Reactions to the ACG classes after more than 6 months

[p-sto]

Right up until the fighter needs to make a will save, then the paladin laughs and stands in as meat shield.

[Serisan]

Jessex wrote:

Serisan wrote:

My second post expanded on this, but the short version is this:

1. The CRB classes are extremely old...

It seems I can't actually quote the part of your post I wish to reply to but I think I can get the point across:

First, a fantasy RPG that does not provide the ability to play the iconic four characters ( that is a fighter, a thief, a wizard and a cleric in very recognizable forms) is not one I'm interested in playing and not one that will last long in the marketplace.

I'm not going to dive into edition wars here, but there are mechanically modern RPGs in fantasy settings that do not follow that logic and are doing quite well. Not only that, but they're doing very well.

Quote:

Second, your specific complaints about the wizard. You already hit the nail on the head. Wizards are supposed to be the ultimate arcane "technologists" in the world so anytime some other class develops some new approach to arcane magic some group of wizards tries it out as well.

What you have just told me is that your in-world justification trumps the lazy design of the Exploiter Wizard. First, I don't accept that logic. Second, the real problem with that archetype is that it arguably does the Arcanist's schtick better than the Arcanist because of the odd-level spell access. Frankly, if a group of wizards learned Exploits, they should be Arcanists.

____________________________________________________________________

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Several points, the name you give to a class and the attached class features - are not the same thing.

This gets blurred substantially when old classes start poaching every new mechanic as soon as they come out.

Quote:

And when people complain about bad CRB design, they talk about things like favored enemy ( this calls feature might be relevant in an archetype or for a set campaign), but as written it is either too good or irrelevant.

100% agreement here, but in an expanded form, this applies to entire classes. The more bandaids are applied in the form of archetypes, the more likely that the class is doing things that a different class should be doing instead. That's why, for instance, we have archetypes like the Crusader, which is then roughly supplanted by the War Priest.

Quote:

Or the Monk class that gets burdened with class features of questionable validity. Just take a look at the archetypes that allow players to change the class a fair bit (sohei allows the use of light armor and removes the tiresome necessity for mage armor; the quigong archetype would be added whole cloth to the CRB class description).

The existing Monk is on my chop list in favor of whatever the Unchained version is or the Brawler.

Quote:

And lets be frank, even if the classes got a little update in the CRB, things like Fighers and their paltry number of skill points - and thus lack of out of combat options - is a pretty old complaint.

With the existence of the Slayer, I think that the Fighter has more than a few problems to fix. The PF Fighter was a great improvement over 3.5, but it was relatively uninspired. The archetypes didn't do much to fix that.

Quote:

I drive a car from 1994 and while I think it is a pretty decent car, I am aware that newer cars have pretty nice features and are in some cases far safer. It is not a complaint against the people who have designed my car, especially since the very same people claim responsibility for the new ones.

And fresh designer talent like Mark Seifter (really liked how he handled the recent playtest, the pregens and some other issues) is likely to make new stuff even better.

Agreed. It's not a matter of the originals being bad, but they're so focused on backwards compatibility that they didn't take advantage of the developers' creativity as much as later material. Once the developers established themselves and brought on additional talent (Mark is awesome, for example), they moved to more reactive and creative mechanics. That has, unfortunately, left some development holes in the rear view mirror.

Quote:

This is hardly a new concept, some players like to play niche concepts, and it usually takes some time and published products until a RPG can support those with adequate mechanics.

Oh and some of the core classes have some assumptions baked into them, like the presence of traps. Rogues other classes perform significantly worse in an environment that lacks those encounters.

Absolutely fair, but a revision release like Unchained is important to adequately address the issues of dated material as they relate to the play meta.

[Serisan]

G-Zeus wrote:

A bit off topic. The core classes I play and play with are the most powerful around that I see.

Straight core classes or core classes with archetypes?

One local player has George the Kitsune Mystic Theurge, who has 1 level of Exploiter Wizard, 1 level of Blood Arcanist, 1 level of Cleric, and enchantment DCs in the 20s. Is that really the fault of the CRB? Not really. It's bandaids on top of bandaids on top of mechanical additions, FAQs, and errata.

That's just how things sort of go. Too many moving pieces.

[Alexander Augunas]

BartonOliver wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

I have an Awesome Investigator, and he doesn't even have studied strike yet. But his combat presence is good and he's great at skills. If you have too high an Int on Investigator's they are going to feel lame. But if you go with a lot of combat stats and some int then they are awesome. Dex/Str and con then int. Use mutagens at 3, studied combat and alchemical allocation lv4 and you're rocking combats.

Ok, so here's my question. What is the advantage/reason for choosing Investigator over other classes? It sounds like your build could be made effectively with say just an Alchemist (maybe with an archetype). I ask because I've tried to build Investigator a couple of times and always switched to something else that I felt worked better for me.

The advantage is that thanks to your studied combatant bonus, your attack bonus is effectively as good as a fighter's is against any foe that you study. Beginning at Level 4, you'll hit. A lot. Likely more so than any other medium base attack bonus in the game. And because you're adding half your level to damage against most opponents, you'll actually be pounding on some considerable hurt, too.

But where the investigator really shines is as a martial debuffer. Between getting a bonus to the number of rounds that he can demoralize foes and the ability to sicken his studied combat target with NO SAVES ALLOWED, you can really diminish enemies. Even better still, if you grab a spell-like ability (such as from race or the minor magic rogue talent) you can grab Arcane Strike and Riving Strike, meaning that you can very easily stack demoralized, sickened, and riving strike on a target for a whooping –6 to its saving throw DCs. What arcane spellcaster (especially the God Wizard) isn't going to love that?

[TOZ]

I find that suspect in that Studied Combat only lasts for one hit, and then the target is immune to it without resource expenditure.

[Chess Pwn]

Studied combat last for as many rounds as your int mod. And you can apply it again by spending an inspiration point. But having 3 or 4 rounds per person usually should be enough most of the time.

[TOZ]

Ah, I see the error I made. It ends on a studied strike, not a successful strike. The ACG classes never caught my eye enough to read them.

[BartonOliver]

Chess Pwn wrote:

The inspiration rolls for skills was the main draw. I wanted a skills guy, and the Investigator gets 2 more skills than the alchemist, and has the inspiration that will boost his skills, and being able to add it after the fact is nice for when I need something to succeed. Also I went Empiricist and student of philosophy trait so that like ALL the useful skills are based off of just int, helping free up Stats for combat and still have awesome skills.

I plan on getting combat inspiration with an inspired weapon, that mean adding 1d6+2(half-elf bonus) to attack rolls that matter, and 2d6+4 to damage to those rolls. When quick study comes on that's another free attack boost and damage against everyone I fight.

Also I wanted some fun out of alchemical allocation.

I didn't go alchemist because I didn't want the bombs or discoveries as much as I wanted the investigator stuff. And the alchemist can't get all the skills to just int, or bonuses to the skills. And I didn't feel like playing a caster for this character. Bard was a close one, but I felt his skills didn't ramp up as fast as the investigator, and the bards personal combat options are limited. (no mutagen and needing spells for buffs rather...

