguing against the monk being under powered.Quality GMing can mask the issue.
Not to mention a lot of players who have the system mastery to break the game will avoid doing so to keep from ruining everyone else's fun.
Not to mention a lot of players who have the system mastery to break the game will avoid doing so to keep from ruining everyone else's fun.I also disagree with the melee caster disparity. It's not nearly as large as everyone makes it out to be. In my 30+ years of gaming, I've never heard anyone at any table I've been sitting at say "Man the Wizard destroyed every encounter we ran across, I never even got a chance to go" but I have heard that about, Archers, Barbarians, Rangers, and Fighters. I usually hear "Man that one fight would have been impossible, that was awesome Wizard"... but that's an argument that will never go anywhere on the internet, sort of like arguing against the monk being under powered.Quality GMing can mask the issue.
This is a big one. Most players I know with a lot of system mastery tend to spend more time on goofy gimmicks than actual powergaming.
|
|
Not to mention a lot of players who have the system mastery to break the game will avoid doing so to keep from ruining everyone else's fun.I also disagree with the melee caster disparity. It's not nearly as large as everyone makes it out to be. In my 30+ years of gaming, I've never heard anyone at any table I've been sitting at say "Man the Wizard destroyed every encounter we ran across, I never even got a chance to go" but I have heard that about, Archers, Barbarians, Rangers, and Fighters. I usually hear "Man that one fight would have been impossible, that was awesome Wizard"... but that's an argument that will never go anywhere on the internet, sort of like arguing against the monk being under powered.Quality GMing can mask the issue.
I find that a lot of the time, a player breaking the game is a personality problem, not a mechanics problem. I have yet to see a PF 3pp class that rivals the game-breaking power of a CRB only wizard played by someone with high system mastery. Most of the people I've played with have been well adjusted enough to recognize that being able to break the game does not mean you should.
I find that a lot of the time, a player breaking the game is a personality problem, not a mechanics problem. I have yet to see a PF 3pp class that rivals the game-breaking power of a CRB only wizard played by someone with high system mastery. Most of the people I've played with have been well adjusted enough to recognize that being able to break the game does not mean you should.Not to mention a lot of players who have the system mastery to break the game will avoid doing so to keep from ruining everyone else's fun.I also disagree with the melee caster disparity. It's not nearly as large as everyone makes it out to be. In my 30+ years of gaming, I've never heard anyone at any table I've been sitting at say "Man the Wizard destroyed every encounter we ran across, I never even got a chance to go" but I have heard that about, Archers, Barbarians, Rangers, and Fighters. I usually hear "Man that one fight would have been impossible, that was awesome Wizard"... but that's an argument that will never go anywhere on the internet, sort of like arguing against the monk being under powered.Quality GMing can mask the issue.
It is annoying though, when I am playing a shaper psion next to a slayer, two cavaliers, a sorcerer, and a bard; and I look overpowered at level 2 for summoning contructs flanking with each other so that they can swing for +5 1d6+7 for 3 rounds.
Maybe I am not the one who has mechanical balance problems.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
]It is annoying though, when I am playing a shaper psion next to a slayer, two cavaliers, a sorcerer, and a bard; and I look overpowered at level 2 for summoning contructs flanking with each other so that they can swing for +5 1d6+7 for 3 rounds.
Maybe I am not the one who has mechanical balance problems.
I'm a little confused. At level 2 +5 to hit and 1d6+7 damage is considered overpowered? Sure the action economy of having two constructs is good but if it lasts for three rounds isn't this a bit underpowered? The slayer, cavaliers and bard can easily do way more than that at level 2 and do it indefinitely so I think I'm confusing what is being said.
On the discussion of third party usability the main reasons I see to not use third party are;
1) A surprising number of GMs generally perceive them as inherently unbalanced.
