Don't get me wrong, when I build a character, even if it is just an NPC, I want it to be as mechanically well built as I know how. I also, though, want all my characters to have a genuinely interesting back story and realistic characterization. I know that there are people who want maximized character power, and who also love immersive story play. I've just never met any.
Don't get me wrong, when I build a character, even if it is just an NPC, I want it to be as mechanically well built as I know how. I also, though, want all my characters to have a genuinely interesting back story and realistic characterization. I know that there are people who want maximized character power, and who also love immersive story play. I've just never met any.
Well, if the above quoted text is true, then I'm sure you have. Every time you look in the mirror.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong, when I build a character, even if it is just an NPC, I want it to be as mechanically well built as I know how. I also, though, want all my characters to have a genuinely interesting back story and realistic characterization. I know that there are people who want maximized character power, and who also love immersive story play. I've just never met any.
I would probably fit into the "likes story and optimization equally", except most self-described heavy RP-ers probably wouldn't count me as such, since I tend to make up my characters' backstory rather quickly and on-the-fly, and my characters tend to be more or less everymen.
I've said before that most peoples' idea of "backstory" is something convoluted, melodramatic, and overly complex, and they tend to play their characters as grimdark drama characters who speak in painfully contrived & ultra-formal ways.
I summed this up as "You're playing Anakin Skywalker. Learn to play Han Solo, and you & everyone else will have a better time."
Don't get me wrong, when I build a character, even if it is just an NPC, I want it to be as mechanically well built as I know how. I also, though, want all my characters to have a genuinely interesting back story and realistic characterization. I know that there are people who want maximized character power, and who also love immersive story play. I've just never met any.Well, if the above quoted text is true, then I'm sure you have. Every time you look in the mirror.
Except for, in my own reckoning, there is a vast gulf between mechanically well built, and optimizing like you're running the rules through a juicer in an attempt to squeeze out every last bit of essential vitamins and nutrients, which is what I meant when I said "maximized."
Don't get me wrong, when I build a character, even if it is just an NPC, I want it to be as mechanically well built as I know how. I also, though, want all my characters to have a genuinely interesting back story and realistic characterization. I know that there are people who want maximized character power, and who also love immersive story play. I've just never met any.I would probably fit into the "likes story and optimization equally", except most self-described heavy RP-ers probably wouldn't count me as such, since I tend to make up my characters' backstory rather quickly and on-the-fly, and my characters tend to be more or less everymen.
I've said before that most peoples' idea of "backstory" is something convoluted, melodramatic, and overly complex, and they tend to play their characters as grimdark drama characters who speak in painfully contrived & ultra-formal ways.
I summed this up as "You're playing Anakin Skywalker. Learn to play Han Solo, and you & everyone else will have a better time."
Sometimes I like to play Uncle Owen.
|
1) I believe all powergamers and optimizers would end up with the same build with some slight variations. Because ultimate optimization is the goal, whatever the chassis, but this chassis is obviously superior to any other.
Other players would likely end up with very different builds. Because optimization for survival or being able to actually enjoy the game would already be granted by the class' basic abilities.
Now, if the ultimate build is really superior to a more casual build, all players will tend to go for the ultimate build just to ensure their PCs do not fall behind. Except of course for those who will be disgusted by the whole arms race mentality and denounce the use of the ultimate build (or even the class itself) as a sure sign of not being able to roleplay.
And then you are back to square one.
2) Almost Always : why limit your PC's abilities ? You can play the PC however you want after all regardless of the abilities. Unless there is a class feature from another class you really want to try.
That is obviously before the arms race mentioned above polarizes the community in optimizers (Always) vs roleplayers (Never). Aka back to square one.
This thread does have value then. My conclusion is that the goal of balance is to help people create a diversity of builds with not a one being clearly superior to others with respect to the player enjoying the game.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also - even at higher levels the 'floor' between class power levels aren't that bad - it's mostly the 'ceilings' which are terrible.I'll take your word for it that the floors are close to each other, but are the floors what people (even non-optimizers) actually end up building? I mean, if someone's grabbing whatever spells sound cool, then sure, they'll get some stinkers, but they're also probably grabbing some really strong options like fly and teleport.
So are the floors even worth comparing? I contend that they are not.
The ceilings' balance are very important - probably somewhat more important that the balance of the floors. However - in a perfect world both the floors AND the ceilings of the classes would be balanced. (Even less likely than perfect balance at either one - but still something to strive for.)
As to random picks being better - yes - that will happen. For those who don't enjoy pouring over books to optimize (I do :P) it's how they slowly make their way from the floor towards the ceiling. That's why I think that the balance at the ceiling is somewhat more important than at the floor, as very few peoples' optimization remains near the floor for long.
I think ease of optimization is very relevant as well though. For example, I've seen dozens of different players build Summoners who could own the game to the point that they could easily solo many andventures, by accident. People who had never "set foot" in a forum before were building control specialists with custom murder beasts or magical skill-monkey minions just by picking options that sounded cool. In a way, you might almost say the Summoner is actually a well-designed class (at least in this regard), in that it isn't difficult for any player to open a book and build a good one. There's other classes that have that same thing going for them, where they tell you what they are and they play really well without a whole lot of effort being put into them. I think Paladins fall into that category, Bards, Alchemists, Druids do to a certain extent, Barbarians, probably a few others.