@ N N 959 Thanks.

Thank you for the response. I had missed Empiricist while looking at Investigators which is a very good archetype. I like the idea behind the character you're talking about a lot and it seems like it should be good across an entire career (something I couldn't make work in my own head).

That being said I think this is another example of one archetype in each class being so far superior to the base class or any of the other archetypes that its a bit silly. Also,I may wait a while before building an Investigator with Empiricist as the level 2 abilities remind me somewhat of the banned feat 'Pageant of the Peacock.' (Never affected me personally)

[N N 959]

BartonOliver wrote:

@ N N 959 Thanks.

Thank you for the response. I had missed Empiricist while looking at Investigators which is a very good archetype. I like the idea behind the character you're talking about a lot and it seems like it should be good across an entire career (something I couldn't make work in my own head).

That being said I think this is another example of one archetype in each class being so far superior to the base class or any of the other archetypes that its a bit silly. Also,I may wait a while before building an Investigator with Empiricist as the level 2 abilities remind me somewhat of the banned feat 'Pageant of the Peacock.' (Never affected me personally)

You're welcome.

One thing that a person really has to practice is normalizing the data when it comes to any class and those who promote it. The combat effectiveness of "combat" Investigators is predicated largely on Enlarge Person, Shield, Mutagens, and then things like Barkskin at higher levels. But these things aren't available every fight all fight. Heck, Studied Combat only last as long as your INT mod, so that could get burned up simply trying to get into position, from being phased, or an intelligent NPC realizing what's going on and avoiding combat for a round or two. But the way people talk about it, you have every combat extract on all the time and every opponent is a Studied Combat target.

The other factor is that unless you burn a ton of feats to make Ranged Study useful (e.g. Precise Shot/PBS/Rapid Shot/IPS, etc) you have to be in melee. The typical response is the: Enlarge Person Reach weapon, Shield, Barkskin, Mutagen = around +7-9 to AC on top of, you guessed it, +1 Mithral Chain = AC of 24.

But Extracts take a minute to prepare and they take a Standard action to quaff. Sure, Mutagen and Barkskin last awhile, but you're stuck with -2 on INT if you're going STR bonus. Running around with Enlarge Person and Shield prepared in advance severely cramps your versatility. You're only getting 4 extracts at 1st level.

Also, taking combat feats/talents means there are non-combat feats/talents you can't take. But as mentioned, the Empiricist lets you doge a lot of the penalty for this. So I agree, the Empiricist makes the munckin focused player laugh at the base class, which is too bad because the Empiricist is what one imagines a Sherlock Holmes is built on, not the the base class.

I wouldn't hold your breath on Ceaseless Observation changing ...at all. The key thing you need to note is that the Investigator ultimately gives up Poison Immunity and Poison Lore. Despite the majority of posts that I read saying that Poison Use did not fit the class, the devs wouldn't give it up. They tried to trick us and call it Poison "Lore" and dress it up a little. But the problem is that poison in PFS and every game I've played, has never been a viable combat path. Poisons are STUPID expensive (even when crafting them) for horrible success probabilities (Monsters tend to have great Fort saves). What's more, Investigators don't even get access to the Alchemist discovery the might make them palatable: sticky poison. I am left scratching my head and wondering, "In what world did Paizo think players were going to benefit form Poison Lore?" Not in the PFS world. Naturally a home brew game where the player can craft poison willy nilly, it might be some sort of option.

That having been said, Poison Immunity is nothing to sneeze at. For PFS, it comes very late, but the base class pays the price for that ability from Level 1.

The real crime is the Empiricist gets to drop Swift Alchemy for a bonus to Illusions. The Empiricist can't use poison so half of Swift Alchemy is pointless. And being able to make extracts in 30 seconds vs 60 seconds has arguable zero benefit. Same goes for any crafting. In PFS, you have all the time in the world between scenarios.

So no, I seriously doubt they'll change the Empiricist, no matter how broken it is, so long as they can rationalize the trade-off.

[Jeff Merola]

BartonOliver wrote:

Also,I may wait a while before building an Investigator with Empiricist as the level 2 abilities remind me somewhat of the banned feat 'Pageant of the Peacock.' (Never affected me personally)

I just want to point out that there is a huge difference between an ability that lets you use one skill to replace every Int based skill and an ability that lets you use Int instead of the normal stat for just over four skills.

[BartonOliver]

Jeff Merola wrote:

BartonOliver wrote:

Also,I may wait a while before building an Investigator with Empiricist as the level 2 abilities remind me somewhat of the banned feat 'Pageant of the Peacock.' (Never affected me personally)

I just want to point out that there is a huge difference between an ability that lets you use one skill to replace every Int based skill and an ability that lets you use Int instead of the normal stat for just over four skills.

Hence, qualifying it with somewhat. I personally don't see this ability as overpowered. Though it's 5 skills when you include the diplomacy part (Disable Device, Sense Motive, Perception, UMD and Int to Diplomacy instead of CHA), which includes the 3 most commonly rolled skills in the game. Just a personal preference to wait a while longer to make sure there isn't a delayed reaction to it's power level in the community. (Also, in what you trade out to gain the ability is a nearly 100% gain IMO)

[Jeff Merola]

Diplomacy is only to a small part of the skill, which is why I said "just over four skills" rather than "four skills."

[G-Zeus]

The fighter is the most versitile of any of the classes. Ve built upwards of seven fighters and none are alike past maybe stock feats like power attack. Woth the acg this has only become more true.

[Ascalaphus]

Jeff Merola wrote:

BartonOliver wrote:

Also,I may wait a while before building an Investigator with Empiricist as the level 2 abilities remind me somewhat of the banned feat 'Pageant of the Peacock.' (Never affected me personally)

I just want to point out that there is a huge difference between an ability that lets you use one skill to replace every Int based skill and an ability that lets you use Int instead of the normal stat for just over four skills.

I think part of the reason Pageant of the Peacock got banned in PFS was because using it to replace Knowledge skills was based on a questionable reading of the text that led to huge flame threads about what it was supposed to mean. The Empiricist's text is quite clear.

[Ascalaphus]

N N 959 wrote:

One thing that a person really has to practice is normalizing the data when it comes to any class and those who promote it. The combat effectiveness of "combat" Investigators is predicated largely on Enlarge Person, Shield, Mutagens, and then things like Barkskin at higher levels. But these things aren't available every fight all fight. Heck, Studied Combat only last as long as your INT mod, so that could get burned up simply trying to get into position, from being phased, or an intelligent NPC realizing what's going on and avoiding combat for a round or two. But the way people talk about it, you have every combat extract on all the time and every opponent is a Studied Combat target.

So far in PFS I haven't run out of extracts. There's typically 2-5 encounters on an adventuring day, and per encounter you usually don't have time to spend more than 1-2 rounds drinking extracts anyway, so you're not burning through them all that fast. The ones you do drink tend to last minute/level long, so that's long enough for any normal fight. And from level 4 onwards you get access to extracts (through Alchemical Allocation, also) that last long enough to do several encounters. I've got my eye set on some potions of Barkskin CL 9 for example; 90 minutes duration should be enough for many dungeons.