Sadly, this is not an undeserved perception. Third-party material had a lot of quality control problems during the 2E and 3E days, back when WotC was running the tabletop-gaming show. A lot of it can be traced back to WotC's fault: As bad as the quality-control problems are under Paizo, WotC was significantly worse and Paizo actually made efforts to address some of the most glaring flaws in Pathfinder.
If anything, the massive backlash against 4E and the resulting creation of Pathfinder actually did a lot to increase the quality of third-party material.
I'm a little confused. At level 2 +5 to hit and 1d6+7 damage is considered overpowered? Sure the action economy of having two constructs is good but if it lasts for three rounds isn't this a bit underpowered? The slayer, cavaliers and bard can easily do way more than that at level 2 and do it indefinitely so I think I'm confusing what is being said.]It is annoying though, when I am playing a shaper psion next to a slayer, two cavaliers, a sorcerer, and a bard; and I look overpowered at level 2 for summoning contructs flanking with each other so that they can swing for +5 1d6+7 for 3 rounds.
Maybe I am not the one who has mechanical balance problems.
I've built an alchemist who can do 1d6+10 damage to a single opponent at first level. With eight bombs to toss, it's a good bet she'll live through most battles with ease.
I don't really see how a +7 to damage is all that bad myself.
On the discussion of third party usability the main reasons I see to not use third party are;
1) A surprising number of GMs generally perceive them as inherently unbalanced.
Sadly, this is not an undeserved perception. Third-party material had a lot of quality control problems during the 2E and 3E days, back when WotC was running the tabletop-gaming show. A lot of it can be traced back to WotC's fault: As bad as the quality-control problems are under Paizo, WotC was significantly worse and Paizo actually made efforts to address some of the most glaring flaws in Pathfinder.
If anything, the massive backlash against 4E and the resulting creation of Pathfinder actually did a lot to increase the quality of third-party material.
In terms of quality control I always read and theorycraft before allowing it in my games. As a result I have a number of products I will never use because of balance or wording flaws. That said, I think community communication and thorough reviewers like Endzeitgeist do a lot to for the quality control because every worthless pdf has been a gamble purchase with no reviews or other information. Thorough reviews and the community are the quality control of third party and 'name brand' third party products have almost never failed me.
Many GM's are under the assumption that Paizo's stuff is quality just because it is a bigger company, but fail to realize that Paizo is smaller than WoTC,What's interesting is that, right now, Paizo is larger than the entire D&D division of WotC though. They have more devs working.
But then Paizo puts out a lot more books than D&D 5th does.
You also cut my quote off, and are taking it out of context. The rest of the sentence also matter.
I realize the conversation has moved on, but I guess I should amend my statement:
I am very disappointed in Occult Adventures (and does anyone really believe you can't judge a book because it's missing a couple of feats and spells? Gimmie a break) AND I wish DSP's Psionics would be made PFS legal.
There are Laser Guns, Androids and Space Ships in Pathfinder's official setting, I think you can find a place for Psionics in there too.
I also disagree with the melee caster disparity. It's not nearly as large as everyone makes it out to be. In my 30+ years of gaming, I've never heard anyone at any table I've been sitting at say "Man the Wizard destroyed every encounter we ran across, I never even got a chance to go" but I have heard that about, Archers, Barbarians, Rangers, and Fighters. I usually hear "Man that one fight would have been impossible, that was awesome Wizard"... but that's an argument that will never go anywhere on the internet, sort of like arguing against the monk being under powered.
I have already explained why Paizo did not take that risk. The psionics-wars were a thing on the boards here. It would have been very high risk to push psionics. It was smart for Paizo to let DSP handle it, and if the prejudice against it dies down, while the "I want power points" support stays up they can always go back and partner with DSP at not risk to themselves.
edit: As for the martial-caster disparity, it does exist. How prevelant it is depends on the GM, the players, and what level you play to. In the game I saw it it, it was not so much that the casters were owning every combat, but it was too easy to minimize the fighter at higher levels.
