So our group ran into some big problems recently when our DM gave us level 9 and 6 mythic tiers and we never saw enemies using mythic against us. He then decided to remove it which, on top of previous issues, has set off a chain reaction of mini debates and various issues and complaints. And amongst those issues are some genuine questions. And so here I am seeking answers (if people don't mind) and looking to discuss some of the issues.
1) Our DM the in mythic "as is" out of the box and never looked at what we choose leading to the broken balancing. This has been the biggest issue. I argue that good balanced DMing requires knowing what your players are doing, making calls if needed (one players takes issue that not everything has errata and that the DM needs to decide and says that that's broken) and adjusting the campaign accordingly. Easier encounters I play to the parties strengths and I use their weaknesses for harder encounters. Our DM throws "minions" with barely 20 hp max at us in waves along with some tank enemies and some damage plus an elite or boss enemy. I like to use a combination of monsters and adding class levels to humanoids to tailor enemies rather than make simple mass produced throwaway filler enemies. He has also been giving us 1 encounter a day so we nova spells and mythic, then he (and another player) say mythic is too OP because we wreck everything. Both also say we would be wrecked if he used full mythic against us.
Is running things out of the box bad DMing? Should he be expected to keep the party in check and work on tailoring combat? What is, in essence, good DMing on a more logistic level? What *should* a DM do to balance things?
2) Is 3.X more balanced? PF is undeniably more interesting IMO but I'm wondering which had better balance, and why?
3) Having never played rogue and only rarely used it for NPCs, what's so bad about it? Why is it often called "the worst class"?
4) What are the balance issues with Barb, Monk and Summoner?
5) Should players always optimize? When shouldn't they and how far should they take it? All the way to min/max?
6) How should a DM balance if one player takes bad options and sucks and another takes the best and wrecks face? I suggested talking to them, helping optimize the weak one, tailor combat for/against them (not to "get wrecked" of face roll levels, which one idiot refuses to understand) and help tailor the situations they find themselves in to be helpful. I also suggested possible respecs.
Lastly, mythic. Same guy being difficult asked if I thought it was balanced. I answered that I didn't. The next question was: is it the DMs jib to fix it? I would think yes, if he wants to use it. It isn't that hard to roughly balance abilities IMO. A few rulings and moving where things are in the tiers and it's much better. I also think you need to do a little extra work when cresting encounters, putting more effort into individual monsters and the enemy groups/composition and their action economy and usage of mythic.
Anyone have any thoughts or answers on any of this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The short answer is that the game is designed for fun, not optimization. Optimization bends/breaks the game. The GM can adapt to this, and run a sort of Pathfinder Hard Mode, but it requires a lot of work, and system mastery and produces a game that might not be fun for people to play. I recommend making your character versatile, not a specialist, and ask yourself if your character choices are going to result in fun for the other players and the GM.
Note: I started a rough draft about this topic you can find by clicking on my profile. So far it is just the introduction, but I think it addresses your questions.
So our group ran into some big problems recently when our DM gave us level 9 and 6 mythic tiers and we never saw enemies using mythic against us. He then decided to remove it which, on top of previous issues, has set off a chain reaction of mini debates and various issues and complaints. And amongst those issues are some genuine questions. And so here I am seeking answers (if people don't mind) and looking to discuss some of the issues.
Is running things out of the box bad DMing? Should he be expected to keep the party in check and work on tailoring combat? What is, in essence, good DMing on a more logistic level? What *should* a DM do to balance things?
2) Is 3.X more balanced? PF is undeniably more interesting IMO but I'm wondering which had better balance, and why?
Yes, and no.
Rogues are better in 3.5 due to the phrethla of abilities to deny dex (like the lowly grease in 3.5 always does without 5 ranks in balance but in PF it only does on enemies turns).Then in another book: Penetrating Strike alternate class feature means there is no immunity (you still deal at least 1/2 the sneak attack damage to immune creatures).
So better balance for the rogue in 3.5: absolutely yes!
3) Having never played rogue and only rarely used it for NPCs, what's so bad about it? Why is it often called "the worst class"?
I mentioned above they nerfed many pathways to sneak attack town in PF.
They removed roadblocks (immunities), but since fewer roads it is harder to arrive.Unless you have high system mastery you won't arrive well so many see it as worst.
In 3.5, you could throw splash weapons: direct hits got sneak attack (then minor splash that didn't). Best part Touch AC! Mean their low BAB wasn't a problem.
