To the OP: I have it on good authority that PF 2 is coming out at the next gencon.I wasn't aware that Horror Adventures was going to be renamed PF 2.
You heard it here first. :)
|
Just to put a finer point on this current discussion, a PF 2nd edition will likely not make the Martial vs. Caster disparity any better than it is currently, whether you believe in it's existence or not.
To actually do the balance between classes that would level the playing field would be to revisit the 4dventure of a past edition already dropped, by company and players alike.
The way to make it less frustrating is to take away/pair out the feats that give away class features and not have magical items that do the same. Having Archtypes from the beginning of the game and changing how Prestige Classes are quantified and allowing them to be taken at earlier levels, or making them into Archtypes themselves would be a good start.
The combined and standardized magic casting system would also help free up design space, hence the main reason to adjust the Wizard to run spells as the current Arcanist does. Without, of course, the restrictive limited number of spells known and getting the next leveled tiered spells at later points in the level list. (Vancian casting "Fire and Forget" needs to be gone)
Remember this, Gandalf was not a wizard, he was an immortal being with powers. Him and those like him was at a number of 5. Disparity was a given at that point as a very basic need of the narrative. A major reason the ring was being searched and trying to find an owner was because one of those five had chosen to side with the opposing side of the "war."
When a PF ver2 does come our way, it won't be a basic restructuring and clean up of the rules, things will change and an update should make it easier for the new player to comprehend and figure out. What it won't be is a light version of the editions past.
Just to put a finer point on this current discussion, a PF 2nd edition will likely not make the Martial vs. Caster disparity any better than it is currently, whether you believe in it's existence or not.
To actually do the balance between classes that would level the playing field would be to revisit the 4dventure of a past edition already dropped, by company and players alike.
4E Fallacy. All we need is casters to be reined in some and something like Path of War, but for all martial classes. Which wouldn't look remotely like 4E at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4E Fallacy. All we need is casters to be reined in some and something like Path of War, but for all martial classes. Which wouldn't look remotely like 4E at all.Just to put a finer point on this current discussion, a PF 2nd edition will likely not make the Martial vs. Caster disparity any better than it is currently, whether you believe in it's existence or not.
To actually do the balance between classes that would level the playing field would be to revisit the 4dventure of a past edition already dropped, by company and players alike.
I should probably also point out that within the tiers things are reasonably balanced. In a party of Magus, Hunter, Bard, Inquisitor it is unlikely anyone is getting overshadowed if all players have at least an inkling of how to build decent characters. Likewise for Wizard, Shaman, Druid, Witch. Same thing for Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Bloodrager. Fighter, Rogue, Core Monk and Gunsliner aren't going to exactly blow each other out of the water without serious effort. You can take slices out of the system pretty easily and end up with a reasonably balanced game. It's only when you start pretending that a Fighter can stand beside a pouncing Dino Druid and that druid's pocket Big Cat without feeling utterly inadequate that you begin running into problems.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to put a finer point on this current discussion, a PF 2nd edition will likely not make the Martial vs. Caster disparity any better than it is currently, whether you believe in it's existence or not.
To actually do the balance between classes that would level the playing field would be to revisit the 4dventure of a past edition already dropped, by company and players alike.
You know, I really hate seeing people claim that we can't have balanced classes without every class being the same.
StarCraft is a wonderful strategy game that has been praised for over a decade on how balanced its three different races are, while still providing a unique play experience. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and answers threats in its own way. The answers aren't always easy; sometimes, it's a matter of recognizing that your opponent is working toward something you can't counter terribly well and applying pressure to prevent them from reaching that point. But the important bit is that there's always something you can do.
Achieving that sort of asymmetric balance is by no means easy, but it is possible. Tabletop RPGs have a bit more leeway than StarCraft, simply because they're not competitive games, but that doesn't mean that balance isn't a good goal to strive for.
