I think I understand what your getting at. Only problem is its hard to get perfection with so diverse a customer pool.I guess I'm easier to please others. For me to have fun PF it only a needs a couple houserules and we're good.
If I thought the system I was playing in was as broken as some people are implying it is, I'd look for a different system that fit what I wanted.
it's not broken. It's just imperfect. Perfection is what we are after. RAW PF is better IMHO than almost all other systems...yet it is still flawed itself.
For me...it's like a car that does really well as long as you don't floor it, but if you bring it on the interstate and "open it up"...It starts to shake really badly (due to imbalance).
yeah...it's like the "holy grail" of game design.
"One system to rule them all!" lol. A mathematically perfect system that can simulate all genres and power levels seamlessly.With mechanics so balanced that PVP works fairly.
May not be possible....have to keep questing though :D
GURPS...
it's just so generic and has even more math than mathfinder so it's got a pretty small market share.
I've heard that GURPS only works if your going for more down to earth stuff, and doesn't even work well with High Fantasy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i don't think it;s a holy grail that we're after, just the design team have a very hard time giving high level martial content a good think. they have tons of good high level spells, but feats aimed at higher levels are pretty bland and purely by the numbers.
look at all the class features gained afte level 11, how many of them are actually a new thing for the class other than awesome blow?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very well said.
Thank you. Hopefully you can see now what the "martials need a buff" people are saying -- that we eventually kill the hobby if people come in and realize, after a few levels, that the built-in martial-caster disparity is crippling to the game. A huge portion of the fanbase tells them that this disparity is a myth, so they assume they're playing wrong somehow -- but they're following the rules, so they have no idea what exactly they're doing wrong.
So they find a new game, because we won't fix the disparity, and instead of telling them how to work around it, we tell them it doesn't exist.
GURPS...
it's just so generic and has even more math than mathfinder so it's got a pretty small market share.
Nope....I've played GURPS that definitely isn't it.
I enjoyed the broad genres of Palladium and White wolf. Still I think no one system has gotten it totally right yet.I still enjoy playing the D20 based systems the most.
|
Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
OK guess I'm gonna have to break this down.
In the 'real' world Batman type high-tech, if it were even available, would be on the expensive side......but
In a Pathfinder standard setting magic items are readily available at the corner magic shop.
So it wouldnt need 100x WBL to do Batman.
Bruce Wayne as an example is a normal highly trained guy that can stand up to more supernatural/superheroic beings when equipped with magic items. I believe some would say this is a 'stand trope'.
|
|
Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
Interesting... so what if everyone's WBL isn't equal. Not that it is, because wizards get crafting feats, but suppose there's a class called Rich Guy with some outside source of income such as a trust fund and with a code of conduct that it must be spent on items only for yourself or you lose your class abilities (I.e your wealth) So this class effectively has say 300% WBL, although they get an equal share of treasure. Is something like that a viable class with little else going for them?
Not necessarily 300% exactly, but just as a general concept your entire class is just guy with a lot of money who buys more magic items for himself than anyone else can. Can it work? You get UMD as a class skill, and maybe even your wealth is charisma based so you have every reason to pump it up.
it's more like when you find a cool new cloaks of resistance or herp derp, i'm calling dibs, and if you just gave an artifact or something from a god to the specific character, i'd say he got the last cool thing so this is my share.
the party makes everyone have equal WBL unless you specifically say this guy needs more and make some gentleman's agreement.
In most groups I've been in, we've had an agreement that a magic item went to the person who could put it to the best use. If he didnt want it someone else could ask for it. If no one wanted it it was sold. When all wealth items where sold we divided the cash equally plus a full share to the 'party pool'. The 'party pool' was used to buy wands and potions and such, and was used to pay for raises, restores, etc.
|
|
Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
OK guess I'm gonna have to break this down.
In the 'real' world Batman type high-tech, if it were even available, would be on the expensive side......but
In a Pathfinder standard setting magic items are readily available at the corner magic shop.
So it wouldnt need 100x WBL to do Batman.
Bruce Wayne as an example is a normal highly trained guy that can stand up to more supernatural/superheroic beings when equipped with magic items. I believe some would say this is a 'stand trope'.
Except he isn't really. He can stand up to the seriously superhuman beings with a huge dose of GM/author fiat to make it possible. Even with his gear he tends to get a dose of fiat to make sure he's got the right piece on hand at that right time. That's his superpower, if you will.
When he's hanging out with the JLA, it's even more obvious than in his own titles.