Then you've got the other side of the fence, with classes that aren't particularly intuitive and that actually require a fairly large degree of system mastery to build and/or play well. The Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric, the traditional backbone of the game, can be the most difficult classes to actually approach their respective ceilings with, or even get off the floor without a little direction. It's fairly unlikely that you'll get anywhere close to the class' full potential just by picking the stuff that sounds cool, and there's a huge number of highly situational options that might sound cool but which may never actually come up in a given game. The spellcasters at least have the option of greater flexibility and the fact that each individual choice they make to choose something highly specialized probably takes up a much smaller percentage of their total resources though.
So that's probably another factor to consider for balance, not just "what is the ceiling/floor on this class' potential" but also "how difficult is it to approach that ceiling, and how low is the floor?" I would hazard a completely unscientific guess that 80%+ of the "martial/caster disparity is an issue" "shut up, no it's not" threads on these forums arise in no small part because so few people actually know what the various floors and ceilings actually are. For example, I remember listening to a group of PFS GMs at a major convention talking about how the Kineticist does too damage. True story, hand to God, "the Kineticist does too much damage". What would cause that belief? My theory is that they believed that because they were comparing someone's homemade Kineticist against the PF pregens, which are very close to the floor of the class in most instances. When you see the company saying "this is what a character should look like" it's natural for you to be leery when something shows up that's a step or two above that, and to suspect chicanery when it's 5 steps above.
Balance to me would be a world where I could take 5 people who hadn't played the game before, assign each of them a different class from any book in the core product line, pick 3 different levels like 5, 10, and 15, then lock them each in a room with no more than 2 source books and have them build their character at each of the selected levels with the expectation that everyone should have at least 2 character sheets for a character that will be roughly as competent and valuable to the group at its level as at least 3 other people's.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My conclusion is that the goal of balance is to help people create a diversity of builds with not a one being clearly superior to others with respect to the player enjoying the game.
Yeah - pretty much.
I think that the easiest way to do that is to have a blatant rock-scissors-paper system. That way - even if 'rocks' end up having the most raw power, there will be some 'paper' just to beat them. And since some people are playing 'paper', there will be a place for 'scissors'.
(For example: Pokemon did a surprisingly good job of that other than the 1st generation psychic type. While there was variation of power within the pokemon types - there was a place for nearly every type in every gen. Not that I'm in any way an expert in Pokemon.)
|
|
I think ease of optimization is very relevant as well though. For example, I've seen dozens of different players build Summoners who could own the game to the point that they could easily solo many andventures, by accident.
Yeah - Summoners are probably the biggest outlier of 'floors' being decently balanced. That's likely the reason for the U-Summoner and why the base one is banned in PFS.
|
|
Yeah - Summoners are probably the biggest outlier of 'floors' being decently balanced. That's likely the reason for U-Summoner and why the base one is banned in PFS.
I think ease of optimization is very relevant as well though. For example, I've seen dozens of different players build Summoners who could own the game to the point that they could easily solo many andventures, by accident.
Unchained Summoner still has a much better floor than a lot of other classes, they just helped trim it so it wasn't so obscene. Similarly, my experience has been that if I have a brand new player who wants to play "a Fighter", they will end up with a much better experience if I direct them to a Paladin or Barbarian, because those classes are easier to build and, generally speaking, have a much better chance of the thing that sounds cool also being useful. While Summoner is certainly an outlier, it does best illustrate the idea I was going for regarding classes whose floors and ceilings aren't so far apart.
Related to that, I've noticed that the less space a class has between its floor and ceiling, regardless of whether or not that ceiling is objectively lower than a number of other class', the more likely it is to suffer accusations of being "OP". Kineticists, Gunslingers, and Summoners all have smaller gaps between their floors and ceilings, and the Kineticist and Gunslinger definitely don't even come close to approaching the ceiling of, say, a Wizard or Cleric, but they're more likely to get called out as being too strong. I'm guessing this is due to the lack of anecdotal balance that happens. Wizards are okay, because there's always that one player with no idea what they're doing flinging fireballs at a red dragon or something equally ineffective, and that argument goes around for basically any other caster. Fighters are okay because everyone remembers that time one totally saved the party's bacon by Cleaving through 4 goblins while the wizard was just commanding his summoned monster to attack. The respective floors and ceilings are balanced in people's minds by the existence of each, but when you have a class that has fewer "I totally suck, please just kill me now" moments while still having some of those spotlight moments, you fixate on the spotlight and it becomes what that class "is always like", regardless of the truth of that perception.
I am happier with a situation where most classes have higher floors and lower ceilings on average, which is part of why I use a lot of 3pp materials in my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, I remember listening to a group of PFS GMs at a major convention talking about how the Kineticist does too damage. True story, hand to God, "the Kineticist does too much damage". What would cause that belief? My theory is that they believed that because they were comparing someone's homemade Kineticist against the PF pregens, which are very close to the floor of the class in most instances. When you see the company saying "this is what a character should look like" it's natural for you to be leery when something shows up that's a step or two above that, and to suspect chicanery when it's 5 steps above.
