One place I'll generally defend Paizo and Pathfinder is there take on class design that's to say that there's a wide variety and that I think that's a good thing. I don't think all classes should be equally capable in all situations. If they're not, then not all scenarios are going to be good for all players. If we could have an analogous literal music video version to class names, I think it would be kind of ridiculous to expect difference play experiences to what their name would be.
I do contend, in fact, that wizards can't "do anything." There are a lot of limitations on spellcasters and spellcasting. The spell that actually turns a caster into a fighter in terms of BAB and a few other things, transformation, cuts you off from your other spells.
Most options are available to most characters.
I do content, in fact, that wizards can't "do anything." There are a lot of limitations on spellcasters and spellcasting. The spell that actually turns a caster into a fighter in terms of BAB and a few other things, transformation, cuts you off from your other spells.
No, if a wizard just personally wanted to tear things apart they have shapechange and a load of other spells for that.
Transformation is actually considered a garbage spell for a long time now.
I'd say it's around 80-90%. There's still a significant portion of monster abilities that are completely irreproducible. Otherwise, yes, most things refer to class abilities or spell lists for how they work.
The contributing thing is probably best phrased as something other than PvP though, otherwise you're reusing the term with enough of a different meaning to cause problems. PvP competition (fighting against other player available abilities) versus PvP cooperation (using your abilities alongside other players).
As for "this game is not pvp", eh, it's definitely got elements of it. You probably can try to "program" the responses and challenges but it's always better with a GM running the opposition. It's certainly much more PvP than 4e monster design, which was "make up whatever you feel like within this attack/damage range". That the game doesn't have significant PvP is definitely a myth, but that the game itself is PvP... eh, maybe.
Don't forget specific AP hooks and effects. I don't think GMs would let players half summon something to set a trap.
I have to say that neither PvP nor PvE appropriately apply as terms here.
In fact I'm not sure the whole argument has any real merit whether arguing for better balance or not as the dynamic is of such difference as to make either concept not really applicable.
|
I gotta go to work now, but I wanted to open this discussion. I propose that 100% of combat in Pathfinder is PvP, always has been, always will be. Balance matters and what you are capable of bringing to your team matters because actually being able to do stuff is the only way you're going to contribute to your group's success outside of just trying to push your damage numbers (and damage is far from the end-all tactic).
I further propose that "this game is not pvp" is a myth.
I'd say it's around 80-90%. There's still a significant portion of monster abilities that are completely irreproducible. Otherwise, yes, most things refer to class abilities or spell lists for how they work.
The contributing thing is probably best phrased as something other than PvP though, otherwise you're reusing the term with enough of a different meaning to cause problems. PvP competition (fighting against other player available abilities) versus PvP cooperation (using your abilities alongside other players).
As for "this game is not pvp", eh, it's definitely got elements of it. You probably can try to "program" the responses and challenges but it's always better with a GM running the opposition. It's certainly much more PvP than 4e monster design, which was "make up whatever you feel like within this attack/damage range". That the game doesn't have significant PvP is definitely a myth, but that the game itself is PvP... eh, maybe.
Even when the GM is attempting to kill other players by playing NPCs, it is not player vs player. The basis in the claim is in mechanical functioning and the assumption that all enemies are NPCs with class levels. But NPCs function mechanicaly different than PC's in many ways. Only in the case of a GM throwing a competing PC party does the meta even approach the meta you would get in a pvp environment. And even then, the meta is likely slightly different because the GM was able to arrange for this meeting and prepare in ways no Player could.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The DM controls NPCs, but also, the world they live in.
You can have the same NPC, but with the right circumstances, she can be a challenge, a pushover, an ally, or nigh-undefeatable. Those circumstances can change, mid-combat.
The DM creates those circumstances.
To put it so simply as PvP, ignores this, I believe.
The players control but one aspect of the game, within it. Their PCs.
To say it boils down to PvP, is to suggest similar restrictions apply to the DM.
They do not.
I find myself wanting to disagree with Ashiel, but the more I try the more I find myself agreeing.
However, I'm not sure I understand everything clearly.
For instance Ashiel's point number 2. Does this refer to exploiting game mechanics as run by a computer? In such a case players are playing the metagame rather than the game itself; which is not as possible when your opponent is another player (or a Dungeon Master in the case of a Dungeons and Dragons game).
Also, what is an "aggro mechanic"?
