@ Kyrt-Rider - we've had a game system where every class was actually fully balanced against each other.
It's 4th Edition D&D.
It didn't work out.
Interestingly, near-perfect balance can actually be really dull, because everyone's powers just being reskins of each other's powers stifles variety.
@ Kirth - I'm saying that if I wasn't fine with "magic is awesome", I'd be playing a different system.
I'm completely fine with "magic is awesome." And I've enjoyed playing a martial under that paradigm.
Much like Batman or Black Widow, being a mundane in a world of superheroes/magic is all about making proper use of your skills, your allies and your gear. I happen to enjoy doing that. But that's just me, I suppose. Trying to drag casters down (or turning martials into reskinned casters) doesn't appeal to me.
@ Aelrynth - Neat. Which adventure/module?
|
Ah, in other words more use of super-hero tropes instead of classic fantasy tropes. I like it. [/Quotes]
Kind of? High level adventurers are pretty terrifyingly power people. Its their deal.
I get hopping mad from a world design perspective when its like 'only the PCs get to be high level and good aligned, but yeah the orcs? They've got /oodles/ of guys who can match you, because yeah...'
Well, the overpricing of defenses against magic are part of the problem, too.
Seriously, you cast a spell, you bend the laws of physics to make something happen, like, oh, teleporting.
Shouldn't it be far easier to stop such a thing from happening, then it happening in the first place?
Extremely effective anti-teleport and anti-divination effects should be low level and cheap. Strengthening the dimensions so you can't run roughshod over them should be a very basic thing that any caster of low level can set up. Likewise, stopping scrying should be far easier then being able to scry in the first place...you already have a ton to overcome with divination, preventing it should be should be simple.
They are. Thick walls. Underground areas with winding corridors.
Scrying requires a lot of things (see the guy, be familiar with him, have something of his), this is why wizards should bep aranoid around say..barbers.
A lot of defenses against spells are spectacularly mundane. Because a lot of spells just don't quite do what people think they do.
Teleport is nasty, but speaking as a guy who adjudicates a 15th level party? They don't like risking blind teleports. They've spent actual cash to find people who've been to a place to teleport their guy to the place so he can teleport there.
And a lot of the other spells are really close range.
Locate object? Has some pretty big flaws. Detect Thoughts? Bolloxed up by some wood or metal lining.
A lot of the vaunted teleportation spells rely on you knowing where someone/something is, and a lot of the vaunted divination spells don't quite give you enough to go off of without further research.
Ah, in other words more use of super-hero tropes instead of classic fantasy tropes. I like it.
The real solution is to make more big scale problems such that the higher level casters have other crap to handle, and this is the big stumbling block for the 'player agency' crowd.. not every problem can, or should be in the player character's wheelhouse.
That's a topic for a different thread though.
It does help a lot to think of high-level PCs as superheroes.
In a 10th level party, even the pure martials left the puny normal mortals in the dust several levels ago.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Kyrt-Rider - we've had a game system where every class was actually fully balanced against each other.
It's 4th Edition D&D.
It didn't work out.
Interestingly, near-perfect balance can actually be really dull, because everyone's powers just being reskins of each other's powers stifles variety.
@ Kirth - I'm saying that if I wasn't fine with "magic is awesome", I'd be playing a different system.
I'm completely fine with "magic is awesome." And I've enjoyed playing a martial under that paradigm.
Much like Batman or Black Widow, being a mundane in a world of superheroes/magic is all about making proper use of your skills, your allies and your gear. I happen to enjoy doing that. But that's just me, I suppose. Trying to drag casters down (or turning martials into reskinned casters) doesn't appeal to me.
@ Aelrynth - Neat. Which adventure/module?
4E Fallacy. Since it hasn't come up in a bit here's a reminder on how it goes:
"Any attempt to balance 3.5/PF will turn the game into 4E."
Obviously, this is fallacy since there are many ways to balance the game without turning to at-will/encounter/daily abilities.
Now whenever someone makes this fallacious argument, we can just say "4E Fallacy" and move on.
@ Kyrt-Rider - we've had a game system where every class was actually fully balanced against each other.
It's 4th Edition D&D.
It didn't work out.
Interestingly, near-perfect balance can actually be really dull, because everyone's powers just being reskins of each other's powers stifles variety.
@ Kirth - I'm saying that if I wasn't fine with "magic is awesome", I'd be playing a different system.
I'm completely fine with "magic is awesome." And I've enjoyed playing a martial under that paradigm.
Much like Batman or Black Widow, being a mundane in a world of superheroes/magic is all about making proper use of your skills, your allies and your gear. I happen to enjoy doing that. But that's just me, I suppose. Trying to drag casters down (or turning martials into reskinned casters) doesn't appeal to me.
@ Aelrynth - Neat. Which adventure/module?
Novel, Stalking The Beast.