Apropos only to this side note and not the general discussion, I seem to recall your experience was at PAX Prime, in which case, everybody was a pregen, so the kineticist in question was pregen Yoon. I've seen and heard the same things from some GMs (including those GMing for pregen Yoon), even though I'm pretty sure the kineticist is balanced against producing truly over-the-top damage. But there's a reason, I think:
To swing it back towards the general discussion, it's not a pregen vs home character dichotomy but instead a demonstration of the other point you made in the same post about floors and ceilings. The kineticist seems to have a relatively high floor while having a ceiling lower than the top damage dealers, which accounts for both the observations of kineticists outshining in lower-optimization situations with low damage outputs, and kineticists not keeping up with the damage in games so far above the expected baselines that players in those games scoff at many of the characters in the DPR Olympics thread as being underoptimized and think that an appropriate baseline for the minimum "viable" damage a character deals before buff spells or ally assistance is "at least 50% of a CR equivalent creature's hit points per round and 25% of a CR+3 creature's hit points per round," a baseline that I have seen thrown around a few times, but one that would lead to one round battles if encounters were being built at the expected CRs. Likely those latter groups also increase the level of the challenge in their games, and the former groups might softball creature tactics or use lower-level encounters when they can.
So, as you have correctly divined (and stated in the past too), balance is a super-protean and difficult beast to tackle because of those differences between groups. And even putting it on an axis of "low op vs high op" is simplifying things, since one group might build weaker characters but use better tactics, among other possible ways that things could become nuanced into all sorts of different dimensions of analysis.
EDIT: Between when I started writing this and finished, you noted the same point in a later post (kineticists having a higher floor). Guess I could have saved the trouble!
|
|
*lots of good stuff*
Anecdotally, Yoon is one of the back up characters I always keep a few extra character sheets for at various levels in case a player wants to jump in to a game I'm running. I think the higher floor and relative ease of play make her a great intro character for people unfamiliar with the game. Melee thugs are great and all, but I like having people use a simple to play class that still teaches them about things like resource management, ranged tactics, energy resistance, etc. I find it helps create a broad comfort zone and makes them less likely to hunker down into the "just give me something that can punch/chop/stab things" playstyle.
And even putting it on an axis of "low op vs high op" is simplifying things, since one group might build weaker characters but use better tactics, among other possible ways that things could become nuanced into all sorts of different dimensions of analysis.
I call that the "teamwork feat variable". It's when something seemingly inconsequential gets used to incredible effect, drastically changing predicted outcomes. It's why, even in very high op groups, you may still see classes like the Cavalier manage to secure an MVP spot. Sometimes players figure out how to take even very simple and limited tools and use them to build an atom bomb, or a food synthesizer.
I think it would be easier to develop for the median if you could reduce the number of interacting rules elements to some degree. If, for example, you were to compress feats such that one feat covered a theme in its entirety instead of half a dozen accomplishing the same, then you would be better able to anticipate the consequences of further development by having the rules your developing around being all in one spot.
The above was just an example of reducing rules interaction, not necessarily the only way to go about it.
The floor vs ceiling thing being talked about here isn't really important to balance. What a class is at their maximum is important.
It isn't relevant that Bob fighter with 10 feats in skill focus isn't strong, but it is relevant that I'm not allowed to cast some wizard spells because the game breaks if you do.How hard a character is to build is important, yeah. That us more of a general game design issue, separate from balance.
Also, mark, remember back in the day when you said you would write a blog post fixing simulacrum? Those were the days
Floors here don't mean literal floors (taking all Skill Focus in irrelevant skills, dumping the class's key stat, etc) but rather "Someone trying to make a character effective at their role but the player is not skilled at doing so, selecting things that look like they would be good for the role / sound cool regardless of whether they are effective in combination".
I wrote the draft of the simulacrum blog post before writing the light and darkness one because I personally am more interested in it (last modified Friday March 13th vs Wesdnesday March 25th, since I was interested in seeing when). But I only got the blog slot once for that series of blogs, so when I did, I picked the one that was more frequently asked and more useful to more people's games (light and darkness, by a lot).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Floors here don't mean literal floors (taking all Skill Focus in irrelevant skills, dumping the class's key stat, etc) but rather "Someone trying to make a character effective at their role but the player is not skilled at doing so, selecting things that look like they would be good for the role / sound cool regardless of whether they are effective in combination".
This is important too, because if Paizo were to theoretically attempt to address the balance issue, how people play and perceive the game to work is very relevant. The reality is that while those of us who can actually hit the ceilings on most classes are often the most vocal on the boards, we're a pretty small minority of the actual players, and even we can't agree on what we want. Do we want all Fighters to have equal capabilities to Wizards, or do we want Wizards nerfed down closer to Fighters? Some mixture of the two? Exactly what level do these changes need to be made at? Some people will say 1st level, others will say 5th, 7th, 15th... Floors are just as important to discuss as ceilings, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than that more people play near the floor.