Also, since it takes only a minute to brew an extract, you don't have to prep them all in advance. After encounters you can mix up another batch of whatever you used. It's not that hard to conserve your slots.

Studied Combat will take (at level 5) a swift action to activate. You don't have to activate it until you're ready to attack, so there's not that much chance of an enemy running out the clock on it. Why would you use it before you're in position?

N N 959 wrote:

The other factor is that unless you burn a ton of feats to make Ranged Study useful (e.g. Precise Shot/PBS/Rapid Shot/IPS, etc) you have to be in melee. The typical response is the: Enlarge Person Reach weapon, Shield, Barkskin, Mutagen = around +7-9 to AC on top of, you guessed it, +1 Mithral Chain = AC of 24.

Yeah, you're not going to be all that impressive at range. Although with Alchemical Allocation, you can drink an Elixir of Dragon Breath up to an hour before combat for a single-shot 7d6 area attack, so you're not entirely bereft.

I don't quite agree with your AC calculation by the way. Mine uses Dex 14, Armor Expert trait + Mithral Breastplate, Barkskin CL 9, Mutagen, Shield to get at AC 28. I'm thinking I'll splurge for a Ring of Protection instead of a high-CL potion of Shield of Faith, but either one works. And I've yet to buy enhancement bonuses for armor. That doesn't make you an impossible to hit tank, but it's pretty sturdy for about level 5.

N N 959 wrote:

But Extracts take a minute to prepare and they take a Standard action to quaff. Sure, Mutagen and Barkskin last awhile, but you're stuck with -2 on INT if you're going STR bonus. Running around with Enlarge Person and Shield prepared in advance severely cramps your versatility. You're only getting 4 extracts at 1st level.

-2 INT is vaguely annoying, but it's not the end of the world. People obsess about the Int-side of the investigator, but the trick is, you have more than enough of that. Functioning at an effective Int 14 or so is more than enough.

Your power isn't unlimited, but so far I've been able to pace my expenditure. Low-tier PFS isn't that hard, I've gone through half the fights without drinking any extracts at all. Longspear with Combat Reflexes gets you so many AoOs at the beginning of combat that it almost feels like cheating. And by the time that's not enough anymore, you get Studied Combat.

It only takes a minute to brew an extract, so why fill up all your slots at the beginning of the day? Brew just enough for 1-2 fights and leave the rest free, and then you'll be versatile. You probably won't have time to drink more than 1-2 extracts per fight anyway.

Oh, by the way, you forgot Longarm as a spell. That gets you around size penalties to AC.

N N 959 wrote:

Also, taking combat feats/talents means there are non-combat feats/talents you can't take. But as mentioned, the Empiricist lets you doge a lot of the penalty for this. So I agree, the Empiricist makes the munckin focused player laugh at the base class, which is too bad because the Empiricist is what one imagines a Sherlock Holmes is built on, not the the base class.

It's true that there are a LOT of discoveries that you might want.

[BigNorseWolf]

G-Zeus wrote:

The fighter is the most versatile of any of the classes. Ve built upwards of seven fighters and none are alike past maybe stock feats like power attack. With the acg this has only become more true.

Versatility loses a lot of its appeal when there's something that can do everything you want to do better. There might be SOME builds out there where the fighter does it better, but those are getting fewer and further between with all of the alternate classes and archetypes available. The potential variety within a class is rather meaningless compared to what your one actual character winds up with.

[snickersimba]

Thats my entire point norsey, my friend.

Fighters and humans are tofu, they go well with EVERYTHING but they are bland, dull and textureless alone. They require extra effort to be meaningful, same way you wouldn't just buy tofu and cram it in your mouth.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

G-Zeus wrote:

The fighter is the most versatile of any of the classes. Ve built upwards of seven fighters and none are alike past maybe stock feats like power attack. With the acg this has only become more true.

Versatility loses a lot of its appeal when there's something that can do everything you want to do better. There might be SOME builds out there where the fighter does it better, but those are getting fewer and further between with all of the alternate classes and archetypes available. The potential variety within a class is rather meaningless compared to what your one actual character winds up with.

snickersimba wrote:

Thats my entire point norsey, my friend.

Fighters and humans are tofu, they go well with EVERYTHING but they are bland, dull and textureless alone. They require extra effort to be meaningful, same way you wouldn't just buy tofu and cram it in your mouth.

Seems like the old argument "generalists vs specialists" I think PFS is a case where you absolutely require a delicate balance between the two extremes. Theoretically a Fighter could be a generalist, and pick up all the "improved disarm, grapple, hug...." feats, but that character will likely feel a bit underwhelming.

If you want something like this the Martial Master archetype (gives the Brawler's martial flexibility class feature) seems ideal.

I think only a few people would vote for the lifetime imprisonment of the core classes, especially with all the archetypes, but quite often a certain concept just works better with a specialized class like the Swashbuckler.

The Investigator is in a .. weird situation, just like the 3.0 Rangers seems to have been inspired by certain CG drow character, and Barbarian seems to have been heavily inspired by the old Conan the Barbarian movies, the Investigator (and I usually just write Inquisitor at this point ..) seems to be inspired by the renewed interest in Sherlock Holmes.
Sherlock is a pretty tough concept for most classes to replicate.

[N N 959]

Ascalaphus wrote:

So far in PFS I haven't run out of extracts.

If you're saving them for combat, then your giving up a lot of utility with things like Comprehend Languages, Identify, Detect Secret Doors, etc. You mentioned Longarm? So with Shield and Enlarge Person, that's three extracts you're using for combat. You'd have to be 9th level before you could do that twice in the same scenario. If you aren't using those extracts, then you aren't getting all that massive damage and combat effectiveness that you're claiming.

Quote:

you usually don't have time to spend more than 1-2 rounds drinking extracts anyway

That's right. And I'd say 90% of the battles I've been in and GM'd people don't use the buffs they have. So once again, the benefit of those extracts is more theoretical than applied.

Quote:

And from level 4 onwards you get access to extracts (through Alchemical Allocation, also) that last long enough to do several encounters.

AA doesn't work on extracts. The text says "potions and elixirs." Is there a FAQ which says otherwise?

Quote:

Also, since it takes only a minute to brew an extract, you don't have to prep them all in advance.

The point is that if you don't brew them in advance, you don't get to use them during combat. You only brew one of Shield, Enlarge and Longarm? After your first fight, you're out of extracts if you try to brew them all again. If you used any extracts during the non-combat portion, like Disguise or Jump, you got nothing. If you wanted to hand out infusions...you got nothing.

You can't do it all. I've notice that people who promote X or Y class present it like they have access to everything during every fight. I call it the munckin fallacy.

Quote:

Studied Combat will take (at level 5) a swift action to activate

Quick Study requires a Talent to do and that means you're giving up a ton of other Talent options. Did you take Mutagen at 3rd? Then you're not getting Infusions until 7th and you're not getting Amazing Inspiration until 9th and you're not getting Sickening Strike until 11th. So and so forth. Burning feats for Extra Talents? Then you're giving up a host of other options. It's a zero sum game.