Achieving that sort of asymmetric balance is by no means easy, but it is possible. Tabletop RPGs have a bit more leeway than StarCraft, simply because they're not competitive games, but that doesn't mean that balance isn't a good goal to strive for.
And as Snowblind pointed out, within the same tier most classes are fairly balanced, though I personally feel that tier 3 is especially well balanced. Take a party of Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, and Magus. They all have roles that they excel at can cover some of the others roles capably, and have some things that they need help covering. Despite this, they are very very different classes that play very differently.
|
Another vote for asymmetrical balance. Balance through symmetry is easy - but it's boring. It's fine for 1v1 games such as chess/go etc - but it's terrible for co-op games, and the main reason I didn't keep playing 4e.
Probably the easiest way for asymmetrical balance to work in a rpg is to simply make sure that no one steps on anyone's toes and have a strong rock-paper-scissors system.
Unlike Starcraft, not everyone SHOULD have an answer to every threat. The party as a whole should have an answer to every threat - not any given character. That's the biggest Wizard problem - they always do.
Making casters have the most raw power is fine - but casting should make them vulnerable so that they need their beefier buddies to keep them alive. Perhaps make the casters' preoccupation with magical energies unaware of their mundane surroundings and therefore inherently vulnerable to stealthy characters.
Have the general rock-paper-scissors be caster-stealth-warrior.
*shrug* Not saying that's the best solution - just showing that such an asymmetric solution is quite viable.
Another vote for asymmetrical balance. Balance through symmetry is easy - but it's boring. It's fine for 1v1 games such as chess/go etc - but it's terrible for co-op games, and the main reason I didn't keep playing 4e.
Probably the easiest way for asymmetrical balance to work in a rpg is to simply make sure that no one steps on anyone's toes and have a strong rock-paper-scissors system.
Unlike Starcraft, not everyone SHOULD have an answer to every threat. The party as a whole should have an answer to every threat - not any given character. That's the biggest Wizard problem - they always do.
Making casters have the most raw power is fine - but casting should make them vulnerable so that they need their beefier buddies to keep them alive. Perhaps make the casters' preoccupation with magical energies unaware of their mundane surroundings and therefore inherently vulnerable to stealthy characters.
Have the general rock-paper-scissors be caster-stealth-warrior.
*shrug* Not saying that's the best solution - just showing that such an asymmetric solution is quite viable.
+1
I like making casters dependent on martials and vice-versa. But, as CLH pointed out, casters often can overcome most things without anyone else.
I'd like to improve martials not so that they are = casters in all ways, but simply because the gap between what they can contribute diminishes as casters' increase.
a PF 2nd edition will likely not make the Martial vs. Caster disparity any better than it is currentlyI agree, but not for the same reasons. In fact, I'd wager the disparity grows even more.
It seems unlikely Paizo will address it so long as their official party line remains "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda."
I wonder what one has to do to get an invitation to this vast evil conspiracy?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can look at 2nd Edition which had a very different martial/caster balance dynamic, because spells had casting times (ticks on init) during which they were extra vulnerable to disruption (as if a readied attack in 3.x) and that time scaled based on spell level, so the higher the level spell, the more likely to have enemy attacks "go off" before/during the casting time... Weaker yet "faster" weapons like daggers also had their benefit, with acting earlier in Init (and getting in multiple attacks quicker) of course especially attractive to Rogues... Another balance dynamic that was ditched in 3.x (and RPPG).
That kind of amounts to "asymmetric balance", the removal of which, while seemingly "fair" since both weapons/spells had "speed" removed, ended up favoring spellcasting more. (as well as favoring big damage weapons, since their disadvantage vs. weak but fast weapons like daggers was removed for all intensive purposes, without being made up for by other means)
Likewise, it's a pretty simple change to current system to scale spellcasting time (action cost) based on spelllevel/maxspelllevel, so that spellcasting has a similar dynamic to martial's standard attack vs. full attack dichotomy, i.e. full-rounds are "necessary" to optimally "scale", but you can still get off standard round actions that are stronger when cast by a higher level character vs. a lower level character. That is more a "symmetric balancing" mechanic, but one I would find hard to argue against, since it is strange to play a game that distinguishes between Standard & Full-Rounds, yet Full-Rounds are largely superfluous to a large set of classes... i.e. an easy opportunity for "suppleness" is being thrown away.