As to point number 1, (and forgive me if this is off-topic) I expect classes should be somewhat balanced and as long as the designers have put some thought into it then I'm satisfied. I agree with what another poster once said, that class balance comes down to how much "wizard" you can stuff into a class. Fighters and rogues don't have much wizardyness so they come out on the bottom. I wouldn't expect anything more. The way I see it wizards are the embodiment of power. If you want to play a powerful character then play a wizardy class. If you want to play a fighter then expect not to be so wizardy.
However, in the end, I think much of the "imbalance" is over-inflated and I really don't experience it in my games. Not to say imbalance isn't experienced in my games, just that it's not as big an issue as some would seem to claim.
Also, what is an "aggro mechanic"?
An aggro mechanic is a design point for computer games that details out enemy behavior in combat, who shoudl they attack, how should they attack, etc.
This is usually determined by a value placed on player actions from healing, to damage to others.
The idea is, if a player wants a character to force an enemy to focus on them they use abilities and equipment that produces the highest value to force an enemy to attack them.
So, like in WoW you would use taunt and sunder armor to produce the highest aggro available. Highest aggro is extremely valuable to a character basing themselves on tanking since the better your aggro the more confident your damaging characters can be about letting loose without fear of attracting enemy attention that can murder them quickly.
For my paladin it was certain presences and blessings that made all my holy damage deal lots of aggro. At the time I was tanking this usually meant a bunch of close range things. This combined with their solid defenses made them well suited to tanking multiple enmies at once (hilarious when running through a dungeon with overgeared paladins and announcing kill orders in terms of groups).
Now Aggro mechanics do exist in pathfinder. However they exist in the form of player incentivization. For example in Path of War they exist through Armigers mark which forces an enemy to take severe penalties to attack rolls when no attacking the Warder that put it out.
Sure - a 20th level fighter isn't as threatening as a 20th level wizard and yet has the same starting point in terms of allocating experience points. I understand why inter-class disparity results in difficulties from the perspective of setting challenges and basing that selection off the level of the enemy.
I don't really see how it would be any different if the rules for building NPCs were substantially different from those for building PCs (which seemed to be Jiggy's summation of the point).
The often tone down high level wizard spellbooks, too. This is part of why I say no wizard knows every spell.
Schrodinger's Wizard is a myth propagated by the boards. In actual play Wizards of level 5 and over only have the perfect spell half the time, the other half of the time they have an excellent imperfect spell for the job.
Or they spend a few minutes to memorize the appropriate spell in the speedy pocket plane they have for the appropriate occasion depending on level.
Open slots are one of those things no one thinks of.
Regardless though the OP was not about Wizards. It was about the meta concept of who or what the player is actually against and how it is or is not factored into balancing player options when those same options are intended for use with NPC's.
The often tone down high level wizard spellbooks, too. This is part of why I say no wizard knows every spell.
I mean, no they don't. But just because Arkalion doesn't have say Ooze Puppet, which might be the *perfect* spell for a given situation, doesn't mean he doesn't have dozen of *good* spells or maybe only *decent* options for dealing with a given situation. Magic is very very flexible, Summon spells even more so.
Edit: Slayer'd by kyrt-ryder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see a 1st lv wizard vs a 1st lv fighter...
20 pt buy, core races, max starting cash.
Combat starts at 100' between combatants.
Who wants build the wizard and who wants to build the fighter?
That poor fighter.
I would like to see a 1st lv wizard vs a 1st lv fighter...
20 pt buy, core races, max starting cash.
Combat starts at 100' between combatants.
Who wants build the wizard and who wants to build the fighter?
Edit: sorry forgot to add any archtype but 3rd party.
You know... 1st level is so swingy, it might go both ways.
The Wizard is more likely to win initiative... And that maybe +3 on the Fighter's Will save is really bad. Of course, if the Fighter does make his save or gets to act first, he has a good chance of one-shotting the Wizard (mostly because pretty much everything has a chance of one-shotting anything at 1st level).
It's an all-or-nothing situation based mostly on luck and Initiative that it really doesn't add anything...
I'd bet on the Wizard, though. He's likely to have higher Initiative and a decent AC (14~16)... So the Fighter probably needs at least a 10 to hit him... And needs at least a 12 or so to make his Will save.
EDIT: Wait... They started 100ft away from each other? If this Fighter is not an archer, he doesn't stand a chance.