| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo!
There better not be a new thread titled 'Nerf the 1v1 Scenarios'.
How about Nerf the 1v1 Scenarios at the Gate?
That wouldn't work for me of course because I skip the beginning and go right to the end.
Do I win
No, you LOSE. Period. Exclamation mark. No exceptions. You just lose!
There's 2 distinct problems being discussed.
1) Balancing the classes against each other, so that 1v1, 2v2 or XvX is completely balanced and fair.
***
Focusing on problem (1) is more difficult and produces results that tend towards homogeneity. In it's way, that's what 4E did, was push classes to be much more similar, so that all classes could be compete against each other. There were differences, but much smaller than in any other edition of D&D.
If you want to play games where the players will fight against each other, you need to have problem (1) solved. The rules need to be fair and options interesting so that the game can have variety.
It's not about players fighting against each other, it's about the strength of NPCs and the functionality of encounter design rules.
Anyone who's written a published adventure knows that a Fighter can't threaten a party the way a spellcaster can. Flip through Paizo modules, APs, and PFS scenarios and compare the number of martial villains to the number of spellcaster villains. Now subtract any "martials" who are also lycanthropes, undead, who have racial hit die, racial SLAs, or who are backed by a caster who is the actual threat. Even in modules like Ruby Phoenix Tournament, an entire adventure written about a martial arts tournament, the most powerful enemies are bards, oracles, and sorcerers. Or you can look at the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary edition, where they nerfed enemies who were known to be too strong for most groups originally by having them lose a level of caster and multiclass into rogue. True story.
At a fundamental level, encounter design says that a Fighter and Wizard of any given level pose an equivalent threat to a party, but this is widely known to simply not be true. Acting and designing upon this false premise undermines the game at a basic level though, and often it is an initial belief in this false premise that leads people to experience M/CD in the first place. "Huh, that...
Your post is literally about fighting each other. Maybe not the players, but the characters and wanting them to be designed to face off against each other. You're focusing on problem #1.
If you want to see the solution to problem #1, I recommend checking out D&D 4E. You don't need to switch to it, but it will give you an idea of what that kind of game looks like.
For the classes to be perfectly balanced, they would have to be identical. You can achieve nearly balanced by having minor variations, but the more variation between the classes, the less balanced they will be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should the caster and martial classes be balanced in any way in the first place?
Magic is magical. It can do amazing things that mortal men can scarcely even imagine. Magic has the power to cloud men's minds and flout the laws of physics. The C/MD exists for a reason.
I'm all for restricting the power of magic (using Pathfinder Unchained's limited magic rules, for example) and making magic more dangerous and unpredictable (wild magic, magical fumbles, etc) and even making magic take more time to be cast (increasing casting times for most spells above 1st or 2nd level).
But magical power and magic-using classes like wizards are one of the basic , fundamental pillars supporting this crazy fantastic world we call FRPGing. I mean, if you took away one of the four elephants standing on the cosmic turtle's back, wouldn't the world itself tip over? <g>
The C/MD exists. It is right and proper. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for a few cherries to give the martials and a few nerf-whallops to hit the casters with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should the caster and martial classes be balanced in any way in the first place?
1. Because it can easily hurt the fun of other players if the only time they can do anything is combat.
2. Because it can easily hurt the fun of other players if they aren't as good at their main focus than a spellcaster who can also do a thousand other things.
3. Because NPC's of the same level are meant to be equal threats, despite the fact that casters can do things like figureout all the weaknesses and secrets of an opponent through divination/scry and die/have armies of simulacrums/have planar allies that are stronger than the PC's/escape to other planes all without altering the CR of the encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pffft! The CR system is a random, radioactive wasteland anyway.
I reject the "non-fun" arguments as well, since our hobby relies heavily on group dynamics, and the wizard PC is there *also* to enable his martial non-wizard pals.
The only thing I partially agree with is...
...if they aren't as good at their main focus than a spellcaster who can also do a thousand other things
Modifications like increased casting times, PU limited magic, spell fumbles and wild magic will greatly limit the "thousand other things" a spellcaster can do. And if the spellcaster is really trying to do it *all*, then that just means he's a sad attention hog, and any sane DM should have reigned him in long ago, or sent him home if he is that much of a selfish non-team-player.
This thread has been entertaining, but its premises are deeply flawed. The C/MD is right and good. And unavoidable. It doesn't hurt things to nerf casters a bit, and boost martials a bit, but the C/MD will still exist. There's no getting rid of it, without getting rid of player casters completely.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The C/MD is right and good.