It's also important because I think the expectations of the game have shifted a bit, or maybe in some ways even gone back to their roots, in that a lot of people expect their PC to be more powerful than a normal human being, regardless of class, even at 1st level. You've got younger generations who grew up with things like World of Warcraft, where there is no such thing as "mundane" and you expect even your human Warrior to be able to bounce his shield off multiple enemies, move across the battlefield at startling speed while attacking enemies, etc., players who grew up with Magic: the Gathering and build their Wizard spell lists the same way they build a deck, and even many old school players will recall that in AD&D dwarves could launch mountains into space as giant interstellar fortresses, elves had biomechanical space-traveling armored suits that were practically Gundams, and gnomes had space observatories powered by giant space hamsters. That shit happened, I was there. You'll find that people's game worlds will stretch anywhere from Conan-esque worlds where the most dangerous monsters are giant scorpions and dinosaurs, to worlds where gnomes in power suits have a peace treaty with elven druids who raise hydras in biodomes and engage in corporate espionage against hobgoblin CEOs.
So, floors and ceilings are equally relevant, because it factors into what kind of games people want to play, what kind of games people are playing, and how well the game supports them.
Here's a hypothetical- what if, instead of changing anything about the game, Paizo said right up front "Different classes may not be appropriate for all types of games. Here's a list of the classes we have on offer, with a description of the kinds of games they are intended for."
Such a list might say something like:
Fighter: Low fantasy. Works best against foes with limited or no magical abilities, requires other party members to assist in most tasks.
Cavalier: Low and Standard fantasy. Has some abilities that may seem extraordinary in nature. Can participate in and out of combat, but may need assistance from other classes in some aspects of play. Cavaliers in Standard fantasy settings should gain access to flying mount options at 7th level.
Wizard: Standard to Epic fantasy. Routinely breaks the laws of reality as we know them. May gain access to abilities that will seem near deity level in a Standard fantasy world, particularly during levels 10 and up. Can participate in any aspect of play.
Obviously that's just a rough and dirty, but pretend that those classifications existed in the CRB, and every feat and spell was denoted with a marker indicating whether it was designed for a Low, Standard, High, or Epic Fantasy world. Would you be okay with imbalance if they came right out and told you "Fighters simply don't belong in a High Fantasy world, please see the Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin"? Because right now, the game tries to encompass everything from classic Conan to Naruto: Shippuden, and some of those ideas simply don't belong together, which is where a lot of trouble comes from.
If that (I daresay more honest) classification system existed up front, it might even up new avenues of design. A designer could potentially say "For this project, I'm building an Epic fantasy archetype for the Fighter that can travel overland Hulk style with mile long leaps and cleave mountains like Chu Culain" or "I'm making a Low fantasy Wizard archetype that only gets access to two schools of magic and has half the spell slots, but gets light armor proficiency and can use its Intelligence modifier on attack rolls".
That could potentially make it easier to create better inter-party balance (Low Fantasy options belong with Low, Epic with Epic, High Fantasy can fit in either Standard or Epic, etc.), while preserving the game's ability to cater to a huge array of game types. My experience would indicate that problems arise when classes with completely different floors and/or ceilings try to pretend they all belong together. A brand new player is going to think the Kineticist is really strong because it's a Standard - High fantasy class, while the Fighter is Low fantasy. The Wizard is so hard to quantify because the setting he fits in is almost entirely dependent on his options. If we knew up front that the Fighter wasn't really intended to play in a High fantasy game without having access to High fantasy feats or options, and if Wizard spells were noted as belonging to a certain classification (For example, wish could be classified as "Epic fantasy" with a subnote that says "If allowed in a Standard or lower fantasy game, this spell should be treated as a special ritual rather than a standard spell, with availability similar to a lesser artifact"), you could probably achieve "balance" without changing much, if anything.
|
|
I think it would be easier to develop for the median if you could reduce the number of interacting rules elements to some degree. If, for example, you were to compress feats such that one feat covered a theme in its entirety instead of half a dozen accomplishing the same, then you would be better able to anticipate the consequences of further development by having the rules your developing around being all in one spot.
The above was just an example of reducing rules interaction, not necessarily the only way to go about it.
It would make it easier - but symmetry/standardization always makes balance easier and asymmetry/customization always makes it harder. However, all other things being equal - more asymmetry/customization makes for a more interesting game.
This is especially true for a co-op game such as an RPG.
Im not sure how you got symmetry/standardization from feat concentration. If anything, I would think that players would have a far more diverse array of tools to employ individually instead of having one asset that gets all their resources. If I want to play a warrior who fights well with two weapons, why must it occupy so much of my character growth? this makes for very poor versatility and does nothing for the relative balance because the two weapon fighting ceiling(power neutral) is the same as it was before.
I dont think that asymetrical design naturally leads to more customization. Look at the incredible number of feats that add nothing but percentile advantages to help assure certain results rather than offering a new approach altogether. This game is very asymetrical, but I would say customization is on the lower end of the scale.