OK lets change it a little.
thejeff as an example is a normal highly trained guy that can stand up to more supernatural/superheroic beings when equipped with magic items. I believe some would say this is a 'stand trope'.
|
|
Very well said.Thank you. Hopefully you can see now what the "martials need a buff" people are saying -- that we eventually kill the hobby if people come in and realize, after a few levels, that the built-in martial-caster disparity is crippling to the game. A huge portion of the fanbase tells them that this disparity is a myth, so they assume they're playing wrong somehow -- but they're following the rules, so they have no idea what exactly they're doing wrong.
So they find a new game, because we won't fix the disparity, and instead of telling them how to work around it, we tell them it doesn't exist.
I believe there is a problem since so many see it but I personally have not seen it.
My caster getting the same share of the treasure as any other character is not a guideline.
How much share of treasure each party member gets is PURELY up to party agreement.
And that agreement is that everyone gets equal shares.
My caster getting the same share of the treasure as any other character is not a guideline.
How much share of treasure each party member gets is PURELY up to party agreement.
Best way of sharing treasure I have seen yet:
1)Calculate value of treasure if sold
2)Divide total by number of party members-this is your 'credit'
3)Take turns 'buying' treasure with 'credit'-can also use gold if you don't have enough credit
4)Don't be a dick. If one item benefits multiple party members equally, discuss and look at overall party benefit. Use your brain.
Most of the time, this simple method works.
It's funny, a lot of people on here seem to think WBL is a rule...
When did you get appointed to make decisions and agreements for other gaming groups?And that agreement is that everyone gets equal shares.My caster getting the same share of the treasure as any other character is not a guideline.
How much share of treasure each party member gets is PURELY up to party agreement.
Just stating the obvious really. Would someone take less then a equal share in real life? Of course not. Why would you? But I guess your group can give the fighter 2 shares if you want. I hardly think you can call that the norm though.
Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
OK guess I'm gonna have to break this down.
In the 'real' world Batman type high-tech, if it were even available, would be on the expensive side......but
In a Pathfinder standard setting magic items are readily available at the corner magic shop.
So it wouldnt need 100x WBL to do Batman.
Bruce Wayne as an example is a normal highly trained guy that can stand up to more supernatural/superheroic beings when equipped with magic items. I believe some would say this is a 'stand trope'.
Except he isn't really. He can stand up to the seriously superhuman beings with a huge dose of GM/author fiat to make it possible. Even with his gear he tends to get a dose of fiat to make sure he's got the right piece on hand at that right time. That's his superpower, if you will.
When he's hanging out with the JLA, it's even more obvious than in his own titles.OK lets change it a little.
thejeff as an example is a normal highly trained guy that can stand up to more supernatural/superheroic beings when equipped with magic items. I believe some would say this is a 'stand trope'.
this really annoys me, people think tropes transcend media easily, but this kind of trope doesn't end up well in games. in games you don't get that one chance of weakness to exploit, you just beat up the bad guy.
i'd agree with thejeff, gadgeteers like batman seem to have enough gadgets as a caster has spells, with the same type of versatility and utility they give him.
Using examples like Green Lantern or Iron Man as people who can stand up to villains with magical powers... hrm...
Okay. If Green Lantern is a Fighter, and he is facing a Wizard... what happens when that Wizard puts on the Iron Man suit?
Cause that's what Pathfinder allows. Anything a Fighter can buy, a Wizard can buy.
Naked, the Fighter can't compete with the Wizard. Not at high levels. To think otherwise is foolish and frankly rather ignorant.
@Jacob Saltband, I have seen this disparity since I started playing over twenty years ago, first in Dungeons and Dragons, now in Pathfinder.
I think the hybrid classes more or less solved the problem though, I LOVE Hunter, my goodness... so nice having an animal companion and free teamwork feats. :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK heres a question....
How long has the disparity been around. Is it more of a recent thing or has it been around all along?
I never felt it before 3.0 and I felt it got stronger in 3.5 because long term buffs got reduced to rounds/level. In 3.0 a frequent solution to out of combat problems in our games was to buff someone with a stat booster (bull's strength for example).
And before 3.0 the fighter was much stronger (better saves, more attacks, more damage relative to monster hp.) My 1st level dwarf fighter more or less singlehandedly killed a hill giant with just a little more than starting equip.
The dwarf then hid the club and approached the giant from the front telling him to leave the halflings alone.
When the giant tried to fetch his club, the dwarf attacked.