In 3.5, the Pathfinder rogue would be awesome. It is just the nerfs in PF. It was like they purposely tried to sabotage the rogue. Sigh
4) What are the balance issues with Barb, Monk and Summoner?
Barbs are balanced great. Med Tier 3.
Monks are Low Tier 4 but possible to be Tier 3 with work.Summoners are High Tier 3: they can higher level slows at lower spell slots (has only 6 levels of spells not 9 so it makes sense in context), SLAs of summons, an eidolon (basically a beefed up version on an animal companon).
So like the Druid it has a buddy. But at least the Druid's spells are spell slot appropriate.
Really, it is fine compared to Druid. People are just more upset since Summoner is new.
Thanks everyone. As for my post about DMing, I was more asking about whether or not good "technical" DMing involves looking at characters and balancing on that basis. Like customizing encounters and such, looking at what players can and can't do and taking that into account. Things like that.
|
DMing is a lot of work for exactly that reason. Even if you are intimately familiar with the mechanics of your PCs, as well as the personalities of their players, unorthodox thinking and streaks of awesome/terrible luck can render your best efforts to "balance" an encounter moot. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Putting in the time to get to know the PCs will pay off 100-fold.
I think a good DM-group dynamic is one in which each takes turns raising the bar for the other.
...
As for rogues, I enjoy playing them, because I enjoy playing the game on "hard" mode. Barely able to contribute mechanically, I am forced to spearhead strategies that emphasize my compatriot's strengths without getting myself killed. No seriously.
In the game I run, I give 'em a big boost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is running things out of the box bad DMing? Should he be expected to keep the party in check and work on tailoring combat? What is, in essence, good DMing on a more logistic level? What *should* a DM do to balance things?
I'm old, and D&D was never my primary system. I think it's important to tell you that before I answer your questions, because I have a very different attitude than the majority of these boards. My primary system has always been the Hero System. It is similar to GURPS if you're familiar with that system. It doesn't have levels you progress through, characters are made with points and you buy your skills and abilities. You don't have a pre-generated list of spells (well Hero System itself is generic, it can be used for any setting from Superheroes to Fantasy, from James Bond, to Supernatural), they give you generic "powers" that you use to create your spells. So you won't see "Lightning Bolt" but you'll see "Blast" that you can build into your Lightning Bolt. This type of system is RIPE with opportunities for abuse, and typically GM's are with you hand in hand when making characters. On these boards any GM that tells a player "no" to something that is rules legal, that GM will typically be labeled a "jerk", where I come from that was standard. GM's said no all the time and you just had to trust he was doing it in the best interest of the game. There seems to be a general lack of GM trust on these boards.
Again I tell you all of that so you know where I'm coming from versus the "typical" player. A GM should absolutely be involved in every aspect of character generation, and beyond.
2) Is 3.X more balanced? PF is undeniably more interesting IMO but I'm wondering which had better balance, and why?
There is no such thing as universal balance. What you are looking for is player balance. Are all the players roughly the same power level? When you look at things in those terms, both 3.X and Pathfinder are equal. Both can be abused.
3) Having never played rogue and only rarely used it for NPCs, what's so bad about it? Why is it often called "the worst class"?
I try to never say one class is broken or another is worst... I try not to, but Rogues suck. There is no reason to ever take the class. If you want to be a skill monkey, other classes do it better. Inquisitors get abilities that allow them to use their WIS for a bunch of non-wisdom skills. They get bonuses to skill checks, things like this that will really help a skill monkey. Other classes get similar things to make them more effective.
The rogue's damage comes from sneak attacks, while in theory this doesn't seem that bad, but in actual practice it ridiculously hard to do that consistently. A ranged rogue will only ever get 1 sneak attack per round.
4) What are the balance issues with Barb, Monk and Summoner?
It is my opinion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the monk. Levels 1-5 are a little slow, and the monk will be wondering their place in the scheme of things when the barbarians are destroying monsters with one swing, but soon after that, the monk will notice that whenever something comes up they'll start saying, "oh the monk can handle that", or "send the monk he has the best survival rate".
The Devs have said Summoners are very powerful. I don't have a lot of experience with them, they are rare in PFS and in my home games GM's typically ban them.