This is important too, because if Paizo were to theoretically attempt to address the balance issue, how people play and perceive the game to work is very relevant. The reality is that while those of us who can actually hit the ceilings on most classes are often the most vocal on the boards, we're a pretty small minority of the actual players, and even we can't agree on what we want. Do we want all Fighters to have equal capabilities to Wizards, or do we want Wizards nerfed down closer to Fighters? Some mixture of the two? Exactly what level do these changes need to be made at? Some people will say 1st level, others will say 5th, 7th, 15th... Floors are just as important to discuss as ceilings, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than that more people play near the floor.
I got to say, this has been something I have been mulling over in the back of my head for the last few days, and is a perfect summation of my thoughts. Even within the contingent of players that perceives caster-martial disparity as a problem, I think you would find that amongst those contingent there is little agreement on the extent of the problem or what needs to be done to resolve it.
I also do like the idea of having some sort of system that identifies the "appropriateness" of a particular class for certain styles of play. It would (maybe) reduce some of the grar on this thread if you could designate a style of play and create classes that fill those expectations. It's obvious the low fantasy fighter and the superman fighter might fill similar niches, but would not appeal to the same people. Forcing down on one trope or another is just going to tick people off that their "vision" is not the supported one, just leading to more arguments about buffing/nerfing, which...we hardly need more of.
|
|
Im not sure how you got symmetry/standardization from feat concentration. If anything, I would think that players would have a far more diverse array of tools to employ individually instead of having one asset that gets all their resources. If I want to play a warrior who fights well with two weapons, why must it occupy so much of my character growth? this makes for very poor versatility and does nothing for the relative balance because the two weapon fighting ceiling(power neutral) is the same as it was before.
See - that's not what you said at all before. You said - "If, for example, you were to compress feats such that one feat covered a theme in its entirety instead of half a dozen accomplishing the same". I read that as combining - for example - Toughness/Great Fortitude/Defensive Combat Training/Deathless feats/Ironhide/etc into one feat since they all represent being beefy & hard to hurt.
However - I still disagree in general - as splitting up the more potent abilities into smaller chunks allows for lesser abilities to be feats - as each feat's cost would have the same power level. (Not that I always agree with HOW they're split up. I just like it from a core game design standpoint.)
I dont think that asymetrical design naturally leads to more customization. Look at the incredible number of feats that add nothing but percentile advantages to help assure certain results rather than offering a new approach altogether. This game is very asymetrical, but I would say customization is on the lower end of the scale.
I never said that asymmetry leads to customization. I was grouping the two separate things in my argument as both making balance harder & the game more interesting. (Though decent customization inherently leads to at least a bit of asymmetry.)
However - while there is some standardization in Pathfinder once you get a class/race & combat style picked (assuming you're a decent optimizer) - many other games don't even have that much customization to begin with.
|
It's disheartening to hear so many people talk about balance in terms of damage output, because I've never thought of tabletop RPGs that way. Save the DPS talk for video games. Also, who really cares about which character does the most damage in a cooperative, role-based game? There's no PvP in Pathfinder (and most tabletop RPGs), so who cares if one class can deal 10% more damage than another?
When I talk about RPG balance, it's about any given player's ability to meaningfully contribute to an adventure. Yes, sometimes that's dealing damage, but more often it's all the other stuff - skills, spells, interaction, problem solving, equipment, planning, etc.
Remember: The first rule of RPGs (or any hobby, really) is to have fun, so the primary goal should be to ensure that no one ever sits there thinking, "This is boring."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I talk about RPG balance, it's about any given player's ability to meaningfully contribute to an adventure. Yes, sometimes that's dealing damage, but more often it's all the other stuff - skills, spells, interaction, problem solving, equipment, planning, etc.
Remember: The first rule of RPGs (or any hobby, really) is to have fun, so the primary goal should be to ensure that no one ever sits there thinking, "This is boring."
I admit I haven't read every single post in this thread, but my understanding is that most people asking for game balance mean the exact same thing you're saying here. That's where terms like "narrative agency" come in; they're mostly used in balance discussions.
Who's talking about "balance" being mainly about damage?
|
|
When I talk about RPG balance, it's about any given player's ability to meaningfully contribute to an adventure. Yes, sometimes that's dealing damage, but more often it's all the other stuff - skills, spells, interaction, problem solving, equipment, planning, etc.
Remember: The first rule of RPGs (or any hobby, really) is to have fun, so the primary goal should be to ensure that no one ever sits there thinking, "This is boring."
I admit I haven't read every single post in this thread, but my understanding is that most people asking for game balance mean the exact same thing you're saying here. That's where terms like "narrative agency" come in; they're mostly used in balance discussions.
Who's talking about "balance" being mainly about damage?
I just went back through and reread the thread, and other than some comments between me and Mark discussing the way people view the Kineticist's damage, which was an easy reference point used in the broader context of class floors and ceilings, I'm not seeing anything. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread has been focused on the broader picture of narrative agency / utility. Damage is actually pretty well balanced in the core game, at least in the context of raw numbers, though sometimes the ability to actually deliver said numbers ties into the broader discussion of class balance, as does the value of higher variations.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been in multiple discussions before where people were pining for better narrative agency and out-of-combat, interact-with-the-world types of abilities across certain classes because they were tired of having nothing to do but deal damage when playing those classes; and then others would come in with "Obviously you're too focused on trying to squeeze out every last point of damage instead of actually roleplaying," when the discussion had actually been the complete opposite of that.