Completely subjective.
And unavoidable.
This is hilarious. With existing third party content you can completely remove it. The issue with this thread is that third-party is not allowed to be an answer, since it "has to still be standard Pathfinder".
There's no getting rid of it, without getting rid of player casters completely.
Or by giving the martial little bits of magic.
I think it is good, he is claiming that he can make a "mage Killer", And I want to show that actually it isn't possible, by level 10
but the more variation between the classes, the less balanced they will be.CITATION NEEDED TO THE EXTREME
this is proven totally false elsewhere, in real games. For an idea of what it looks like, check out guilty gear
For the bolded portion, every competitive game ever. From M:tG, to DOTA2, to Mortal Kombat. Variation in powers and abilities in the mechanics of the game produce uneven results. Compare that to chess, a perfectly balanced game where both sides are identical.
The thing is, if you don't require the wizard class to fight the fighter class, you don't need to balance them against each other. If instead you balance the wizard and fighter against the orc/dragon/giant, you need to only ensure that both classes have a part to play in the encounters.
I don't even know where to start with that 61 point buy. Like, what the hell?
|
I don't even know where to start with that 61 point buy. Like, what the hell?I used classic (roll 4 drop the lowest) I took screen caps of the rolls but can't ad them to the message
PAizo has a very handy dice roller on this very site.
edit, so that gives you 11, 13, 12, 11, 18, 13 as stats before racial mods
and 94 hit points.
no need for screen caps, just use roll function. In fact, those stats I just rolled are pretty decent given my history on these boards
...
Yeah, drop the custom item nonsense. If that's fair game, then a pill of Aroden's Spellbane is fair game for the wizard. So is an item of standard action Greater Planar Ally to go get a Planetar to stomp on your fighter. It's only maybe double the cost of your A.M. pills(which are more than double the price you listed - sl6 x cl11 x 50gp=3300), and a planetar will kick most level 10 characters' asses. Custom items turns the "match" into a game of "who can think of the most broken items".
|
|
the best part about paizos dice roller is that you cant roll hundreds of times and just screen cap the best 6 to post up. It pretty much sticks with your rolls for each post. Cant preview then try again etc.
A good way to make things fair.
I'd advise learning how it works if you like PbP or these types of challenges Monarch. It will save you tons of criticism.
Now, I'm a happy proponent of martials being ok as is, but you're treading a slippery slope with crafting custom items.
Or, if going custom Id be doing something less cheezy than pills and going for something like goggles of true site.
I'd also advise taking a wayfinder with spindle stone to prevent mind spells. Now those items are golarion specific, but since CWheezy seems happy to do that, well there it is.
Also, the idea of keeping your stats secret is that each opponent will act not knowing what abilities the other one has. I mean, CWheezy now has as long as he wants to look at your character and build exactly the perfect counter part to him in every way. Very, very pointless.
like I said it's In the rules, since 3pp seems to not ever be considered when it comes to bringing balance, and everything has to be standard pathfinder, I used what was strictly hardcover paizo stuff, within the parameters CWheezy mentioned, you know letter of the law rather than spirit of the lawman, what point buy are you using for those stats.
Also, where do anti magic pills come from?
if you're throwing custom items in mate, you're kinda not meeting the purpose of the thread or challenge I reckon.
Meh, CWheezy's call I guess. Those stats are pretty over tanked though.
Custom items are only given guidelines for pricing as a last resort and are completely subject to GM arbitration. That's RAW. You don't get your A.M. pills unless the GM approves of it. And I can tell you right now that the vast, vast majority of GMs will not approve of those pills. I suspect neither will the other people in this thread.
I also like how because everybody failed to specify a stat allocation method you assumed a randomized buy and assigned yourself some amazing stats. That seems a little bit dodgy, to say the least. How about if there is some ambiguity in how the rules of the match work, you ask. Not just pick what you like. Because nobody is going to just ignore your insane rolled stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@STORM-MONARCH: I thought it was supposed to be a fighter?
Not that it matters, because that guy is going to get trounced.
@Irontruth: modern Mortal Kombat is the perfect counter example for homogenity bringing balance. Despite being waaaay more homogeneous than Guilty Gear, the balance (in tournament use at least) is way worse, since the little differences are more pronounced.
Ride the lighting!!!!
(^______^)
The thing is, you can't out-stupid a Wizard. Especially if you allow custom items.