I went through the novel just cringing at how inept the martials were, and especially how the half-orc was overshadowed by the rangers.
==Aelryinth
|
@ Kyrt-Rider - we've had a game system where every class was actually fully balanced against each other.
It's 4th Edition D&D.
It didn't work out.
Interestingly, near-perfect balance can actually be really dull, because everyone's powers just being reskins of each other's powers stifles variety.
That's only if you go with the 4e method of balance - which was to make every class/monster symmetrical.
Symmetry is the easiest way to balance, but it's also the most boring. (especially in a co-op game)
Balance is harder without symmetry - but it can certainly be done - usually with a rather blatent rock-scissors-paper system (though usually more complex). Think Poke'mon. There have always been some 'top tier' poke'mon - but no one is going to run a roster of 6 of them. That'd be stupid and too easily countered. They take a mix of the different types.
I think it'd be awesome if martials could be beaten by squishy casters, squishy casters could get ganked by stealth classes, and stealth classes were beaten by standard martials. Have that be the baseline - and work out from there. (Like fire/grass/water is the poke'mon baseline.)
Yes and no. House rules are going to get talked about in reference to people's games because people modify/fix/adjust them to their/their table's own flavor.
As far as I know there isn't any sort of mandate that the game can only exist in some sort of RAW state in these discussions; games are as varied as the people posting on the boards.
The issue is less that he is discussing houserules and more that he is presenting houserules as part of the game in general.
We wouldn't be complaining if he said "My GM made X, Y and Z houserules and it seems to make casters more in line with martials". What he is actually saying is "X, Y and Z mean casters aren't that bad", when X, Y and Z don't exist outside the microcosm that is his gaming table or the extremely small amount of gaming tables that use those spell fumble rules.
Basically, we are getting annoyed that he seems to be acting as if his houserules apply to everyone.
I can completely understand that, and Kirth's comment as well. And yes, by all means, posters should mention that they are talking about house rules so that we can understand where they are coming from, especially on threads like this where table differences can mean that the 15 minute day isn't even a problem.
That and people tend to react like house rules are some dirty thing that no one uses except "those" people, when behind closed doors it is pretty common. ;)
RE: Zhangar and kyrt-rider's 4E comparison discussion: It doesn't come across like 4E, but more something like Diablo-esque games to me (forgive me, been playing a lot of Diablo II and III recently) where everyone has similar feeling attacks. I can attack big areas! I can do X!
While I can understand and commiserate with wanting a martial to be able to wreak havoc on the battlefield, I am not sure that simulating a fireball with a fighter is what I'd want out of the game. I'd really not want to see fighters punching through castles as part of their base class abilities. But that's me! My game is not for everyone.
@ Kyrt-Rider - we've had a game system where every class was actually fully balanced against each other.
It's 4th Edition D&D.
It didn't work out.
Interestingly, near-perfect balance can actually be really dull, because everyone's powers just being reskins of each other's powers stifles variety.
That's only if you go with the 4e method of balance - which was to make every class/monster symmetrical.
Symmetry is the easiest way to balance, but it's also the most boring. (especially in a co-op game)
Balance is harder without symmetry - but it can certainly be done - usually with a rather blatent rock-scissors-paper system (though usually more complex). Think Poke'mon. There have always been some 'top tier' poke'mon - but no one is going to run a roster of 6 of them. That'd be stupid and too easily countered. They take a mix of the different types.
I think it'd be awesome if martials could be beaten by squishy casters, squishy casters could get ganked by stealth classes, and stealth classes were beaten by standard martials. Have that be the baseline - and work out from there. (Like fire/grass/water is the poke'mon baseline.)
Actually, if you want to play Pokemon competitively you *are* using only the top tier Pokemon (generally speaking). It's just that there are more then 6 of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I can understand and commiserate with wanting a martial to be able to wreak havoc on the battlefield, I am not sure that simulating a fireball with a fighter is what I'd want out of the game. I'd really not want to see fighters punching through castles as part of their base class.
It can be the same game, it's just that yours doesn't go past level 6. Because this world has never seen what a martial that is level 7+ actually looks like. Mythology and anime have done a good job speculating on it though.
If you go back to 3.5, a charging Enlarged Frenzied Berserker could put out a 200 hit point 'whirlwind' 45 feet across on a charge without too much trouble.
Supreme Cleave and that much raw damage FTW. Hit something for 200, kill it, cleave to the next thing in your AoE.
Could easily fricassee an entire PC party on the charge.
==Aelryinth
What he's trying to say is that you don't load up on all the same type. In different generations one or two types are usually on top. It's been Psychic [although in that generation there wasn't actually an answer to Psychic so it negates his point], it's been Dragon, it's been Steel, I think for a while it was Fighting... but the point stands except in Generation 1 [and even then because Competetive Rules prohibit the use of multiples of a specific species] Monotype teams are at a very strong disadvantage despite being the current type 'at the top.'Actually, if you want to play Pokemon competitively you *are* using only the top tier Pokemon (generally speaking). It's just that there are more then 6 of them.@ Kyrt-Rider - we've had a game system where every class was actually fully balanced against each other.