Quote:

You don't have to activate it until you're ready to attack, so there's not that much chance of an enemy running out the clock on it. Why would you use it before you're in position?

Because you don't have Quick Study because you took Infusions and Mutagens. Because you activated it when you were in range and then the target moved or went invisible or the caster started summoning and you've decided you need to disrupt her spell instead. There are tons of reasons why fights aren't perfectly set up for the Investigator's Studied Combat.

Quote:

don't quite agree with your AC calculation by the way. Mine uses Dex 14, Armor Expert trait + Mithral Breastplate, Barkskin CL 9, Mutagen, Shield to get at AC 28.

There we go. First, you talked about levels 2-3 and getting to 4th, so most players aren't spending their first 4k on armor. Second, you don't have proficiency in Mithral Breasplate so you're burning a Feat. Third, you can't buy a CL 9 Barkskin potion unless you have it on a chronicle, so please let's not act like that is standard fair for the Investigator class.

Every Investigator doesn't have the same build and nobody has access to everything all at once. Every build has to make a choice, but these discussion always minimize the sacrifices and over emphasize the benefits.

Quote:

Longspear with Combat Reflexes gets you so many AoOs at the beginning of combat that it almost feels like cheating. And by the time that's not enough anymore, you get Studied Combat.

Which has nothing to do with being an Investigator.

Quote:

-2 INT is vaguely annoying, but it's not the end of the world. People obsess about the Int-side of the investigator, but the trick is, you have more than enough of that. Functioning at an effective Int 14 or so is more than enough.

Funny. I have an image of Sherlock Holmes walking around in a muscle shirt injecting steroids and saying "Bro."

I think the Investigator class is a great one, but for very different reasons. I salute those of you who have made this a front door Rogue or the battle Bard that Core never delivered. While I doubt the devs envisioned it in quite this way, I can see there's a contingency of players who have found a relative gold mine in optimizing the combat and then viewing the skills as an added bonus. But then I suppose this is very typical of optimizers and what they do with classes: find those synergies, independent of concept.

None of the Investigators I've GM'd or teamed with have been combat focused. So I look forward to seeing one in action.

[Damanta]

N N 959 wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

don't quite agree with your AC calculation by the way. Mine uses Dex 14, Armor Expert trait + Mithral Breastplate, Barkskin CL 9, Mutagen, Shield to get at AC 28.

There we go. First, you talked about levels 2-3 and getting to 4th, so most players aren't spending their first 4k on armor. Second, you don't have proficiency in Mithral Breasplate so you're burning a Feat. Third, you can't buy a CL 9 Barkskin potion unless you have it on a chronicle, so please let's not act like that is standard fair for the Investigator class.

Just wanted to point out that he doesn't spend a feat, he spends a trait.

Mithral Breastplate has an ACP of -1, Armor Expert trait reduced that to 0.

[snickersimba]

Well, for all we know, we could end up with a race that grants all armor proficency and has a dex penalty, a burrow speed and a very odd array of neat traits.

Heres to the next beastary!

[Sammy T]

Most popular classes I've seen in play:
Warpriest (Most popular class to come out of the ACG imho)
Brawler
Hunter

Only seen 1 or 2 players:
Arcanist
Investigator
Shaman (High system mastery required to properly utilize)
Swashbuckler
Skald

Not seen at all:
Slayer
Bloodrager (GMs will cry if massive reach 'ragers (abyssal), re-roll ragers (destined) or I-Can-Tank-AND-Spank 'ragers (arcane) become the norm.

[Jiggy]

When discussing "balance", it's important to remember that balance is relative. In the same way that in the real world a scale does not balance due to one object weighing a certain number of pounds, but rather it balances because two objects on the scale weigh the same as each other; so too is a game option not balanced because it's at X power level, but rather it's balanced if it's at (approximately) the same power level as other game options.

This means that if you're just looking at a class by itself without comparing it to another class, you can't claim that it is or isn't balanced. Additionally, a class could be well balanced against one existing class yet not balanced against another, if those two existing classes weren't balanced against each other in the first place.

Note that we don't need (or even want) classes to be perfectly balanced against each other, just that to be called "balanced" they would have to be in the same ballpark.

So with that in mind, Pathfinder is in an awkward position regarding balance. Our power-level baseline, the Core Rulebook, is itself not balanced: the classes in the CRB have power levels all over the place. The power gap between the strongest and weakest classes is staggering. Any given Core class is only balanced against maybe one or two others, and completely unbalanced against all the rest of the Core classes. Not even in the ballpark.

Then, when new classes come out, people try to compare them to the Core classes as a group to determine if the new class is "balanced". But it's impossible to be even close to balanced against all the Core classes at the same time. If you're balanced against Class X, then by definition you will be unbalanced against the same classes that Class X was already unbalanced against.

If power levels were on a scale of 1 to 100, and a new class came out that had a power level of 50, then one person would compare it to a Core class sitting at 20 and cry "Unbalanced!" Another person would compare it to a 98 class and cry "Unbalanced!" Still another person would compare it to a 57 class and say "Hey, pretty balanced!"

This leads us to a pretty peculiar situation as Paizo continues to produce more classes. See, the Core classes, which Paizo merely tweaked rather than designing from scratch, are horribly unbalanced against each other. Meanwhile, the classes that Paizo has designed, are (with very few outliers) very close in power level to each other; the entire collection of classes in non-CRB hardbacks covers a smaller range of power levels than the CRB, and is therefore more balanced than the CRB is.

To use the numerical illustration again, if the CRB classes range in power from 1 to 100, then the same number of Paizo-designed classes range in power from, say, 45 to 80. Thus, with smaller power gaps between them, the Paizo-designed classes are (as a group) far more balanced than the CRB classes.

Paizo-made classes' power levels are landing in narrower ranges of power levels with increasing consistency. Therefore, despite not being balanced against every CRB class at once (which is impossible), the newer classes are actually pretty well balanced overall, and the game is getting more and more balanced as more books are introduced.

If someone wants to claim a class is "unbalanced", they need to say what they're comparing it against, and why they're not comparing it against everything else.

[WiseWolfOfYoitsu]

I've played the Hunter primarily out of the new ACG classes, With a Brawler and Bloodrager in the planning stages. And Hunter offers quite a bit of versatility, especially if mixed with Fighter for a few extra feats. I have a Fighter/Hunter that plays like a charging Cavalier in the sky. Alot of fun to play, as a martial with very limited spell casting. The mount can actually taxi characters around obstacles, as needed, with the build I have.

[Serisan]

Jiggy, thank you for your more articulate explanation of what I'd been trying to say upthread.

[Draco Bahamut]

N N 959 wrote:

None of the Investigators I've GM'd or teamed with have been combat focused. So I look forward to seeing one in action.

I am doing a combat investigator for a Carrion Crown campaing i am playing.

Its a Half Orc Investigator with a Great Axe. S16 D12 C12 I16 W10 C08

He is basically a product of a ante that a half-orc raised by orcs couldn't graduate in Lepistadt.

So far has been fun, but still 2nd level.

[pauljathome]

Jiggy wrote:

If power levels were on a scale of 1 to 100, and a new class came out that had a power level of 50, then one person would compare it to a Core class sitting at 20 and cry "Unbalanced!"