I was hoping Headfirst's comment wasn't yet another example of that, so I wanted to give him a chance to elaborate. After all, 125 posts in, I can very easily miss things. :)
|
|
I just went back through and reread the thread, and other than some comments between me and Mark discussing the way people view the Kineticist's damage, which was an easy reference point used in the broader context of class floors and ceilings, I'm not seeing anything.
Like many of you, I've been involved in dozens of threads that discuss game balance, too. Sorry for the confusion; I was referring to the discussion at large, which often includes a sizable segment of the customer base comparing damage output as the primary means of comparing classes and other game features.
So what's the point of this thread? I had hoped to turn the debate about balance to a better dead end than it usually ends up leading to. Given the restriction to (or inclusion of) a "hero" class that is unmistakably more powerful and versatile than any other, a lot of the respondents in this thread seemed to indicate that people would still naturally gravitate toward classic fantasy RPG roles, playing the kind of character they want to play instead of worrying too much about raw power. This is encouraging, and it's exactly the place where I wanted to end up myself.
I'm not sure anyone else agrees, but for my part, this is the argument and proof I'll be offering the next time my home table gets into this debate.
|
|
I'm not sure anyone else agrees, but for my part, this is the argument and proof I'll be offering the next time my home table gets into this debate.
Except that it's a flawed premise if you're using it as a proof that balance doesn't matter much.
In the most straightforward flaw - power level isn't the ONLY reason pick a class - but it's still is one.
Ex: I don't know of anyone who would play a Core rogue when they had the option to play a U-rogue, as in that case power level is the only variable.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of people were actually pointing out that the mechanics of the game would still force you to specialize within the Hero chassis, and that classes who aren't Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, or Rogue would still have a place because they do things that the "Hero" doesn't cover, in much the same way people choose the Magus over Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight because the Magus is better at blending combat and spellcasting while the EK still has to choose between the two.
In fact, a quick tally says that-
3 people wouldn't even speculate on the use of your class because it would be banned for being OP.
2 people think it wouldn't be used because it fails to capture any particular concept, and they want classes that inform their roleplay.
7 think it would be 50/50 between that class and others that provide tools outside its scope. (I included N. Jolly and myself in this category even though it's something of a gross simplification of our views.)
5 people believe it would become the flat out default.
Sooo.... No, this thread isn't really proving your hypothesis at all.
Also, you've been operating under a dishonest premise. You posed questions that don't actually have any direct connection to the topic stated in the thread title, people pointed this out to you but still tried to give honest and thought out answers to both answer your questions and explain why they didn't address your hypothesis, Jiggy pointed out that you were intentionally trying to create a situation where you could twist people's words to "prove" your point, you insisted you weren't, and now you admit that that was exactly what you were doing-
So what's the point of this thread? I had hoped to turn the debate about balance to a better dead end than it usually ends up leading to. Given the restriction to (or inclusion of) a "hero" class that is unmistakably more powerful and versatile than any other, a lot of the respondents in this thread seemed to indicate that people would still naturally gravitate toward classic fantasy RPG roles, playing the kind of character they want to play instead of worrying too much about raw power. This is encouraging, and it's exactly the place where I wanted to end up myself.
I'm not sure anyone else agrees, but for my part, this is the argument and proof I'll be offering the next time my home table gets into this debate.
The majority of what people have said here can be accurately summed up as-
A) People would still have different builds within the class because the game requires that certain roles be filled, and even in the chassis of your "Hero" it would be difficult to wedge in all the tools to fill all the game's needs effectively. The feats and spells that support a healer/buffer are different than those that support a blaster/controller, the options needed to be a good hammer are different than those needed to be a good anvil, etc.
2) Classes other than "Hero" would still be selected because Hero lacks tools that are often critical to a class' power or effectiveness. There are things that the Magus, Alchemist, Druid, Summoner, Ranger, Paladin, Witch, and others do that your Hero doesn't, and because of these abilities and synergies created by their class features, they are arguably more powerful in a variety of situations than the Hero, who is still limited by action economy and character resources.
I'm not sure anyone else agrees, but for my part, this is the argument and proof I'll be offering the next time my home table gets into this debate.Except that it's a flawed premise if you're using it as a proof that balance doesn't matter much.
In the most straightforward flaw - power level isn't the ONLY reason pick a class - but it's still is one.
Ex: I don't know of anyone who would play a Core rogue when they had the option to play a U-rogue, as in that case power level is the only variable.
That holds true for many/most choices where you have Option A Version 1, and Option A Version 2.
Given the option of using a Pathfinder Barbarian and its D&D 3.5 version, almost everyone will go for the Pathfinder one because it's a straight-up upgrade and adds more versatility.