If I maze a fighter away he might be gone the entire fight. Every time I have run a high level game with casters they had some way to travel so they can plane shift out of the maze and then teleport back into the fight, as an example. The point is that it is much easier to shut them down unless I intentionally hold back.
Martial-Caster disparity is not saying that the martials will always be useless or anything like that. It is saying that the power difference is big enough that GM's have to be aware of it, and plan around it. <---An oversimplification.
I am not going into more detail because we have dozens of threads on this already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You also cut my quote off, and are taking it out of context. The rest of the sentence also matter.
Many GM's are under the assumption that Paizo's stuff is quality just because it is a bigger company, but fail to realize that Paizo is smaller than WoTC,What's interesting is that, right now, Paizo is larger than the entire D&D division of WotC though. They have more devs working.
But then Paizo puts out a lot more books than D&D 5th does.
Sure. I wasn't intending on making a point. When I saw that at ENWorld, I just thought it was a nifty bit of trivia, and was sharing that trivia. It wasn't a refutation or agreement with your point - that is why I only quoted the section I did.
It's not at all. A two-handed character with a 20 strength at level 1 will do 2d6+7 with a +6 or +7 to hit with added benefits of being able to rage, heal themselves, or other neat things.I'm a little confused. At level 2 +5 to hit and 1d6+7 damage is considered overpowered? Sure the action economy of having two constructs is good but if it lasts for three rounds isn't this a bit underpowered? The slayer, cavaliers and bard can easily do way more than that at level 2 and do it indefinitely so I think I'm confusing what is being said.It is annoying though, when I am playing a shaper psion next to a slayer, two cavaliers, a sorcerer, and a bard; and I look overpowered at level 2 for summoning contructs flanking with each other so that they can swing for +5 1d6+7 for 3 rounds.
Maybe I am not the one who has mechanical balance problems.
I've built an alchemist who can do 1d6+10 damage to a single opponent at first level. With eight bombs to toss, it's a good bet she'll live through most battles with ease.
I don't really see how a +7 to damage is all that bad myself.
Exactly my problem. I'm not the one with mechanical problems. Yet I am playing the 3pp class. So when other people make poor mechanical decisions, it looks bad for the 3pp material.
|
|
I think the misunderstanding was that the classes you listed include some of the best martials and the definitive skill-monkey and party buffer; it's weird that they would think your constructs (which aren't particularly strong or any better than you can scrounge up with Summon Nature's Ally) would be showing them up :/
It does lead to one point though: system mastery means more than almost any other factor. I think that people with higher system mastery might be more likely to discover and want to use 3pp materials; then, when the other players feel like that player is overpowered, they attribute it to the class/mechanics instead of the real culprit, the gap in system mastery.
Martial-Caster disparity is not saying that the martials will always be useless or anything like that. It is saying that the power difference is big enough that GM's have to be aware of it, and plan around it. <---An oversimplification.
I am not going into more detail because we have dozens of threads on this already.
I'm with you. It's more a player thing than a rules thing. First, the "simpler" players tend to not touch full casters. So you've already selected for your advanced players when you're talking about casters. Second, an advanced player knows what spells to have prepared/learned to work in a wide variety of circumstances. They're far more likely to have banishment than several fireball spells. Save or die.
I see this as a feature, not a bug. It gives advanced players something to do that won't send them in a coma. "I uh... full attack. Uh... again." Frankly I've got a couple players who I figure if they were given a straight fighter to play they'd just tell me "standard operating procedure is move to nearest square, flank if possible, Power Attack full attacks until it's dead... I'll be in the other room reading a book."
I'd say that this is too extreme of an example but I'm GMing a game with a fighter with 13 strength and 10 dex so...
I'd say that this is too extreme of an example but I'm GMing a game with a fighter with 13 strength and 10 dex so...
Once saw a paladin with 14 strength in a 26 point buy game. Played with an arcane trickster with 10 con. Played with a rogue with 10 con, 7 wis and no cloak of resistance. Played with a dex highest sword and board fighter.
All these choices were done on a 26 point buy.