Unfortunately, its not that simple.

Using your baseline that Core is 1..100, then ACG is probably 60 to 110 (yes, I think some classes are MORE powerful than the most powerful Core).

But they also open up options (archetypes or dips, mostly, but some feats) that add +10 to +30 to older options INCLUDING the ones that were at or near 100.

ACG represents a very significant power creep. As a whole, it has more creep than any other book. Sometimes that is good (slayer and rogue, for example) for precisely the reasons you state. But sometimes it is bad (Arcanist being the most egregious example) since it raises the power level of the most powerful classes.

[trollbill]

Sammy T wrote:

Most popular classes I've seen in play:

Warpriest (Most popular class to come out of the ACG imho)
Brawler
Hunter

Only seen 1 or 2 players:
Arcanist
Investigator
Shaman (High system mastery required to properly utilize)
Swashbuckler
Skald

Not seen at all:
Slayer
Bloodrager (GMs will cry if massive reach 'ragers (abyssal), re-roll ragers (destined) or I-Can-Tank-AND-Spank 'ragers (arcane) become the norm.

My Experience is:

Bloodrager 5
Swashbuckler 4
Arcanist 2
Warpriest 2
Brawler 2
Investigator 1
Shaman 1
Slayer 1
Skald 0
Hunter 0

[Chess Pwn]

I don't see the Arcanist as being the strongest. You have the fewest spells of the 3 arcane casters and the slow track like the sorcerer. I think it's stronger than sorcerer but weaker than wizard, because wizards get spells sooner.

[N N 959]

Jiggy wrote:

When discussing "balance", it's important to remember that balance is relative. In the same way that in the real world a scale does not balance due to one object weighing a certain number of pounds, but rather it balances because two objects on the scale weigh the same as each other; so too is a game option not balanced because it's at X power level, but rather it's balanced if it's at (approximately) the same power level as other game options.

I'm glad you brought up the scale analogy because it proves that the situations is far more nebulous. To "balance" something on a scale requires that two things share a specific metric on which they are being balanced. For example, mass. In an RPG, we don't have two things with which we can compare builds with any scientific accuracy. "Balance" in RPGs is a complete misnomer and a fallacy. What we are really talking about is fairness. But devs like to use the term "balance" because it conveys some sort of mathematical impartiality or objectivity, when the opposite is true.

The devs have no way to determine if something is balanced with any mathematical precision or approximation. There is no formula or test. What they do is make judgment calls based on experience or anecdotal evidence. Are their calls wrong? It's impossible to prove one way or the other. The best we can do is examine what the stated objective is for the class versus how the class actually does that job compared to other classes. And that is a very subjective analysis.

Quote:

If power levels were on a scale of 1 to 100, and a new class came out that had a power level of 50, then one person would compare it to a Core class sitting at 20 and cry "Unbalanced!"

How do we determine power level? Based on what? What is the power level value of having Perception as a class skill versus not having it? What is the power level value of a spell? What is the value of Uncanny Dodge? What is the value of Sneak Attack? There's no simple answer to that and there isn't even a complex answer in most cases. Sure, people love to talk DPR, max AC, HPs, Saves etc, but those are all context/circumstance derived. Team a Rogue with someone who can give him Greater Invisibility and your 7th level Improved TWF Rogue is going from 3d6 to 15d6 for 5-7 rounds: about 10 points per round vs 50.

There is no such thing as balance in context dominated games. It can't be determined for pen and paper games without massive statistical sampling and rigorous control methods, which isn't being done by Paizo as far as I've seen and sure as hell isn't accomplished by the playtest.

The best Paizo can do is make a judgment call and offer a rationalization. Even if it were theoretically possible to "balance" a class, nobody would recognize it when it happened. The only true way you get balance is if two things are identical and have no context dependent variables.

[Jiggy]

pauljathome wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

If power levels were on a scale of 1 to 100, and a new class came out that had a power level of 50, then one person would compare it to a Core class sitting at 20 and cry "Unbalanced!"

Unfortunately, its not that simple.

Hence my wall of text. ;)

Quote:

Using your baseline that Core is 1..100, then ACG is probably 60 to 110 (yes, I think some classes are MORE powerful than the most powerful Core).

And 60-110 is still vastly more balanced than 1-100. It's a range of 50 instead of a range of 100. That's a HUGE increase in game balance. Having a 60 and a 110 sitting at a table together is a better situation than having a 1 and a 100 sitting at a table together.

Quote:

But they also open up options (archetypes or dips, mostly, but some feats) that add +10 to +30 to older options INCLUDING the ones that were at or near 100.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. ;)

Within a given class, there's a range of power levels. For instance, I have an 8th-level character that can neutralize an opponent with a single d20 roll X/day, and can also shoot a ray at shorter range for 1d6+4 damage Y/day. (And as it happens, X>Y, so the scarcity-balance argument doesn't apply, and I've made no character investments—such as feats or gear—into either option, so the investment-to-power argument doesn't work either.)

Now imagine that the ACG added an option that could double the damage of my ray. Heck, let's say it's in the form of an archetype that doesn't even trade anything away, making it a costless strict upgrade.

Has the class really gotten more powerful? No. It took something that I'll never do (because it's so weak compared to other options that I still don't run out of) and technically improved it, but still left it in the "never use it" category. So if that class was sitting at 80 before, it's still sitting at 80 even with the technical power-up.

Now, that's an extreme example. Most (but sadly, not all) real cases are going to give you things that aren't 100% useless, but they're still usually going to be weaker than the strongest things you could be doing. For instance, the arcanist has lots of neat things he can do with exploits, and some of those things are even more powerful than some wizard school powers.

But wizard school powers aren't what puts the wizard at the top.

You haven't boosted a class's true power level until you've upped the cap of the most powerful thing it can do (either make it more powerful, or make it more plentiful). If the thing that got buffed is the class's weaker stuff, then you haven't made the class more powerful, you've made it more interesting. Heck, you may have even tempted a player to do something other than his class's most powerful option, effectively decreasing their power level.

Quote:

ACG represents a very significant power creep. As a whole, it has more creep than any other book. Sometimes that is good (slayer and rogue, for example) for precisely the reasons you state. But sometimes it is bad (Arcanist being the most egregious example) since it raises the power level of the most powerful classes.

I think if you re-examined things in light of how a class's power is structured, you would find far fewer examples of true increases in power for the most powerful classes.

[N N 959]

Jiggy wrote:

. For instance, I have an 8th-level character that can neutralize an opponent with a single d20 roll X/day, and can also shoot a ray at shorter range for 1d6+4 damage Y/day. (And as it happens, X>Y, so the scarcity-balance argument doesn't apply, and I've made no character investments—such as feats or gear—into either option, so the investment-to-power argument doesn't work either.)

Now imagine that the ACG added an option that could double the damage of my ray. Heck, let's say it's in the form of an archetype that doesn't even trade anything away, making it a costless strict upgrade.

Has the class really gotten more powerful?