I think there was clear reasons why 2ndEd-style casting/weapon speed was removed for ease of play, but similar dynamics can be retained via other mechanisms (at least re: spell/weapon dynamic, if not covering fast/slow weapon dynamic) that DON'T intrude on normal game play. Akin to martials adding an annotation for extra Iterative Attack (only on Full Attack), Casters can "adjust" the annotation of which spell levels they can cast as standard actions and which you need a full-round action to cast, with "application" during the game/in combat being simple and direct.
And then there was Paizo's decision to give casters more HPs, which on it's own was OK, but amounted to doubling down on 3.x's "gift to casters" (in removal of casting speed, on top of imposing standard vs. full-round dynamic on martials much heavier than on casters). Were casting speed & action cost scaling implemented, then boosting caster HP would seem OK, but on top of that, it's just further removing inherent balancing mechanisms to the game. The game once functioned with many balance mechanisms which gave suppleness to the game: Not only were spell slot limitations important, but there was tactical reasons why a lower level spell might be preferrable to a max level spell... i.e. trade-offs that martials face all the time with standard vs. full-attacks. I just don't see why that sort of dynamic can be considerd a good thing for martials, but not for casters.
a PF 2nd edition will likely not make the Martial vs. Caster disparity any better than it is currentlyI agree, but not for the same reasons. In fact, I'd wager the disparity grows even more.It seems unlikely Paizo will address it so long as their official party line remains "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda."
I wonder what one has to do to get an invitation to this vast evil conspiracy?
I'd say step one is probably to not exist.
|
|
a PF 2nd edition will likely not make the Martial vs. Caster disparity any better than it is currentlyI agree, but not for the same reasons. In fact, I'd wager the disparity grows even more.
Oh, I know that some of the reason would be from the perspective of keeping old sacred cows that feed the caster and takes away nice things from martials. My point is that keeping a class system would bring about obvious superior choices that martial characters would not have.
Balance can be achieved in other ways than hamstringing one type of class or the other and a new version would work on improvements and changes to the current system rather than completely route and rewrite it. (Like that 4dventure did)
The reasons are many, but I hope that the overall difference between the classes remain or becomes closer to being "equal" than the current rules set.
Truly, to really balance characters, one would use a system like HERO or GURPS instead and not have classes at all.
|
|
Truly, to really balance characters, one would use a system like HERO or GURPS instead and not have classes at all.
Wait... you think that point-buy systems have fewer balance issues than ones with classes do?
I... I don't even know how to respond to that. In theory I like point-buy systems. Balance is why I usually play d20 instead.
|
|
I don't know which point buy systems you have played. Having played Hero System. It's pretty balanced IMO. With the devs pointing out which elements can be overpowered. Contrast that with D20 where one has to figure that out by trial and error. Point but systems can like D20 be exploited by someone with enough system mastery. Nowhere near the level of D20 IMO.
Truly, to really balance characters, one would use a system like HERO or GURPS instead and not have classes at all.Wait... you think that point-buy systems have fewer balance issues than ones with classes do?
I... I don't even know how to respond to that. In theory I like point-buy systems. Balance is why I usually play d20 instead.
Yeah, while I love the flexibility of pure point buy systems, they do tend to have no shortage of balance issues.
As a general rule, the more options you give the players during character creation, the harder it is to keep all those options balanced with one another. By definition, freeform character creation is gonna have a lot more options than a class system.
It seems unlikely Paizo will address it so long as their official party line remains "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda."