If you're going for a blind-idiot RAW-lawyer game, his Wizard will destroy you at it.
The thing is, you can't out-stupid a Wizard. Especially if you allow custom items.
If you're going for a blind-idiot RAW-lawyer game, his Wizard will destroy you at it.
It's worth noting that often in these little 1v1 rumbles the entire thing ends up falling apart because the wizard keeps cycling through broken tactics and the other side calls foul repeatedly. That's with far more restrictive and well defined rules than what are set up in this thread.
No Diviner with Improved Initiative,Reactionary, and Fickle Winds? :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
people want Oliver Queen to beat Thanos
Character classes are, by the rules of the game, all on an even playing field.
Supposedly, an NPC Elf with chained-Rogue levels is just a threatening as an NPC Elf with Druid levels.
If that is not true, then something has to change.
They either need to admit that caster levels increase the challenge rating of something more than mundane levels, or make it so they both pose an equally challenging encounter without necessarily posing the same kinds of challenges.
They are able to make one thousand and one 6th level casters that are agreed to to be mostly equals as far as potential power is concerned, but none of them are the same, even within a single class. A Grenadier Alchemist that sticks to the back lines and blows things up, crowd controlling with clouds and stickybombs and has utility/buff spells for himself vs. a Vivisectionist/Beastmorph Alchemist that flies into battle with the head of a jackal and wings of a fly, tearing people apart in melee, or going invisible and sneak attacking from the rear.
And both are different from a Sanctified Slayer/Preacher Inquisitor archer with face skills like you wouldn't believe vs. a Sacred Hunstmaster Inquisitor who goes in riding his tiger, which is also completely different from a Feral Hunter Hunter that wildshapes and gives his summons teamwork feats.
Equal without being the same.
Do you, Storm Monarch, understand why people feel the way they do?
Grenades do at most 3d6 damage (which scales into worthlessness) and explode after 1d3 rounds. It's trivial to just walk 10 feet away from them while they're sitting on the ground and be totally unaffected, too, since you get at least a full round of actions before they explode.stuff a bunch in a crate, get your most annoying rouge to act as bait, whip out your green arrow style alchemist fire arrow and set it off. But apparently only mages are allowed to get creative.Even if you have a bunch of them in a crate, the blast radius on that is still tiny. The mage has to practically trip over it while your rogue is baiting him to even get hit by the shrapnel.
And even then you need a fair number of grenades to go off at once before a handful of d6s does much more than annoy the mage. Contrary to popular belief, 3.PF magic-users are really not very squishy at all compared to other RPG mages.
This why the 'rule for everything' and 'player knows exactly what they get' way of roleplaying suffers. Increasing the size of the charge should increase the blast radius. A DM able to use his/her initiative would be able to say "you've put a whole box of grenades in one place, are you sure?... okay" and determine an appropriate result. You don't need a mechanic for it you roleplay the result and trust the DM isn't going to actively stop you having fun.
It is the
This why the 'rule for everything' and 'player knows exactly what they get' way of roleplaying suffers. Increasing the size of the charge should increase the blast radius. A DM able to use his/her initiative would be able to say "you've put a whole box of grenades in one place, are you sure?... okay" and determine an appropriate result. You don't need a mechanic for it you roleplay the result and trust the DM isn't going to actively stop you having fun.
It is the
Alternatively, GM agrees with the game that it wouldn't magically make the explosion bigger. Not because of the rules or mechanics... just... "why would it actually be bigger?"
|
|
Physics? The combined law of gases under expansion perhaps? The same reason when you set of an ammo rack in a tank the entire thing goes up like a fireball but shooting one shell doesn't do that?
I'd be happily giving an expanded radius on the explosion, and more shrapnel damage too since its lots of explosions.
But then my ideas don't fly well with many posters here.
Physics? The combined law of gases under expansion perhaps? The same reason when you set of an ammo rack in a tank the entire thing goes up like a fireball but shooting one shell doesn't do that?
I'd be happily giving an expanded radius on the explosion, and more shrapnel damage too since its lots of explosions.
But then my ideas don't fly well with many posters here.
Hmm, you'll need what ? 8 times the number of explosives to double the radius and damage.
And 64 grenades to go to 4 times radius and damage.
Or somethere in this ballpark.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
people want Oliver Queen to beat ThanosCharacter classes are, by the rules of the game, all on an even playing field.
Supposedly, an NPC Elf with chained-Rogue levels is just a threatening as an NPC Elf with Druid levels.