Barbarians have a lot of great things they can do, but they have a very low AC, and something that can hit hard is going to be a problem for them. I don't find they unbalance things too much, except maybe at lower levels, but any 18+ STR character that uses a two handed weapon can be pretty brutal pre-level 5.
5) Should players always optimize? When shouldn't they and how far should they take it? All the way to min/max?
Players should play what they want, as long as the GM keeps them on the same level.
6) How should a DM balance if one player takes bad options and sucks and another takes the best and wrecks face? I suggested talking to them, helping optimize the weak one, tailor combat for/against them (not to "get wrecked" of face roll levels, which one idiot refuses to understand) and help tailor the situations they find themselves in to be helpful. I also suggested possible respecs.
There are other ways to balance things out. Maybe the player thought they were human the whole time, but come to find out they're actually an Assimar. Or maybe they discover an intelligent sword that only works for "Gimpy".
I would be careful with doing this though. There are few options that people would take that wold make them completely useless. Don't only use combat as a measuring stick. If "Gimpy" took a feat that allowed him to re-roll Diplomacy checks for example. Yes, he will suffer at combat, but his out of combat ability has improved. He's not really a "Gimpy" he's just strong in a different area.
Based on everything I've read on these boards, this seems to be a pretty gross representation of board members as a whole.
When I have a bit more time, I'll post a bunch of links that drew me to this conclusion. The general feel is that people hate GM intervention.
0) Good GMing is all about creating and running an engaging game for the group. There's plenty of books written on the subject.
1) A GM running things out of the box is not a bad thing. In fact,I recommend it if the GM doesn't have much experience with the game. It's not uncommon for an inexperienced GM to make unnecessary, unfun houserules to nerf or buff things they do not understand.
2) Pathfinder has less overpowered or gamebreaking material. While not without problems, the overpowered or broken classes or rules are usually well known and obvious. Additionally, Pathfinder deliberately fixed some broken issues with 3.5e, including Druidzilla.
3) Generally, the rogue has very few class features and what features he does have do not adequately support the class's roles. He's supposed to be a skilled fighting class, but he has almost no skill-based class features and lacks a full base attack bonus. It's common for GMs to encourage players to use other classes if they want a rogueish character concept.
4) Keep in mind that balance isn't as important in Pathfinder as an MMORPG. Everyone having fun is more important than making sure every class is numerically and mechanically on par with others. That being said, the barbarian is actually pretty decent with options presented outside of core rulebook. The monk suffers from multiple stat dependency, non-synergizing class features, and are difficult to build. The summoner can be gamebreaking and unfun because it's insanely easy to build the summoner as a one-man party. I elaborate more on this here.
5) There's no need for players to optimize. Pathfinder is a team game meant to be enjoyed with friends and fellow gamers. The game's math was designed to give players a significant advantage for each encounter. Additionally, the GM has the power to scale up or down the encounters as needed. So unless the GM is intentionally running a brutal campaign, there's no need to optimize. Just focus on creating a character that's fun to play.
6) I always consider it a good thing to let inexperienced players retrain during downtime. It lets them explore options without screwing themselves and the party over.
7) If your characters are streamrolling the mythic campaign, it's the GM's job to scale up the encounters. I do not always recommend making huge rule changes, especially if the GM isn't familiar with the game. However, he always has the power to scale up the encounters and make them more challenging.
The DM should be aware of all the characters and what they can do... just because it is 'by the rules' doesn't mean it is appropriate. I submit as an example the 'young' and 'advanced' templates... net cost of zero levels, but grants HUGE bonuses overall...
Mythic is balanced, as long as the DM scales to account for it. I am currently running a level 19/mythic tier 9 campaign (started at level 8/mythic 0). I treat the party as CR 25 or so (it works pretty well) and they often have multiple encounters per day. Mythic creatures are 'bosses' and non-mythic is the norm.
Rogues are 'sucky' if played improperly. The problem character in our last game was a basic rogue. He was two weapon fighting and basically dominating the game because he would sneak up and explode things to start an encounter...
The rules don't need to be altered to have a balanced game, but character design needs to be monitored closely. Having a balanced party won't happen with one OP player and a bunch of concept based roleplayers...
In my current game, someone plays a Fighter/Druid capable of doing nearly 300 points of damage with a standard action using Mythic Vital strike, and using Mythic rules, can take another standard action in the round... If you sit down and do the math, you can make a non-mythic caster that can do this at a range, so I argue that mythic on its own is balanced...