It's 4th Edition D&D.
It didn't work out.
Interestingly, near-perfect balance can actually be really dull, because everyone's powers just being reskins of each other's powers stifles variety.
That's only if you go with the 4e method of balance - which was to make every class/monster symmetrical.
Symmetry is the easiest way to balance, but it's also the most boring. (especially in a co-op game)
Balance is harder without symmetry - but it can certainly be done - usually with a rather blatent rock-scissors-paper system (though usually more complex). Think Poke'mon. There have always been some 'top tier' poke'mon - but no one is going to run a roster of 6 of them. That'd be stupid and too easily countered. They take a mix of the different types.
I think it'd be awesome if martials could be beaten by squishy casters, squishy casters could get ganked by stealth classes, and stealth classes were beaten by standard martials. Have that be the baseline - and work out from there. (Like fire/grass/water is the poke'mon baseline.)
Ah, ya that makes more sense. Disregard previous post.
So much this. I would NOT want to play in a game that goes past level 4ish and locks the martials into realism while the casters are flying around wrecking s&*&.
I know I want my 10+ Martials to look more like RWBY.
It can be the same game, it's just that yours doesn't go past level 6. Because this world has never seen what a martial that is level 7+ actually looks like. Mythology and anime have done a good job speculating on it though.While I can understand and commiserate with wanting a martial to be able to wreak havoc on the battlefield, I am not sure that simulating a fireball with a fighter is what I'd want out of the game. I'd really not want to see fighters punching through castles as part of their base class.
It certainly can be. Or not. That's the wonderful thing about RPGs, we don't have to get the same thing out of it. I'm not looking to replicate anime nor do I believe that bog standard characters are the equivalent of heroes of legend and mythology.
But then, to bring in the dreaded house rules, I don't let people survive falling from orbit either. :)
@ thejeff - wait, you're assuming that the BBEG is at the party's level, and that he recruited a higher level flunky? Uh, that's not what I was trying to convey at all. I was trying to convey that the BBEG AND his main sidekick would be higher level. I'd sure as hell write it up that way.
Of course, you could run a BBEG who's lacking the necessary defenses, because he/she/it just hit the big time and hasn't adjusted yet. (Hell, that could be perfect at 9th level, where parties are transitioning to the big time). Let the party have their cakewalk; makes running into the guy/lady/thing that did the homework all the more jarring.
No, more like the sidekick has to be X levels above the PCs to counter their magic and if we assume the BBEG is even tougher than that, the PCs go splat. (PCs at 9 to have teleport. Wizard flunky at 13 to have Teleport Trap. BBEG at 13++. At this point, the wizard isn't a sidekick, he's the BBEG of his own quest if the PCs are going to have a chance. And then the PCs will have leveled and be tough enough to tackle the real BBEG, but probably also have new abilities that need an even higher level caster to counter so the cycle repeats...)
I only suggested a BBEG with an ever higher level flunky because that's a way out of the trap. But not one you could use often.
Honestly? At 9th level I'd expect the PCs to able to handle an ECL +5 fight (as, say, a 13th level wizard and his 13th level antipaladin commander), especially if action economy is otherwise in their favor. And as I said, you could make the wizard lower level and give him a few scrolls instead if you're worried about XP budget. Or use something other than teleport trap, like forbiddence or even unhallow with a dimensional anchor or other spell added to it (lasts a year, takes a 9th level cleric, effects all heathens in the area).
@ Kyrt - you described changing the system so that everyone can do what everyone else can do, just their abilities are named differently, and maybe other slight adjustments (like 20 ft radius whirlwind attack being centered on initiator, rather than being targeted at range like fireball).
That's how 4E initially handled powers - different names, different thematic fluff, and slight tweaks, but generally powers were the same thing over and over again.
(It got better as it got on - by the time the first round of Power books had come out, there was significantly better variety in what powers actually did, and they got better at having unique class mechanics that interacted with the powers.)
At-will/encounter/daily doesn't even come into the equation.
Still, more power to you if your players like it.
@ Knightnday - punching through a castle wall as a martial ain't that hard. Power attack + maul of the titans will knock down most walls within a couple of rounds.
Heh. Mauls of the titan are fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can be the same game, it's just that yours doesn't go past level 6. Because this world has never seen what a martial that is level 7+ actually looks like. Mythology and anime have done a good job speculating on it though.While I can understand and commiserate with wanting a martial to be able to wreak havoc on the battlefield, I am not sure that simulating a fireball with a fighter is what I'd want out of the game. I'd really not want to see fighters punching through castles as part of their base class.