---
However, some people see this and apply this reasoning as "when given a choice of options, almost everyone will go for the strongest option of all" which isn't true at all.
Take the Sorcerer and the Wizard - the classic example since d20 was created.
Few experienced players will deny that the Wizard is, in practice, far more terrifying than a Sorcerer, due in large part to the theoretically-unlimited number of spells they can prepare.
The "common sense" wisdom is that the Wizard, therefore, would be chosen over the Sorcerer almost any day of the week.
However, in practice, Wizards and Sorcerers are actually played in about equal amounts, even by experienced players and optimizers, for the sole reason that most players have a certain concept in mind when they're creating characters, and will choose the options that best fit that concept first, and THEN optimize for effectiveness after.
---
In the course of optimizing a concept, some aspects of the original concept will be discarded when it becomes obvious that those aspects end up noticeably weakening the character or making them far less effective in their more-useful aspects.
But, overall, the vast majority of players don't care if they're the "most effective;" "effective enough" is what tends to be where players would preferably set their characters' overall power, and even very few experienced optimizers will completely forego their core character concept to merely eek out a few more points of damage, getting a spell's success rate from 98% to 100%, etc.
There are, of course, players that DO care about getting the most DPR possible, the most unstoppable spells possible, and everything else that can be quantified, but they're an extremely small minority of players.
These are the players who "play to win," and whether you consider that a derogatory statement or not is up to you; that is what it is, and that's all - it's another style of play that some people find okay while others don't, and it's up to you and your group to decide if that's a playstyle you're all fine with.
---
Making an "omni-class," however, will neither create balance nor stop players from trying to build around a concept. It will actually do NOTHING to stop optimization at all, and end up simply preventing people from making mechanically-disparate characters.
It's a rule of game design that so long as there are 2 options, 1 will be "optimal" while the other will be "suboptimal."
In highly-competitive games, most players will choose the "optimal" options or counters to the "optimal" options, rather than go with their personal taste, because the entire goal is to beat others.
But since Pathfinder is a cooperative game, rather than a competitive game, and is heavily based around the enjoyment of playing a character for the sake of playing a character or just playing with a group of friends, most people won't be overly concerned with choosing the absolutely-most "optimal" options, and instead will choose a mix of options that they personally like and options which make the best use of those personal choices.
People like to play D&D and Pathfinder BECAUSE there are a wide variety of classes that all look, act, and mechanically ARE very different than one another.
One of the major complaints about 4E was how no classes had any actual mechanical differences than one another - unlike 3.5 or Pathfinder where Vancian spellcasters like a Wizard acted far differently than a Barbarian, which acted differently than a pseudo-caster like a Warlock/Kineticist, which acted differently than a Ki-based character like a Ninja.
Trying to make a game "balanced" by forcing everyone to play the same thing will just stifle creativity and do little to actually balance the situation, because there will ALWAYS be "better" or "more effective" options than others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of digressing away from the general discussion of balance. I think Ssalarn and Jiggy covered most of what I feel about that.
... think that an appropriate baseline for the minimum "viable" damage a character deals before buff spells or ally assistance is "at least 50% of a CR equivalent creature's hit points per round and 25% of a CR+3 creature's hit points per round," a baseline that I have seen thrown around a few times, but one that would lead to one round battles if encounters were being built at the expected CRs. Likely those latter groups also increase the level of the challenge in their games, and the former groups might softball creature tactics or use lower-level encounters when they can.(Italics mine.)
That's roughly where the PFS pregens Amiri and Valeros are at 1, 4, and 7. Even Harsk hits that at 1 and 4, and he and Seelah are both in there or better when they're against favored enemies or smiting (and Harsk isn't using his crossbow.) Even the NPC codex full BAB NPCs are in that neighborhood, and they have NPC wealth and 15 point buys, don't they? Merisiel, Sajan and Kyra are about half that.
Don't want to get too caught up in a tangent, but no, they don't hit that, or else you would see the pregens annihilating PFS scenarios. Valeros, Seelah, et al do about half that.
Yoon7, the kineticist pregen, does, by the numbers, 32.775 damage at range to both the CR 7 and the CR 10 target, and she can set them on fire as well, though with a party of blockers in the way, her damage goes down from that in practice if she's at range due to cover and firing into melee, and it doesn't take into account the possibility of SR.
|
|
Don't want to get too caught up in a tangent, but no, they don't hit that, or else you would see the pregens annihilating PFS scenarios. Valeros, Seelah, et al do about half that. ** spoiler omitted **...Kind of digressing away from the general discussion of balance. I think Ssalarn and Jiggy covered most of what I feel about that.
... think that an appropriate baseline for the minimum "viable" damage a character deals before buff spells or ally assistance is "at least 50% of a CR equivalent creature's hit points per round and 25% of a CR+3 creature's hit points per round," a baseline that I have seen thrown around a few times, but one that would lead to one round battles if encounters were being built at the expected CRs. Likely those latter groups also increase the level of the challenge in their games, and the former groups might softball creature tactics or use lower-level encounters when they can.(Italics mine.)