During the fight some Halfling slingers shot the giant but did not do much. But between his strong armor, a dex bonus, his shield and his defensive training the dwarf was nearly unhittable by the unarmed giant and killed him in the end.
Yes, allowing me to "steal" the club was some gm fiat because stealth as a skill did not exist back then.
And my equip was that good because I was on my way to join the party which was level 3 at that time.
edit: And the game has become more of a tabletop wargame since 3.5 which makes the disparity worse. Might be that this is just my personal experience but back then we often used up big amounts of game time just roleplaying things. Nowadays I get to hear that I shall not derail the adventure when I do that.
"do we want to waste more time describing how we walk or do we get back to business?" was a quote I recently got confronted with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's more of a problem on the message boards, than it is in actual play.OK heres a question....
How long has the disparity been around. Is it more of a recent thing or has it been around all along?
it's actually more of a problem for new players, everyone on the message board knows it exists and how to cope with it, be it gentleman's agreements to not be a dick(generally what you and your side have been advocating), or house rules to mitigate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's actually more of a problem for new players, everyone on the message board knows it exists and how to cope with it, be it gentleman's agreements to not be a dick(generally what you and your side have been advocating), or house rules to mitigate it.It's more of a problem on the message boards, than it is in actual play.OK heres a question....
How long has the disparity been around. Is it more of a recent thing or has it been around all along?
If at all it is a problem for new GMs, the player can't do anything about it. Especially not for the martial player.
If at all it is a problem for new GMs, the player can't do anything about it. Especially not for the martial player.it's actually more of a problem for new players, everyone on the message board knows it exists and how to cope with it, be it gentleman's agreements to not be a dick(generally what you and your side have been advocating), or house rules to mitigate it.It's more of a problem on the message boards, than it is in actual play.OK heres a question....
How long has the disparity been around. Is it more of a recent thing or has it been around all along?
i do count GM's as players... just saying.
If you are a goal oriented group instead of a mercenary company? Sure.Just stating the obvious really. Would someone take less then a equal share in real life? Of course not. Why would you? But I guess your group can give the fighter 2 shares if you want. I hardly think you can call that the norm though.When did you get appointed to make decisions and agreements for other gaming groups?And that agreement is that everyone gets equal shares.My caster getting the same share of the treasure as any other character is not a guideline.
How much share of treasure each party member gets is PURELY up to party agreement.
weird, now that I think about it, I generally do have a contract written up between members. people are allowed to call out specific items they want if they come up by writing it down on the contract, if everyone agrees then it's fine.
Easy. He won't be as effective with the iron man suit as the fighter would have been and it will cramp his spell casting something fierce.Using examples like Green Lantern or Iron Man as people who can stand up to villains with magical powers... hrm...
Okay. If Green Lantern is a Fighter, and he is facing a Wizard... what happens when that Wizard puts on the Iron Man suit?
Cause that's what Pathfinder allows. Anything a Fighter can buy, a Wizard can buy.
Naked, the Fighter can't compete with the Wizard. Not at high levels. To think otherwise is foolish and frankly rather ignorant.
@Jacob Saltband, I have seen this disparity since I started playing over twenty years ago, first in Dungeons and Dragons, now in Pathfinder.
I think the hybrid classes more or less solved the problem though, I LOVE Hunter, my goodness... so nice having an animal companion and free teamwork feats. :D
the ironman suit is an analogy for magic items, the wizard instead gets some rods some staves, bracers and amulets for AC, tons of wands and scrolls, blah blah blah
Easy. He won't be as effective with the iron man suit as the fighter would have been and it will cramp his spell casting something fierce.Using examples like Green Lantern or Iron Man as people who can stand up to villains with magical powers... hrm...
Okay. If Green Lantern is a Fighter, and he is facing a Wizard... what happens when that Wizard puts on the Iron Man suit?
Cause that's what Pathfinder allows. Anything a Fighter can buy, a Wizard can buy.
Naked, the Fighter can't compete with the Wizard. Not at high levels. To think otherwise is foolish and frankly rather ignorant.
@Jacob Saltband, I have seen this disparity since I started playing over twenty years ago, first in Dungeons and Dragons, now in Pathfinder.
I think the hybrid classes more or less solved the problem though, I LOVE Hunter, my goodness... so nice having an animal companion and free teamwork feats. :D
Alright alright, I didn't mean LITERALLY the Iron Man suit, I meant all the magic accoutrement you can buy with the gold that a Fighter uses just to try and stay relevant (Play a fighter without a magic weapon/armor, try it!).