It certainly can be. Or not. That's the wonderful thing about RPGs, we don't have to get the same thing out of it. I'm not looking to replicate anime nor do I believe that bog standard characters are the equivalent of heroes of legend and mythology.
But then, to bring in the dreaded house rules, I don't let people survive falling from orbit either. :)
It can be, but such a game should be required to state that martial characters aren't actual classes you can play once you hit high levels. I mean if you want to chain your martials to realism, but let casters tell reality to make them a sandwich, you should probably just remove the inferior option altogether.
It can be, but such a game should be required to state that martial characters aren't actual classes you can play once you hit high levels. I mean if you want to chain your martials to realism, but let casters tell reality to make them a sandwich, you should probably just remove the inferior option altogether.It can be the same game, it's just that yours doesn't go past level 6. Because this world has never seen what a martial that is level 7+ actually looks like. Mythology and anime have done a good job speculating on it though.While I can understand and commiserate with wanting a martial to be able to wreak havoc on the battlefield, I am not sure that simulating a fireball with a fighter is what I'd want out of the game. I'd really not want to see fighters punching through castles as part of their base class.
It certainly can be. Or not. That's the wonderful thing about RPGs, we don't have to get the same thing out of it. I'm not looking to replicate anime nor do I believe that bog standard characters are the equivalent of heroes of legend and mythology.
But then, to bring in the dreaded house rules, I don't let people survive falling from orbit either. :)
I chain everyone to some form of realism. I tend to house rule restrictions on casters and limit certain spells to prevent the God-Mode Caster that we hear about on the boards.
@Zhangar: Sorry, thought people were talking about fighters just running up and knocking over castles with their base muscles or whatever.
@ Kyrt - you described changing the system so that everyone can do what everyone else can do, just their abilities are named differently, and maybe other slight adjustments (like 20 ft radius whirlwind attack being centered on initiator, rather than being targeted at range like fireball).
Um... no. There's a huge amount of tactical and thematic differences between "Can make an attack against AC against all enemies in 20 ft." and "Can shoot an attack at a target with 400+ ft. that deals fire damage and targets Reflex and guarantees half damage (barring exceptions).
Those aren't even remotely the same. Please try again.
It can be, but such a game should be required to state that martial characters aren't actual classes you can play once you hit high levels. I mean if you want to chain your martials to realism, but let casters tell reality to make them a sandwich, you should probably just remove the inferior option altogether.It can be the same game, it's just that yours doesn't go past level 6. Because this world has never seen what a martial that is level 7+ actually looks like. Mythology and anime have done a good job speculating on it though.While I can understand and commiserate with wanting a martial to be able to wreak havoc on the battlefield, I am not sure that simulating a fireball with a fighter is what I'd want out of the game. I'd really not want to see fighters punching through castles as part of their base class.
It certainly can be. Or not. That's the wonderful thing about RPGs, we don't have to get the same thing out of it. I'm not looking to replicate anime nor do I believe that bog standard characters are the equivalent of heroes of legend and mythology.
But then, to bring in the dreaded house rules, I don't let people survive falling from orbit either. :)
I chain everyone to some form of realism. I tend to house rule restrictions on casters and limit certain spells to prevent the God-Mode Caster that we hear about on the boards.
@Zhangar: Sorry, thought people were talking about fighters just running up and knocking over castles with their base muscles or whatever.
You would have to literally rewrite 70+% (I'm being generous) of spells to achieve that. I hope you'll forgive me for saying that I do not believe you achieved the balance you hope to. Because if I was going to balance casters the changes would severe enough that a hypothetical "Anzyrfinder" would be a new system that merely carried over d20 elements.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What he's trying to say is that you don't load up on all the same type. In different generations one or two types are usually on top. It's been Psychic [although in that generation there wasn't actually an answer to Psychic so it negates his point], it's been Dragon, it's been Steel, I think for a while it was Fighting... but the point stands except in Generation 1 [and even then because Competetive Rules prohibit the use of multiples of a specific species] Monotype teams are at a very strong disadvantage despite being the current type 'at the top.'Actually, if you want to play Pokemon competitively you *are* using only the top tier Pokemon (generally speaking). It's just that there are more then 6 of them.@ Kyrt-Rider - we've had a game system where every class was actually fully balanced against each other.
It's 4th Edition D&D.
It didn't work out.
Interestingly, near-perfect balance can actually be really dull, because everyone's powers just being reskins of each other's powers stifles variety.
That's only if you go with the 4e method of balance - which was to make every class/monster symmetrical.
Symmetry is the easiest way to balance, but it's also the most boring. (especially in a co-op game)
Balance is harder without symmetry - but it can certainly be done - usually with a rather blatent rock-scissors-paper system (though usually more complex). Think Poke'mon. There have always been some 'top tier' poke'mon - but no one is going to run a roster of 6 of them. That'd be stupid and too easily countered. They take a mix of the different types.