If that is not true, then something has to change.
They either need to admit that caster levels increase the challenge rating of something more than mundane levels, or make it so they both pose an equally challenging encounter without necessarily posing the same kinds of challenges.
They are able to make one thousand and one 6th level casters that are agreed to to be mostly equals as far as potential power is concerned, but none of them are the same, even within a single class. A Grenadier Alchemist that sticks to the back lines and blows things up, crowd controlling with clouds and stickybombs and has utility/buff spells for himself vs. a Vivisectionist/Beastmorph Alchemist that flies into battle with the head of a jackal and wings of a fly, tearing people apart in melee, or going invisible and sneak attacking from the rear.
And both are different from a Sanctified Slayer/Preacher Inquisitor archer with face skills like you wouldn't believe vs. a Sacred Hunstmaster Inquisitor who goes in riding his tiger, which is also completely different from a Feral Hunter Hunter that wildshapes and gives his summons teamwork feats.
Equal without being the same.
Do you, Storm Monarch, understand why people feel the way they do?
Paizo 3/4th BAB 6th level casters are pretty darn samey. Make a game of just those classes and you get something in the same vein as 4e. Sure the classes are technically different, but it's not really an asymmetrically balanced game at that point.
Also, probably a good example of how 4e isn't nearly as bad as people think.
I think my point is the GM just makes a decision that fits the action taken and rules it. Think the final scene of Tremors.
Unfortunately no doubt some player would then buy hundreds of grenades and tie then into pack to have calculated the optimal number per blast radius and then take a feat that allows them to be thrown two at a time and then all of a sudden instead of a interesting problem solving technique using equipment and narrative - we now have another optimised character.
The DM should keep the mystery - you have no earthly clue how big the blast radius would be or how much damage it will do. That is why you are a hero and not a technician.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think my point is the GM just makes a decision that fits the action taken and rules it. Think the final scene of Tremors.
Unfortunately no doubt some player would then buy hundreds of grenades and tie then into pack to have calculated the optimal number per blast radius and then take a feat that allows them to be thrown two at a time and then all of a sudden instead of a interesting problem solving technique using equipment and narrative - we now have another optimised character.
The DM should keep the mystery - you have no earthly clue how big the blast radius would be or how much damage it will do. That is why you are a hero and not a technician.
I won't play in something like Pathfinder or any other monster hunter adventures with so much mystery. That's certain death.
Heroes who don't know how their equipment works tend to die young and sometimes crispy.
why is it certain death?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because you're an unprepared Adventurer, which is about as lethal a lifestyle as you can choose.
It's why groups of PCs carry a million little alchemical things, and rope and poles and never trust women that like them despite being smelly hobos and never split the party even though you only met them 5 days ago to fight goblins.
You have to be a paranoid nutjob to do what PCs do without dying.
Ahh. Classic my-DM-screws-with-me-syndrome.
I converted an adventure to Pathfinder that involved a long underground river tunnel from the sea which had a boat load of furious raiders travelling up it. The PCs were laying various obstacles along the way to delay them and when they got to the other end they put two barrels of gunpowder against one of the tunnel props and one character lit the fuse and ran.
I could have...
A) taken the hardness of stone and the hp/inch and then taken into account that material objects take half damage from energy, had a discussion about whether a barrel of gunpowder exploding does fire damage or bludgeoning damaged or both, rolled the dice, then assumed that because the player readied a move action blah blah blah
B) Told the innovative player that the barrel explodes however you are caught in the blast, roll 20d6 damage little second level bard and die mwah hahahahahahahaja.
C) Make an Disable Device check using Int as the modifier to correctly set the charges and make a reflex save for the Bard to see if she takes damage. As she was running fast and had about 6 seconds of fuse with success she rolled out in time and was a bit battened but ultimately successful.
Options A B mean the player never takes this kind of approach again - well done you have stifled creativity for ever more. Option C or a version of it encourages thinking out of the box, creativity and drama - as well as being able to act in ways not limited by your class. It was a bard in this case but a fighter or rogue could have done as well.
I simply don't understand why people say fighters can't do anything outside of combat? Surely talking, persuading, planning and preparing are all things outside of combat that anyone can do?
In my opinion being heroic is about taking risks for the benefit of other people - it is not about being stronger or faster or smarter than other people.
Heroes are not paranoid nut jobs - though one could make an excellent anti-hero character if played correctly.
You are right though NEVER split the party.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And not every story is about heroes. There are 9 alignments.