Yes it has. Under the theory that Y is usable when X is not, then making Y more powerful makes the class more robust. What makes casters so powerful on paper is that there is spell for every occasion. Improving the performance of any of those spells improves the theoretical performance of the class.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

It's over 9000!!!!!

While the internet loved this meme for quite some time, it is somewhat funny, that this scene (and plenty of other following that particular episode) has added to DBZ to show that power meters are pretty much BS.

It is considerably more useful, to ask if something is fit for purpose.

If you want a croissant and have the option between the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker ... well it isn't a hard choice.

Considering the challenges most PFS scenarios present, I think it would not be unreasonable to make the following statements/requirements:

- Be prepared to deal with swarms, no excuses. Even if you almost always play with blaster casters in your party... no excuses.
- Be able to provide emergency healing/stabilize a player (including yourself) so go ahead an invest that 50 GP into that potion of CLW.
- Have a ranged and a melee option
- Provide at least some out of combat support.
- Have a backup plan/ don't be a one trick pony and have an alternative tactic.
- Be sociable and don't create a character so entangled in their own vows, that they can do almost nothing (monk/paladin with plenty of vows)
- Be prepared for tight spaces, don't expect access to your mount/animal companion at all times.
- Don't expect to solve every problem through combat, that approach gets you killed.
- Don't expect others to spend their actions healing/buffing you, especially once you activated your rage and charged into melee.
- Be considerate, no class ability is a justification to be a jerk.

Obviously all classes should be able to do something to a certain extend, it only really becomes a problem when people expect to be able to solve everything with their character - eg. a fighter with 7 INT, no ranged weapon and no consumables.

EDIT: Forgot the obligatory Rogue bashing: A Rogue can be decent/good, but if a player expects to be a dual weapon using god, getting sneak attacks left right and center and evading plenty of attacks (WOW rogues are pretty decent at that) ... that player will not be happy with the end result, unless the party is investing a lot of resources and actions on that one character.

[Cyrad]

Most of my opinions remain the same from my first impressions.

However, I do believe that the arcanist is fairly balanced with the wizard and sorcerer. I did the math and found that the arcanist and wizard are fairly on par with one another. Having fewer spell slots than the sorcerer does hurt arcanist. While the arcanist does get cool toys, the wizard can pick them up, too. My only problem with the arcanist is that I think their spellcasting is way too complicated. You have to keep track of three different lists: spells in their spell list, spells they prepared, and how many spells they can cast. That and their resource pool makes them a bookkeeping nightmare.

I always roll my eyes when I see someone complain about "power creep" with ACG. The feat that gives you divine grace is really the only major power increase worth worrying about. And that feat was banned before the book hit the table.

The warpriest still feels like a huge disappointment. They just have way too many class features I don't care about. The sacred fist archetype is the big saving grace

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Cyrad wrote:

Most of my opinions remain the same from my first impressions.

However, I do believe that the arcanist is fairly balanced with the wizard and sorcerer. I did the math and found that the arcanist and wizard are fairly on par with one another. Having fewer spell slots than the sorcerer does hurt arcanist. While the arcanist does get cool toys, the wizard can pick them up, too. My only problem with the arcanist is that I think their spellcasting is way too complicated. You have to keep track of three different lists: spells in their spell list, spells they prepared, and how many spells they can cast. That and their resource pool makes them a bookkeeping nightmare.

I always roll my eyes when I see someone complain about "power creep" with ACG. The feat that gives you divine grace is really the only major power increase worth worrying about. And that feat was banned before the book hit the table.

The warpriest still feels like a huge disappointment. They just have way too many class features I don't care about. The sacred fist archetype is the big saving grace

I played the level 7 Warpriest pregen a couple of times, and Oloch is pretty damn solid, but he does require above standard action management.

Oh and I assume that the divine grace feat was just introduced to end some of the endless Paladin debates (you know the whole "the class is OP and the code is there to balance it " BS).

[Serisan]

N N 959 wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

. For instance, I have an 8th-level character that can neutralize an opponent with a single d20 roll X/day, and can also shoot a ray at shorter range for 1d6+4 damage Y/day. (And as it happens, X>Y, so the scarcity-balance argument doesn't apply, and I've made no character investments—such as feats or gear—into either option, so the investment-to-power argument doesn't work either.)

Now imagine that the ACG added an option that could double the damage of my ray. Heck, let's say it's in the form of an archetype that doesn't even trade anything away, making it a costless strict upgrade.

Has the class really gotten more powerful?

Yes it has. Under the theory that Y is usable when X is not, then making Y more powerful makes the class more robust. What makes casters so powerful on paper is that there is spell for every occasion. Improving the performance of any of those spells improves the theoretical performance of the class.

If the class only contained X and Y, that would be true. The reality, though, is that Y continues to be overshadowed by A, B, C, D...etc. In the specific example, 2d6+8 is effectively a zero performance option for a level 8 character. If the damage increase started at level 1, you could convincingly argue that it has gotten more powerful for a limited subset of levels where resources A, B, C, D, etc. are less plentiful or not available. I can almost guarantee that caps out around 4th level. Thus, we can question whether it is meaningfully impactful.

[Jiggy]

N N 959 wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

. For instance, I have an 8th-level character that can neutralize an opponent with a single d20 roll X/day, and can also shoot a ray at shorter range for 1d6+4 damage Y/day. (And as it happens, X>Y, so the scarcity-balance argument doesn't apply, and I've made no character investments—such as feats or gear—into either option, so the investment-to-power argument doesn't work either.)

Now imagine that the ACG added an option that could double the damage of my ray. Heck, let's say it's in the form of an archetype that doesn't even trade anything away, making it a costless strict upgrade.

Has the class really gotten more powerful?

Yes it has. Under the theory that Y is usable when X is not, then making Y more powerful makes the class more robust. What makes casters so powerful on paper is that there is spell for every occasion. Improving the performance of any of those spells improves the theoretical performance of the class.

You've been tripped up by the simplification of the example. If the two abilities I listed were the only things the class was capable of, then yeah, boosting one of the two abilities so it's more relevant when the stronger one doesn't work would indeed make the class stronger.

But that's not the case.

When blindness doesn't work, I'm not reaching for my bloodline SLA, I'm reaching for one of my bajillion other options that are still more powerful than the SLA. There is never a situation where the ray is the only thing that will work. Thus, your assessment of making the class more robust is false.

So no, the class did NOT become more powerful in my example.

[Hayato Ken]

Jiggy wrote:

Within a given class, there's a range of power levels. For instance, I have an 8th-level character that can neutralize an opponent with a single d20 roll X/day, and can also shoot a ray at shorter range for 1d6+4 damage Y/day. (And as it happens, X>Y, so the scarcity-balance argument doesn't apply, and I've made no character investments—such as feats or gear—into either option, so the investment-to-power argument doesn't work either.)

Now imagine that the ACG added an option that could double the damage of my ray. Heck, let's say it's in the form of an archetype that doesn't even trade anything away, making it a costless strict upgrade.

Has the class really gotten more powerful? No. It took something that I'll never do (because it's so weak compared to other options that I still don't run out of) and technically improved it, but still left it in the "never use it" category. So if that class was sitting at 80 before, it's still sitting at 80 even with the technical power-up.