I think it'd be awesome if martials could be beaten by squishy casters, squishy casters could get ganked by stealth classes, and stealth classes were beaten by standard martials. Have that be the baseline - and work out from there. (Like fire/grass/water is the poke'mon baseline.)
Right.
Synergy.
The issue of 3.5 was it mistaught people adventure design. If you go back to the headwaters of 1e and 2e, you still see orcs in adventures for 13th level parties and occasionally you see a giant at early levels.
Dungeons felt more alive and 'run away!' was a valid tactic. You had to work together, and the balancing factor came from (among other things like different xp tracks) the fact you operated on different paradigms.
The rogue could be sneaky and get info and intel, but he needed support. He needed positioning, even in those days, to really do damage.
The fighter was tough and beefy, but not really cagey and had trouble with certain opponents. And again, light armor.
The cleric was slow and his spells were mostly support. His weapons also weren't as good as a warrior but his armor was good.
The wizard could eradicate foes with his spells, but he was flimsy because he had horrible hp, low armor and limited spells.
Wizards would still cast spells, but every spell they cast was a big deal (tm), because the party didn't want to stop just because Gandalf tapped himself out (it was punishingly common actually. Its where crossbow wizard comes from).
3.0 brought in the idea of the 'build' more. Yes it happened before, but with 3e Dragon Magazine would post little optimizer blurbs, they made it a main focus (look what I can do with these feats!) and we started getting Magic: The Gathering style PC builds.
People forget that the party is meant to operate as 4+ guys working as a team. If they work as a team and steamroll my bad guys, I'm glad. That's WAI.
Working As Intended.
Synergy.
The issue of 3.5 was it mistaught people adventure design. If you go back to the headwaters of 1e and 2e, you still see orcs in adventures for 13th level parties and occasionally you see a giant at early levels.
Dungeons felt more alive and 'run away!' was a valid tactic. You had to work together, and the balancing factor came from (among other things like different xp tracks) the fact you operated on different paradigms.
The rogue could be sneaky and get info and intel, but he needed support. He needed positioning, even in those days, to really do damage.
The fighter was tough and beefy, but not really cagey and had trouble with certain opponents. And again, light armor.
The cleric was slow and his spells were mostly support. His weapons also weren't as good as a warrior but his armor was good.
The wizard could eradicate foes with his spells, but he was flimsy because he had horrible hp, low armor and limited spells.
Right. Here's why your wrong.
The Wizard can be sneakier then the Rogue and get more info and intel then them. And still has spells left over for eradicating their foes.
The Druid is a T-Rex. That has a pet T-Rex. That can summon more T-Rexes. So, not only does they have way more effective HP then the Fighter, they can also heal and buff the team.
The Cleric is... still a cleric.
The Wizard is still the wizard.
The above party is objectively better then your party.
|
Synergy.
The issue of 3.5 was it mistaught people adventure design. If you go back to the headwaters of 1e and 2e, you still see orcs in adventures for 13th level parties and occasionally you see a giant at early levels.
Dungeons felt more alive and 'run away!' was a valid tactic. You had to work together, and the balancing factor came from (among other things like different xp tracks) the fact you operated on different paradigms.
The rogue could be sneaky and get info and intel, but he needed support. He needed positioning, even in those days, to really do damage.
The fighter was tough and beefy, but not really cagey and had trouble with certain opponents. And again, light armor.
The cleric was slow and his spells were mostly support. His weapons also weren't as good as a warrior but his armor was good.
The wizard could eradicate foes with his spells, but he was flimsy because he had horrible hp, low armor and limited spells.Right. Here's why your wrong.
The Wizard can be sneakier then the Rogue and get more info and intel then them. And still has spells left over for eradicating their foes.
The Druid is a T-Rex. That has a pet T-Rex. That can summon more T-Rexes. So, not only does they have way more effective HP then the Fighter, they can also heal and buff the team.
The Cleric is... still a cleric.
The Wizard is still the wizard.The above party is objectively better then your party.
Not in 1E-2E -- which is what Spooky was talking about.
Not in 1E-2E -- which is what Spooky was talking about.Synergy.
The issue of 3.5 was it mistaught people adventure design. If you go back to the headwaters of 1e and 2e, you still see orcs in adventures for 13th level parties and occasionally you see a giant at early levels.
Dungeons felt more alive and 'run away!' was a valid tactic. You had to work together, and the balancing factor came from (among other things like different xp tracks) the fact you operated on different paradigms.
The rogue could be sneaky and get info and intel, but he needed support. He needed positioning, even in those days, to really do damage.
The fighter was tough and beefy, but not really cagey and had trouble with certain opponents. And again, light armor.
The cleric was slow and his spells were mostly support. His weapons also weren't as good as a warrior but his armor was good.