Isn't that from the James Jacobs "ask" thread? That hardly counts as an official position - he puts a fair bit of effort into qualifying all his statements there (beyond Golarion canon) as personal opinion. Especially when they relate to the rules of PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rush Forever!! FTW!!!!!
It seems unlikely Paizo will address it so long as their official party line remains "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda."Isn't that from the James Jacobs "ask" thread? That hardly counts as an official position - he puts a fair bit of effort into qualifying all his statements there (beyond Golarion canon) as personal opinion. Especially when they relate to the rules of PF.
Unfortunately the C/M disparity isn't a rules issue it is a system "feel" issue. James seems to (rightfully) have a bunch of clout when it comes to system "feel" issues. Just ask SLAs about it.
Why would you need a second edition? They have updated rules several times in the several printings plus they just add unchained. The system is complete and flexible so it would make no sense.Profit. Money. And also flaws in the system that need to be fixed (I don't think anyone around believes Pathfinder is a flawless game).
Profit and money is only true if Paizo's major source of revenue was the Core Rulebook line. It clearly isn't. If you were around during 3.5 when the rules was at the center of Wizards of the Coast's business model, you saw what that meant: a frequent outpouring of hardcover books. Paizo's business model is more structured around adventures, particularly the APs, and subscriptions. Furthermore, they've branched the Pathfinder brand out in enough places that they have revenue coming in enough places that the core rules line doesn't need to be the center of their plan.
Continuing on this line of thought, what does an updated edition mean for Paizo? It means that all of their backlog is either incompatible with their new product (an updated edition) or that the consumer needs to do considerable work to "make it work." At any rate, releasing a new edition means devaluing all of their current Pathfinder product. Furthermore, it also means that in order to keep up with their Adventure Path model, the AP freelancers and developers will need to produce a product using rules that are still being tested. The AP writers who were around during the switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder occasionally talk about the stress that this change placed upon them. And from what we've heard from many of those same designers and developers, it happened again during Mythic Adventures, which required balancing around many not-yet-finished character options.
Now, your final reason, fixing flaws in the system, is an interesting one. The jump from to 3rd Edition D&D from the previous version did not, "Fix any flaws" in that former system; it threw out the old system in favor of something. 4th Edition threw out 3.5 and 5th Edition threw out 4th. In earnest, each of those editions was more like an entirely different game, with only 3.5 keeping the same basic rules as its predecessor. (I'm not talking about 1st, 2nd, or AD&D because those were made by a different publisher.)
So again, if we're being honest, Pathfinder Unchained is more of a P.5 then anything else we've gotten yet, and books like Pathfinder Unchained make more sense from a business perspective (and a fan perspective) then tossing out everything and starting from scratch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those of us who've been playing Pathfinder for 6 years have done so because we didn't want a new edition. We didn't want to play 4E. We wanted to keep the playing the game we loved, but better.
And, here's the other thing. Alexander is correct. Paizo's main outflux is their Adventure Path and Campaign Setting lines. Hardcovers are only out a few times a year. Many players' viewpoints are that, we've got the rules locked down. We want to have rules we know, so that we can "forget" about them, and concentrate on story. We don't want to keep buying new editions all the time. As long as Paizo keeps the books updated with errata, we're good. The rules are a means to an end. To tell a story. And that's what we love.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So again, if we're being honest, Pathfinder Unchained is more of a P.5 then anything else we've gotten yet, and books like Pathfinder Unchained make more sense from a business perspective (and a fan perspective) then tossing out everything and starting from scratch.
There is a major issue with the Unchained method though, since variant material such as those in unchained do not seem to really ever get support outside of third-party and a few stray things in player companions which (in my experience) are commonly banned wholesale in homegames just to save time from having to search through tonnes of books with wider balance ranges.