That's roughly where the PFS pregens Amiri and Valeros are at 1, 4, and 7. Even Harsk hits that at 1 and 4, and he and Seelah are both in there or better when they're against favored enemies or smiting (and Harsk isn't using his crossbow.) Even the NPC codex full BAB NPCs are in that neighborhood, and they have NPC wealth and 15 point buys, don't they? Merisiel, Sajan and Kyra are about half that.
I'd guess that Akerlof forgot to include hit/miss chances in his #s.
I have played with various groups and seen weaker choices taken, even though people knew they were not the best choice. Now in the forums there is more of a nod towards power because people tend to discuss the "best" build.
What you see in the forums is not neccesarily representive of real table play.
As an example, I am pretty much "this is the rule" in the rules forum, but in the game I sometimes allow players exceptions to the rules.
As a player I am more likely to not take the "best" option, but if I am giving advice I tend to give my opinion on the best mechanical option.
|
|
It was made as an attempt to gather ammunition to use in a later argument, as you've admitted earlier on this page.
I think that might be the root of the confusion here. There is no argument (at least not one I'm participating in) and I'm not "gathering ammunition" for anything. As stated in the subject, this was just a thought experiment for my own benefit. I'm sorry if some of you got really upset and offended by it. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
Maybe it's because so many of the threads in these forums (especially those on this subject) tend to devolve into sarcasm and name-calling. Sorry, but I won't be doing any of that. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no argument (at least not one I'm participating in) and I'm not "gathering ammunition" for anything. ... I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
this is the argument and proof I'll be offering the next time my home table gets into this debate.
|
|
There is no argument (at least not one I'm participating in) and I'm not "gathering ammunition" for anything. ... I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.this is the argument and proof I'll be offering the next time my home table gets into this debate.
Hmm, I see your confusion. We've got two different uses of the term "argument" here. Also, the first quote refers to this thread, the second quote refers to my "home table," which has nothing to do with any of you.
Why are some of you so concerned about my takeaway from this discussion thread?
Here's a quick question for all of you theory-crafters out there.
Imagine Pathfinder had only one class. Let's call it "hero." The hero class has these basic features:
- 1d12 hit dice
- Full BAB
- All good saves
- 8 skill points per level with all skills treated as class skills
- Proficiency with all weapons, armor, and shields.
- Full wizard spell progression
- Full cleric spell progression
- At every even numbered level, the hero gets a bonus feat.
So my question is: Given access to only the hero class, do you think most players would build their characters in almost the exact same way, in terms of feats, traits, race, etc, or do you think they would still naturally gravitate toward the classic fantasy RPG roles and maintain diversity among their companions?
Welcome aboard the U.S.S. Theory-Craft. I am your captain: BackHandOfFate.
Tonight, we'll be examining a 'quick question' posed by OP:
"Does Balance Actually Matter?"
Short answer: Yes it does. How would we ever learn to ride a bike if we didn't have a sense of balance, after all? Why, without balance, there would be no BMX Bandit.
Of course a scenario is then posed, presenting a supposed "Uber Class". Would players still try to steer this class in one direction or another in terms of focused play? Yes they would. The more important question is, 'Would those different builds be equal in power when compared to one another?'
The answer is most certainly NO.
Given that the only real variable in the class will end up being the ability scores, one can certainly see a vast gap in power depending on which ability scores are emphasized/boosted and which are basically ignored.
For instance: A character that boosts Wisdom and dumps Strength will certainly have far more power (both from a combat and 'narrative' standpoint) than a character that boost Strength and dumps Wisdom. Why? Because divine spellcasting is keyed off of Wisdom. With it, you can summon angelic/demonic hordes, raise the dead, Heal, Harm, Bless, etc, etc, etc. What can you do with strength? Hit things with a sword. Look buff.. The same can be said of the importance of Intelligence over Strength. In fact, Wisdom and Intelligence can be said to be superior in all respects in regards to this class.
Again, we go to the original question. Does balance actually matter? For my short answer, see above. But why yes? Because Pathfinder is a game that can be played with a group. People in that group will not want to play carbon copies of the exact same character, yet they will feel the need to contribute to different aspects of the game in terms of both combat and narrative (fighting and general problem solving).
An argument can be made that this 'uber class' is representative (though a very rough one at that) of the collective classes that Pathfinder has to offer. Ability scores such as Intelligence and Wisdom represent the most powerful and game changing elements that certain classes boast, while the other ability scores represent much less potent classes that, while often times useful, pale in comparison to the sheer power of 'Intelligence and Wisdom'. Just as you are free to choose any class to play, so too are you free to design this "Uber Class" in any way you see fit. And just like pathfinder classes, there are some directions you can go that will be flat out more effective at just about everything and some directions that will be far less so.
Why is this important? Because when look at a class and decide what to do with it, one of your questions is.. What do I get out of investing in each of these ability scores? When one ability score boosted to 19 offers a +4 to hit and damage while the other offers the ability to cast Gate, Miracle, Mass Heal, Wish, and Greater Communal Spell Immunity... Which ability score do you think will get more attention? For six ability scores which are presented as equally important to some extent, this is an extreme imbalance.
This is why balance actually matters.