The wizard could eradicate foes with his spells, but he was flimsy because he had horrible hp, low armor and limited spells.Right. Here's why your wrong.
The Wizard can be sneakier then the Rogue and get more info and intel then them. And still has spells left over for eradicating their foes.
The Druid is a T-Rex. That has a pet T-Rex. That can summon more T-Rexes. So, not only does they have way more effective HP then the Fighter, they can also heal and buff the team.
The Cleric is... still a cleric.
The Wizard is still the wizard.The above party is objectively better then your party.
Sigh. Apologies I missed that part.
You would have to literally rewrite 70+% (I'm being generous) of spells to achieve that. I hope you'll forgive me for saying that I do not believe you achieved the balance you hope to. Because if I was going to balance casters the changes would severe enough that a hypothetical "Anzyrfinder" would be a new system that merely carried over d20 elements.
I've achieved the balance that the players at my table are looking for, which is the important part. We put together what works for us at this time and place, and change it as needs be. It doesn't work for everyone, but it works for what we want.
That can work. It requires a lot of work on the GM [though likely no more work than I'm putting into fixing the system from the other end] and puts a lot of restrictions on the players but it's an option. It just seems kind of odd to push into those higher levels when you could just as easily play a very fun game at low levels without needing to mess with things much.
My current crop of players prefer the low to mid-range of levels right now, with only brief desires to play higher level characters. As for the work, well, it gives me something to do between reading threads!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. Apologies I missed that part.Not in 1E-2E -- which is what Spooky was talking about.Synergy.
The issue of 3.5 was it mistaught people adventure design. If you go back to the headwaters of 1e and 2e, you still see orcs in adventures for 13th level parties and occasionally you see a giant at early levels.
Dungeons felt more alive and 'run away!' was a valid tactic. You had to work together, and the balancing factor came from (among other things like different xp tracks) the fact you operated on different paradigms.
The rogue could be sneaky and get info and intel, but he needed support. He needed positioning, even in those days, to really do damage.
The fighter was tough and beefy, but not really cagey and had trouble with certain opponents. And again, light armor.
The cleric was slow and his spells were mostly support. His weapons also weren't as good as a warrior but his armor was good.
The wizard could eradicate foes with his spells, but he was flimsy because he had horrible hp, low armor and limited spells.Right. Here's why your wrong.
The Wizard can be sneakier then the Rogue and get more info and intel then them. And still has spells left over for eradicating their foes.
The Druid is a T-Rex. That has a pet T-Rex. That can summon more T-Rexes. So, not only does they have way more effective HP then the Fighter, they can also heal and buff the team.
The Cleric is... still a cleric.
The Wizard is still the wizard.The above party is objectively better then your party.
Heh, no problem.
My point is that encounter design and ethos is the bigger problem then 'this class be powerful, yo.'
Especially when people compare the classes to each other as if it were a competition.
They're meant to work together. And when they do, its beautiful, even these days.
The problem is that encounter design is something people come to expect by RAW and they want to crunch numbers and probabilities. And this results in very narrowly built builds designed around that instead of a group that works together to overcome things.
As I said up thread, for example, I got grumbled at by a player for 'improper' encounter design because all of my high level baddies weren't single target wizard encounters.
I gave another wizard angina once just by having him occasionally end up in engagements that occurred at the 'long range' spell increment.
Unpredictability of situations and encounters that are similarly unpredictable lends more towards PCs who build on themselves instead of trying to equip their 'deck' with specific solutions.
|
|
What he's trying to say is that you don't load up on all the same type. In different generations one or two types are usually on top. It's been Psychic [although in that generation there wasn't actually an answer to Psychic so it negates his point], it's been Dragon, it's been Steel, I think for a while it was Fighting... but the point stands except in Generation 1 [and even then because Competetive Rules prohibit the use of multiples of a specific species] Monotype teams are at a very strong disadvantage despite being the current type 'at the top.'
Right - that was the comparison I was going for. And for whatever type was the 'top type' - whatever types countered them immediately became desireable even if, outside of countering the 'top type', it's middle of the road.
In Pathfinder terms, if the general 'types' were balanced per a rock-scissors-paper system, you'd still prefer a ninja instead of core rogue, and you'd still prefer a paladin instead of a fighter.
But you'd also rather bring along a rogue & fighter to complement your wizard & cleric than just another wizard & cleric.
What he's trying to say is that you don't load up on all the same type. In different generations one or two types are usually on top. It's been Psychic [although in that generation there wasn't actually an answer to Psychic so it negates his point], it's been Dragon, it's been Steel, I think for a while it was Fighting... but the point stands except in Generation 1 [and even then because Competetive Rules prohibit the use of multiples of a specific species] Monotype teams are at a very strong disadvantage despite being the current type 'at the top.'Right - that was the comparison I was going for. And for whatever type was the 'top type' - whatever types countered them immediately became desireable even if, outside of countering the 'top type', it's middle of the road.