So again, if we're being honest, Pathfinder Unchained is more of a P.5 then anything else we've gotten yet, and books like Pathfinder Unchained make more sense from a business perspective (and a fan perspective) then tossing out everything and starting from scratch.There is a major issue with the Unchained method though, since variant material such as those in unchained do not seem to really ever get support outside of third-party and a few stray things in player companions which (in my experience) are commonly banned wholesale in homegames just to save time from having to search through tonnes of books with wider balance ranges.
Most of the options in Unchained don't need any support to work though. Maybe the classes could use some, but the skills systems, and the reduced casting system, and the anti-big 6 options-- what else do they need to work?
Not much, as near as I can tell.
Most of the options in Unchained don't need any support to work though. Maybe the classes could use some, but the skills systems, and the reduced casting system, and the anti-big 6 options-- what else do they need to work?
Not much, as near as I can tell.
The main issues are with classes yes. Like Unchained Barbarian being ridiculously less useful if the future rage powers aren't up the power level of the unchained rage powers, unchained monk not being up to scratch and immensely same-y without archetype support compared to the core monk + archetypes, rogue has the same issue as the unchained barbarian with new rogue talents being wastes of space to them, unchained summoner being screwed if it doesn't get material is especially damaging since you now have to play an unchained summoner if your playing PFS.
we do have occult skill unlocks in Occult Adventures
In all honesty, Unchained only came out this spring. I would expect tons of new material relating to those rules until a year after release, since by that point the developers might have a better idea of what is worth supporting and what isn't.
Something tells me Unchained isn't going to be getting any kind of future love. =/
Unchained Barbarian, no; the UnBar is so radically different than the base Barbarian that it already creates gigantic issues with existing material.
The UnMonk is, according to devs, going to be getting stuff that work with both it AND the base Monk.
The Unchained Rogue and Summoner are going to get options by way of their original ALSO getting options, since the UnSummoner is almost a complete replacement for the base Summoner, and the UnRogue is 100% a replacement for the base Rogue.
we do have occult skill unlocks in Occult Adventures
Note, despite the name occult skill unlocks have no relation to skill unlocks. They are both completely separate things, though I'm fine with this since both are neat mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately the C/M disparity isn't a rules issue it is a system "feel" issue. James seems to (rightfully) have a bunch of clout when it comes to system "feel" issues. Just ask SLAs about it.It seems unlikely Paizo will address it so long as their official party line remains "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda."Isn't that from the James Jacobs "ask" thread? That hardly counts as an official position - he puts a fair bit of effort into qualifying all his statements there (beyond Golarion canon) as personal opinion. Especially when they relate to the rules of PF.
He may well have influence in office discussions around inter-class balance (and perhaps his personal views line up with those of the design team). I just think it's misleading to label it an "official party line".
I don't think Paizo have made an official statement on whether there is a disparity in power between the martial and casting classes (or at least, if they have, it's not the often-cited one liner from the "Ask JJ" thread).
At the same time, there's been no indication that they ever plan to actually correct the disparity, and the PDT continues handing down more martial nerfs while leaving casters untouched or buffing them.
Admittedly, I have also seen members of the PDT advance the line that the martial/caster disparity does exist, and is intentional because magic should be better than mundane. The end result is the same either way: the PDT is highly unlikely to ever address the problem.
At the same time, there's been no indication that they ever plan to actually correct the disparity, and the PDT continues handing down more martial nerfs while leaving casters untouched or buffing them.
I, for one, would be interested to hear what the official party line is. I accept the arguments put forth by several forum-goers that it's a real thing. I'd be curious to hear a counterargument from the design team, or hear what other constraint they're operating under which clashes with any inclination they have to address it - I've always assumed it was ported over in the backwards-compatible days (given it existed in 3.5) and that they don't want to stray too far from the CRB assumptions.
Admittedly, I have also seen members of the PDT advance the line that the martial/caster disparity does exist, and is intentional because magic should be better than mundane. The end result is the same either way: the PDT is highly unlikely to ever address the problem.
Cool. That's basically my preference, but I didn't think it was popular among design afficionados.