There was no need to be deliberately obtuse about this, jeez.
Still stand by my love of the hybrid classes though, good solution to the disparity, in my opinion.
the ironman suit is an analogy for magic items, the wizard instead gets some rods some staves, bracers and amulets for AC, tons of wands and scrolls, blah blah blahEasy. He won't be as effective with the iron man suit as the fighter would have been and it will cramp his spell casting something fierce.Using examples like Green Lantern or Iron Man as people who can stand up to villains with magical powers... hrm...
Okay. If Green Lantern is a Fighter, and he is facing a Wizard... what happens when that Wizard puts on the Iron Man suit?
Cause that's what Pathfinder allows. Anything a Fighter can buy, a Wizard can buy.
Naked, the Fighter can't compete with the Wizard. Not at high levels. To think otherwise is foolish and frankly rather ignorant.
@Jacob Saltband, I have seen this disparity since I started playing over twenty years ago, first in Dungeons and Dragons, now in Pathfinder.
I think the hybrid classes more or less solved the problem though, I LOVE Hunter, my goodness... so nice having an animal companion and free teamwork feats. :D
Nice to know someone is understanding me.
Best way of sharing treasure I have seen yet:
1)Calculate value of treasure if sold
2)Divide total by number of party members-this is your 'credit'
3)Take turns 'buying' treasure with 'credit'-can also use gold if you don't have enough credit
4)Don't be a dick. If one item benefits multiple party members equally, discuss and look at overall party benefit. Use your brain.Most of the time, this simple method works.
It's funny, a lot of people on here seem to think WBL is a rule...
I've seen that, but then if one particular character happens to get slightly more treasure in one adventure they're forced to sell it following this rule. This almost always ends in dissatisfaction. Instead I've always seen groups migrate to "Items go to whoever they're most suited to. Those that no-one wants get sold and divied up with the gold to all players equally." We then trust in the GM to make sure that the party finds a suitable amount of treasure for each PC.
OK heres a question....
How long has the disparity been around. Is it more of a recent thing or has it been around all along?
In it's least extreme form: Since 3rd edition. In it's most extreme form: Since chainmail.
Many of the reasons that the game had been designed the way they were in AD&D either weren't realised when 3rd edition was created, were considered unimportant or were simply poorly implemented. E.g. Fighters were always meant to get more magic items than wizards. Then WotC introduced a standard WBL for all classes. They tried to compensate by making caster specific magic items more expensive but they didn't go far enough to replicate how it worked in AD&D.
I've seen that, but then if one particular character happens to get slightly more treasure in one adventure they're forced to sell it following this rule. This almost always ends in dissatisfaction. Instead I've always seen groups migrate to "Items go to whoever they're most suited to. Those that no-one wants get sold and divied up with the gold to all players equally." We then trust in the GM to make sure that the party finds a suitable amount of treasure for each PC.Best way of sharing treasure I have seen yet:
1)Calculate value of treasure if sold
2)Divide total by number of party members-this is your 'credit'
3)Take turns 'buying' treasure with 'credit'-can also use gold if you don't have enough credit
4)Don't be a dick. If one item benefits multiple party members equally, discuss and look at overall party benefit. Use your brain.Most of the time, this simple method works.
It's funny, a lot of people on here seem to think WBL is a rule...
your system breeds malcontent/resentment or jealousy, and can often make players feel like the GM is playing favorites.
it's not pretty when it happens, and it once again relies on having good in-game knowledge, inexperienced GMs will have more issues as they don't understand the imbalance or what is required for a character to perform.
your system breeds malcontent/resentment or jealousy, and can often make players feel like the GM is playing favorites.
My group plays the same way - gear goes to who needs it most. I haven't seen these problems you're suggesting it breeds.
your system breeds malcontent/resentment or jealousy, and can often make players feel like the GM is playing favorites.My group plays the same way - gear goes to who needs it most. I haven't seen these problems you're suggesting it breeds.
because you're experienced and i have in a less formal play i was part of once.
another time, i was playing something that needed very specific magic items, or more accurately most magic items weren't useful to me. I was playing a tananim Barbarian, which don't like to use armor, or weapons, or a lot of other things. the campaign fell apart but before it did i was pretty much as 1/4 WBL, because most of the items given people actually wanted to keep, so there wasn't stuff to sell for me to gain what i needed.
though this is anecdotal, so i don't like pressing it as evidence, simply the system shows faux favoritism and thus likes to breed false resentment or false jealousy.
your system breeds malcontent/resentment or jealousy, and can often make players feel like the GM is playing favorites.