Now, that's an extreme example. Most (but sadly, not all)...

Well said!

Compare that to Oracles of heaven, awesome display and some other oracle abilities! Hit right on spot.

[Renchard]

Any book which massively expands upon the number of 6th-level casters, which from my perspective is the sweet spot of power and complexity upon which Pathfinder thrives, is a win.

[BigNorseWolf]

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Seems like the old argument "generalists vs specialists" I think PFS is a case where you absolutely require a delicate balance between the two extremes. Theoretically a Fighter could be a generalist, and pick up all the "improved disarm, grapple, hug...." feats, but that character will likely feel a bit underwhelming.
If you want something like this the Martial Master archetype (gives the Brawler's martial flexibility class feature) seems ideal.

You're showing why being a generalist doesn't work at all for classes, even if you can make an argument that it works for some characters.

If your concept is a generalist character, there's a class that does it better than fighter by specializing in being a generalist: the brawler.

Regardless of the limitless potential for "the fighter class" opportunity costs limit you to one " Your fighter character" THATS what you have to do the comparison with. Is your hackey stabby guy going to be better off as a fighter or as some other class? I don't want to say there are NO builds left where you're better off as a fighter but... we're getting pretty close.

Quote:

I think only a few people would vote for the lifetime imprisonment of the core classes, especially with all the archetypes, but quite often a certain concept just works better with a specialized class like the Swashbuckler.

The swashbuckler (swashbuckler), the grappler (tetori monk), the bull rusher (brawler), the tank (armored barbarian), the archer (ranger), the sword and board meatshield (ranger with sword and board style) , maneuever guy (manuever master monk)

[N N 959]

Serisan wrote:

Thus, we can question whether it is meaningfully impactful.

Your attempt to to turn this into a value based discussion is exactly the problem with all these talks about "balance." You're making a value judgment that's specific to you. Then you're shifting goal posts when the counter argument threatens to strike at the issue. If I like having Y at my disposal and I haven't built my wizard to take A, B, C, and D, then yes, it may be extremely meaningful.

But let's go back and expose why we can't talk about "balance" in the way you want to. How many time a scenario does a Rogue have to be able to sneak attack before we says sneak attack is meaningful or meaningless?

How many times does a Barbarian need to get value from his extra two skill points per level before we say it's meaningful? A +1 ring of protection only protects you from 1 hit in 20. Is that meaningful?

Your attempt to change this from an empirical evaluation to a value based evaluation underscores that we have no language or system for doing that. We have no way to assign value to different class abilities, and neither do the devs. What is the value of having low-light vision? Impossible to know or determine.

Asking whether the classes are balanced is asking the wrong question. We don't know, we can't know. Do they seem fair? Do they serve a purpose in any given party? Do players enjoy the mechanics involved? Does X class obviate the usefulness of Y class in all cases? Those are meaningful questions in class design. "Balance" is a red herring.

[Jiggy]

Benjamin Falk wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Within a given class, there's a range of power levels. For instance, I have an 8th-level character that can neutralize an opponent with a single d20 roll X/day, and can also shoot a ray at shorter range for 1d6+4 damage Y/day. (And as it happens, X>Y, so the scarcity-balance argument doesn't apply, and I've made no character investments—such as feats or gear—into either option, so the investment-to-power argument doesn't work either.)

Now imagine that the ACG added an option that could double the damage of my ray. Heck, let's say it's in the form of an archetype that doesn't even trade anything away, making it a costless strict upgrade.

Has the class really gotten more powerful? No. It took something that I'll never do (because it's so weak compared to other options that I still don't run out of) and technically improved it, but still left it in the "never use it" category. So if that class was sitting at 80 before, it's still sitting at 80 even with the technical power-up.

Now, that's an extreme example. Most (but sadly, not all)...

Well said!

Compare that to Oracles of heaven, awesome display and some other oracle abilities! Hit right on spot.

Another example of genuinely making the strongest classes stronger would be something like Persistent Spell: it takes the thing that's the actual source of a class's power and pumps it up.

[N N 959]

Jiggy wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

. For instance, I have an 8th-level character that can neutralize an opponent with a single d20 roll X/day, and can also shoot a ray at shorter range for 1d6+4 damage Y/day. (And as it happens, X>Y, so the scarcity-balance argument doesn't apply, and I've made no character investments—such as feats or gear—into either option, so the investment-to-power argument doesn't work either.)

Now imagine that the ACG added an option that could double the damage of my ray. Heck, let's say it's in the form of an archetype that doesn't even trade anything away, making it a costless strict upgrade.

Has the class really gotten more powerful?

Yes it has. Under the theory that Y is usable when X is not, then making Y more powerful makes the class more robust. What makes casters so powerful on paper is that there is spell for every occasion. Improving the performance of any of those spells improves the theoretical performance of the class.

You've been tripped up by the simplification of the example. If the two abilities I listed were the only things the class was capable of, then yeah, boosting one of the two abilities so it's more relevant when the stronger one doesn't work would indeed make the class stronger.

But that's not the case.

When blindness doesn't work, I'm not reaching for my bloodline SLA, I'm reaching for one of my bajillion other options that are still more powerful than the SLA. There is never a situation where the ray is the only thing that will work. Thus, your assessment of making the class more robust is false.

So no, the class did NOT become more powerful in my example.

No, it's not false. Attempting to rewrite your example to something completely nonsense doesn't help your case.

Your critical oversight is focusing on peak power (assuming such a thing could even be calculated). You were attempting to point out that the peak power hasn't changed and thus falsely insisting that the class hasn't been improved. That's just flat out wrong. Anytime you improve any underlying option without taking away anything, as your own example stated, you've made the class more robust. That's a fact of engineering.

[BigNorseWolf]

N N 959 wrote:

No, it's not false. Attempting to rewrite your example to something completely nonsense doesn't help your case.

Your critical oversight is focusing on peak power (assuming such a thing could even be calculated). You were attempting to point out that the peak power hasn't changed and thus falsely insisting that the class hasn't been improved. That's just flat out wrong. Anytime you improve any underlying option without taking away anything, as your own example stated, you've made the class more robust. That's a fact of engineering.

But its not a fact of gaming. You only have one action per round in combat. You only have so many rounds of combat in a day. When a caster can fill them all with really powerful spells anything else is in fact wasted.

And the more powerful the spells get the fewer rounds of combat you have...

[Jiggy]

N N 959 wrote:

No, it's not false. Attempting to rewrite your example to something completely nonsense doesn't help your case.

I'm not rewriting anything. My example was already referencing a real character (I said so in the first post). I compared two of the many abilities possessed by a real character and you (apparently) misinterpreted it as being a hypothetical two-ability example class.

Clarifying your misinterpretation is not rewriting my example.

Quote:

You stated X and Y and now you're trying to talk about X and X. Ridiculous.

I don't even know what this means.

Quote:

Your critical oversight is focusing on peak power (assuming such a thing could even be calculated). You were attempting to point out that the peak power hasn't changed and thus falsely insisting that the class hasn't been improved. That's just flat out wrong. Anytime you improve any underlying option without taking away anything, as your own example stated, you've made the class more robust. That's a fact of engineering.