In Pathfinder terms, if the general 'types' were balanced, you'd still prefer a ninja instead of core rogue, and you'd still prefer a paladin instead of a fighter.
But you'd also rather bring along a rogue & fighter to complement your wizard & cleric than just another wizard & cleric.
Or you could bring along a wildshape druid and a bard with trapfinding to complement your cleric and wizard. Then you would be even better. Heck, you would even be better with a blaster wizard and a Seeker SoL specialist sorcerer instead of fighter+rogue.
That's the thing. For every non-caster martial, there exists a caster that can fill the same roles as that martial, better than that martial, and while capable of doing things that martial can't.
|
|
Or you could bring along a wildshape druid and a bard with trapfinding to complement your cleric and wizard. Then you would be even better. Heck, you would even be better with a blaster wizard and a Seeker SoL specialist sorcerer instead of fighter+rogue.
That's the thing. For every non-caster martial, there exists a caster that can fill the same roles as that martial, better than that martial, and while capable of doing things that martial can't.
I didn't say that's how the system currently is.
I said it would work thus "if the general 'types' were balanced per a rock-scissors-paper system".
Or you could bring along a wildshape druid and a bard with trapfinding to complement your cleric and wizard. Then you would be even better. Heck, you would even be better with a blaster wizard and a Seeker SoL specialist sorcerer instead of fighter+rogue.
That's the thing. For every non-caster martial, there exists a caster that can fill the same roles as that martial, better than that martial, and while capable of doing things that martial can't.
I didn't say that's how the system currently is.
I said it would work thus "if the general 'types' were balanced per a rock-scissors-paper system".
I misread your post.
I should probably go to bed now.
|
|
Or you could bring along a wildshape druid and a bard with trapfinding to complement your cleric and wizard. Then you would be even better. Heck, you would even be better with a blaster wizard and a Seeker SoL specialist sorcerer instead of fighter+rogue.
That's the thing. For every non-caster martial, there exists a caster that can fill the same roles as that martial, better than that martial, and while capable of doing things that martial can't.
I didn't say that's how the system currently is.
I said it would work thus "if the general 'types' were balanced per a rock-scissors-paper system".
I misread your post.
I should probably go to bed now.
Not a problem.
Though I've totally never made a similar mistake! /sarcasm
If a caster is being allowed to scope out an entire fortress with easily spotted scrying sensors, your GM is being very easy on you.There's a LOT more to the school of divination than the [scrying] spells.
(Also, don't even need to rewrite spells. Private sanctum, forbiddance, and teleport trap, all say "hello," and I'm sure there's more.)Which means every BBEG is a full caster, not a martial. Which kind of underlines the point, n'est-ce pas?
Please don't conflate this with a "martials are just as good as casters" thread. Having a caster BBEG has nothing to do with the relationship between martial PCs and caster PCs. We aren't proving martials and casters are equal, we're discussing a means of leveling things out within the party. Outside the party, all bets are off.
*Sends gang of fifteen Superstitious orc barbarians after the wizard*
*Giggles like a schoolkobold*
@ Kyrt-Rider - we've had a game system where every class was actually fully balanced against each other.
It's 4th Edition D&D.
It didn't work out.
Interestingly, near-perfect balance can actually be really dull, because everyone's powers just being reskins of each other's powers stifles variety.
You've never actually played a 4th edition game, have you?
Trust me, it was a long way from perfectly balanced. About the best that could be said for it was that the martial/caster disparity was ended, and the other imbalances wasn't quite as bad as the gap between a 3.5's gap between CoDzilla and. the Tier 6 classes like the Samurai.
A force that doesn't use casters SHOULD lose to a force that does, just an army that doesn't use artillery & mobile armor SHOULD lose to the army that does.I vehemently disagree.
The power a force brings to bear should be related to two components: the numbers it has, and the levels of those numbers.
Vehement you may be, but what you say comes close to contradicting the most base assumption of D&D: The iconic adventuring party.
Quite simply, an "elite squad" must be a varied one. A party of all-wizards may do better than a party of all-martials, especially at high levels (because the casters are better), but they'll still miss the martials and trapfinders and clerics in the end.*
An adventuring party is supposed to be varied. Some classes do better than others at "soloing" it (four wizards can be pretty damn flexible), but they'll still suffer a bit more than a party with multiple classes. Options are power. That's why wizards are so great to begin with.
Parties aren't supposed to be all-monk, or all-bard, or even all-wizard. You can try it, and it can be fun, but it's an inherent hurdle that will require a pretty skilled lot of players to subvert. Try sending a gang of first-level wizards into a dungeon and let me know how it goes. In 3.5, you'd die. In Pathfinder, you'll still be taking a real chance.