Like I said, I've seen people willingly move to this system because the "everything get divided equally" does result in some less than desirable situations.
it's not pretty when it happens, and it once again relies on having good in-game knowledge, inexperienced GMs will have more issues as they don't understand the imbalance or what is required for a character to perform.
Sure. Trust between everyone involved to do the right thing is required. If people aren't mature, or don't know what they're doing with the game, then there'll be bad results. But as I said, I've seen groups start with the "everyone gets everything equally" willingly move to a "less equitable" system after time and experience within the group has established that trust.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AAAAAAAANYway, what i'm saying is magic items aren't a good counter for the imbalance unless you ignore pathfinder's recommended guidelines, meaning it's harder on new players, meaning the system could use some adjustment.
Best way of sharing treasure I have seen yet:
1)Calculate value of treasure if sold
2)Divide total by number of party members-this is your 'credit'
3)Take turns 'buying' treasure with 'credit'-can also use gold if you don't have enough credit
4)Don't be a dick. If one item benefits multiple party members equally, discuss and look at overall party benefit. Use your brain.Most of the time, this simple method works.
It's funny, a lot of people on here seem to think WBL is a rule...
I've seen that, but then if one particular character happens to get slightly more treasure in one adventure they're forced to sell it following this rule. This almost always ends in dissatisfaction. Instead I've always seen groups migrate to "Items go to whoever they're most suited to. Those that no-one wants get sold and divied up with the gold to all players equally." We then trust in the GM to make sure that the party finds a suitable amount of treasure for each PC.
Um... not a rule, an ingame agreement that our CHARACTERS have. It usually results in one character LENDING money to another so they can get the nice shiny we just found...
It hasn't caused one problem in 20+ years of play. If anything, it brings the characters together.
If some huge item shows up that no-one can afford, but it's awesome, they usually assign it to whomever benefits most from it, and work out a payment plan.
It's actually super fair. Every other system we have tried has failed. Having a GM tailor treasure takes away a lot of the fun, because you KNOW you are next in line for an upgrade if you are trailing behind the party...
Sometimes a level 1 character gets a +5 sword. It's freaking awesome, and always fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 1st ed., crafting was insanely difficult - you had to be very high level and jump through a lot of hoops, not just grab a feat. Likewise, it was assumed you couldn't just buy magic items (although you could sell them and count the proceeds as xp). So you made use of the stuff you could and sold the rest. Interestingly, a lot of the random results that weren't potions or scrolls ended up being... arms and armor. So, yeah, the AD&D rules were intentionally rigged so that martials ended up with the bulk of the gear. It should also be noted that every magic sword had an x% chance of being intelligent and able to heal the wielder, or let him teleport, or whatever -- so, sooner or later, your fighter was going to get handed those abilities on a plate.
And fighters had the best save progression, and automatically acquired armies, and could have a giffon or pegasus mount without the need for investing skill points in Ride or picking a cavalier artchetype or whatever. And they could move and full attack.
Meanwhile, casters' spells failed if they took 1 hp damage that round -- no concentration roll allowed, and a thrown dagger was much faster than a 3rd+ level spell. And you couldn't just copy spells into a spellbook -- you had to roll to see if you could learn them. And there were strict Int-based limits about how many spells total you could know, and no Int-boosting magic items. Also, spell DCs didn't scale with Int or spell level; they were a flat quantity.
Finally, 10th-14th was considered high level. Most adventurers retired by then, so you generally never saw 8th and 9th level spells in actual play.
So, although 1e was still somewhat imbalanced, it wasn't quite as bad as what we see starting in 3.0, because almost everything that used to balance things somewhat was intentionally removed.
A lot of us who grew up with that paradigm keep playing as if many of the old rules were still in place, even though they're not. The game functions pretty well if you do so. The many comments above regarding distribution of gear and "not being a jerk" is ample evidence of that playstyle working.
So, if they worked, why leave them out of the rulebook, instead of putting them back in? Or, if we feel that we actually are better off without them, why not introduce some other balancing methods in their place?
It's more of a problem on the message boards, than it is in actual play.OK heres a question....
How long has the disparity been around. Is it more of a recent thing or has it been around all along?
If the problem didn't exist, I wouldn't run my campaign in E8.