Not exactly what I was saying. I was saying that technical improvement is not necessarily practical improvement.

Slow down a little. You're jumping all over things that you haven't digested, and as a result you're misinterpreting examples and treating clarifications of the exact same examples as "rewriting the example". Careless and assumptive reading on your part does not constitute deception or backpedaling on my part.

[N N 959]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

No, it's not false. Attempting to rewrite your example to something completely nonsense doesn't help your case.

Your critical oversight is focusing on peak power (assuming such a thing could even be calculated). You were attempting to point out that the peak power hasn't changed and thus falsely insisting that the class hasn't been improved. That's just flat out wrong. Anytime you improve any underlying option without taking away anything, as your own example stated, you've made the class more robust. That's a fact of engineering.

But its not a fact of gaming. You only have one action per round in combat. You only have so many rounds of combat in a day. When a caster can fill them all with really powerful spells anything else is in fact wasted.

And the more powerful the spells get the fewer rounds of combat you have...

No, it's not a fact of gaming. A fact of gaming is that a class will support a multitude of different builds.

Jiggy is talking about X and Y. Every person who has built X and Y will not have A, B, C, and D as well. Every build will be different. If X and Y are the only two things in common, improving Y makes the class more robust on average. That's an engineering fact. Trying to assert no one will use Y is nonsense because then they wouldn't have chosen Y to begin with nor would the devs have created a Y, which according to Jiggy, would "never" be used.

To prove Jiggy false, all I need is a situation where Y can be used in place of X.

[N N 959]

Jiggy wrote:

I'm not rewriting anything. My example was already referencing a real character (I said so in the first post).

Examples based on your choice with a real world character does not prove things true about a class.

Quote:

I compared two of the many abilities possessed by a real character and you (apparently) misinterpreted it as being a hypothetical two-ability example class.

No, I did not make that that misinterpretation. You're erroneously trying to assert that because you would never use Y, on your build, then improving Y does not improve the class. That's categorically false when it comes to a class..

Quote:

Not exactly what I was saying. I was saying that technical improvement is not necessarily practical improvement.

Practical improvement is a subjective assessment. Empirically the class has been improved. There's no getting around that.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Seems like the old argument "generalists vs specialists" I think PFS is a case where you absolutely require a delicate balance between the two extremes. Theoretically a Fighter could be a generalist, and pick up all the "improved disarm, grapple, hug...." feats, but that character will likely feel a bit underwhelming.
If you want something like this the Martial Master archetype (gives the Brawler's martial flexibility class feature) seems ideal.

You're showing why being a generalist doesn't work at all for classes, even if you can make an argument that it works for some characters.

If your concept is a generalist character, there's a class that does it better than fighter by specializing in being a generalist: the brawler.

Regardless of the limitless potential for "the fighter class" opportunity costs limit you to one " Your fighter character" THATS what you have to do the comparison with. Is your hackey stabby guy going to be better off as a fighter or as some other class? I don't want to say there are NO builds left where you're better off as a fighter but... we're getting pretty close.

Quote:

I think only a few people would vote for the lifetime imprisonment of the core classes, especially with all the archetypes, but quite often a certain concept just works better with a specialized class like the Swashbuckler.

The swashbuckler (swashbuckler), the grappler (tetori monk), the bull rusher (brawler), the tank (armored barbarian), the archer (ranger), the sword and board meatshield (ranger with sword and board style) , maneuever guy (manuever master monk)

Opportunity cost will always be an issue, but I think it is a positive aspect (for players, not always GMs) that we now have a plethora of ways to do pretty much the same thing. That way you can make pretty much everybody happy.

Figher still has a place, especially with the growing number of archetypes, but the problem that bothers me (skill points, out of combat use) is mostly still there. I am not arguing, that Fighters are sometimes the perfect tool for the job, but I tend to value the versatility of the Brawler somewhat higher (thus liking the archetype that makes Fighters more ...brawlery).

However I think that PFS with its varied party compositions and challenges does make versatility a substantially better option.

Now Paizo just give me some decent animal companion alternatives - I mean ways for my ac to contribute without annoying David ^^ Oh and fix the primal companion hunter archetype.

[Serisan]

N N 959 wrote:

Serisan wrote:

Thus, we can question whether it is meaningfully impactful.

Your attempt to to turn this into a value based discussion is exactly the problem with all these talks about "balance." You're making a value judgment that's specific to you. Then you're shifting goal posts when the counter argument threatens to strike at the issue. If I like having Y at my disposal and I haven't built my wizard to take A, B, C, and D, then yes, it may be extremely meaningful.

Intrinsically, the balance debate has to go to some sort of value discussion. There are no characters with precisely 2 options to choose from, but we acknowledge implicitly that, barring very specific circumstances, you're not going to be using Bull Rush maneuvers as a Wizard. You've opted to create a straw man by assuming that A, B, C, and D are discrete choices when I specifically meant them as variables.

Quote:

But let's go back and expose why we can't talk about "balance" in the way you want to. How many time a scenario does a Rogue have to be able to sneak attack before we says sneak attack is meaningful or meaningless?

There are a lot of variables here. Are we talking mechanically unable (oozes, for instance), party composition issues (no other threatening melee), scenario restriction issues (YOU'RE ALWAYS SURPRISED LOL!)? Moreover, to what are you comparing Sneak Attack? What is the alternative action? You can't make a determination of value without a comparison.

Quote:

How many times does a Barbarian need to get value from his extra two skill points per level before we say it's meaningful? A +1 ring of protection only protects you from 1 hit in 20. Is that meaningful?

Ring of Protection can be solved with math. There are no value decisions to be made here that aren't done with math. Also, I can assure you that a discrete 5% is not the actual value of a Ring of Protection. As for skill points, what are you comparing it to? Again, you cannot make a determination of value without a comparison.

Quote:

Your attempt to change this from an empirical evaluation to a value based evaluation underscores that we have no language or system for doing that. We have on way to assign value to different class abilities, and neither do the devs. What is the value of having low-light vision? Impossible to know or determine.

Per the Advanced Race Guide::

Low-Light Vision (1 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race can see twice as far as a race with normal vision in conditions of dim light.

Quote:

Asking whether the classes are balanced is asking the wrong question. We don't know, we can't know. Do they seem fair? Do they serve a purpose in any given party? Do players enjoy the mechanics involved? Does X class obviate the usefulness of Y class in all cases? Those are meaningful questions in class design. "Balance" is a red herring.

Balance is a term used to describe the sum total responses to the questions you've asked (plus a few others, typically). If a class (let's use Rogues) seems fair and appears to serve a purpose, but has frustrating mechanics and is obviated in the majority of circumstances by another class (let's say Wizard), then the Rogue is not balanced against the Wizard. If you repeat the matching process and compare it to all other classes, you can determine the composite relative balance of the class.

[redward]

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Now Paizo just give me some decent animal companion alternatives - I mean ways for my ac to contribute without annoying David ^^ Oh and fix the primal companion hunter archetype.

Mount! Or as a Flanking and AoO generation machine with teamwork feats via the Hunter.