I'm not contesting that martials should be more awesome, just picking this nit here. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't conflate this with a "martials are just as good as casters" thread.If a caster is being allowed to scope out an entire fortress with easily spotted scrying sensors, your GM is being very easy on you.There's a LOT more to the school of divination than the [scrying] spells.
(Also, don't even need to rewrite spells. Private sanctum, forbiddance, and teleport trap, all say "hello," and I'm sure there's more.)Which means every BBEG is a full caster, not a martial. Which kind of underlines the point, n'est-ce pas?
*Finishes catching up on thread*
Good god. I'm too late, aren't I?
@ Kyrt-Rider - we've had a game system where every class was actually fully balanced against each other.
It's 4th Edition D&D.
It didn't work out.
Interestingly, near-perfect balance can actually be really dull, because everyone's powers just being reskins of each other's powers stifles variety.
You've never actually played a 4th edition game, have you?
Trust me, it was a long way from perfectly balanced. About the best that could be said for it was that the martial/caster disparity was ended, and the other imbalances wasn't quite as bad as the gap between a 3.5's gap between CoDzilla and. the Tier 6 classes like the Samurai.
Actually, I played 4E from when it started, and also ran a 4E campaign from 1 to 30. I quit 4E after Essentials came out.
The initial power designs really were that bad; it took until the first round of Powers books and PH2 before classes started becoming much more distinct in flavor and mechanics, and having powers that actually played up their mechanics.
But man, at release? Blargh.
Edit: In 4E, a class was far more in danger of being boring than it was of being underpowered.
Different levels of play change things far more than trying to stop the 15 minute work day.
At low levels, the caster has so few resources that it is overly punishing to prevent the 15 minute work day. Non-casters really shine at this point of play.
At mid levels, it helps. The problem is that rope trick is in play. That spell alone is the number one 15 minute work day camping spell. Timed encounters, or dungeons that prevent interdimensional spaces might work once or twice, yet becomes tiring if used all the time.
At high levels, most casters have so many resources that it rarely matters. Items, scrolls, potions, and such would even make non-casters a pseudo-caster in baseline campaigns.
Different levels of play change things far more than trying to stop the 15 minute work day.
At low levels, the caster has so few resources that it is overly punishing to prevent the 15 minute work day. Non-casters really shine at this point of play.
At mid levels, it helps. The problem is that rope trick is in play. That spell alone is the number one 15 minute work day camping spell. Timed encounters, or dungeons that prevent interdimensional spaces might work once or twice, yet becomes tiring if used all the time.
At high levels, most casters have so many resources that it rarely matters. Items, scrolls, potions, and such would even make non-casters a pseudo-caster in baseline campaigns.
Is this "At low levels" so low that CLW wands aren't around?
Martials just die without a healer keeping them standing. Most of them also tend to die without a caster tossing fly or protection from evil on them as needed.
|
|
The problem is that rope trick is in play. That spell alone is the number one 15 minute work day camping spell. Timed encounters, or dungeons that prevent interdimensional spaces might work once or twice, yet becomes tiring if used all the time.
For one thing - Rope Trick isn't that useful until you get get it to work for an absolute min of 9+ hours.
And - while it's a handy spell - it always seems to scream 'ambush us here!'. You've gotta be up against some dumb things if no one notices it and sets up for you after 8+ hours. (And that's assuming that nothing can stealth up the rope and kill you in your sleep. I sure hope there are no will o' wisps about.)
To respond to Charon's Little Helper, most adventuring parties are smart enough to find a nice spot to hide a rope trick in, and pull up the rope once they all enter.
Sure, invisible or divining foes can set up an ambush, yet that is true anywhere.
The main point is that casters have far more resources at higher levels and that low level PCs see far more limiting resources. That, and you would be surprised how many players in my groups refuse to pitch in and buy wands for casters or UMD characters, the martials tend to win out with "we need magic weapons and armor" mentality.
Yes, there are ways a low level caster can stretch their resources. Compared to a wealthy 15th level caster, a 1-3 level caster has almost no resources. The argument of give a caster the CLW wand also makes a not fun character - so my job is just to keep the full BAB PCs healthy? Then watch them fight the monsters. Hooray, I'm a healbot. I can be replaced with a hireling expert with UMD.
Is this "At low levels" so low that CLW wands aren't around?Does that happen past level 1? That's generally my group's first communal purchase.
Doesn't Crypt of the Everflame go from level 1 to 3 or so. You don't see a single merchant past the very start in that.
Anway, I wouldn't rely on having a wand till about level 3 or so. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes even longer in some modules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather force the caster to wrestle with the one biggest original drawback of being a caster (crazy good spells, but only a few) and let him deal with having to be fairly frugal than let that narcoleptic little bastard nova his way through every other encounter. :P
Sure, he's only gonna be wrestling a little. But at least it's something the martials can point to and say, "See that? In this fight, you didn't have any fireballs left and would've been squashed like a bug. We are meaningful and valued members of this team!"