| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BO9S is probably closest to the Mythic system- A new, optional system that some players love more than sliced bread, and others absolutely despise...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't you mean Path of War (the pathfinder version of Bo9S)?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think everyone will have a different idea of balance, and if it totally changed a different group of people would be whining.
It's not like they set out to go "let's see how much of our core base, on whom we depend for an income we can alienate."
I don't get it.
Occult Adventures is pretty balanced, seems like they took that criticism to heart.
And no, ACG holds no interest whatsoever for me, nor has it ever.
So, no problems for me there. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist is literally "What if we put sorcerer and wizard together"... and you expect it to Not be one of the strongest classes in the game?
And to be honest, I'd say it's probably weaker than cleric/druid/wizard, definitely stronger than sorcerer but whatever.
Regardless, ACG wasn't bad because of balance. It was bad because of the editing issues that existed on nearly every page of the book.
I think Arcanist is very strong because it's a blend of two of the most broken classes in the game. Swashbuckler otoh is a blend of two weak classes. Personally I find the core book much more imbalanced than the ACG. The core book had Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerers, and Paladins, all horrendously broken, along with Rogue, Fighter, and Monk, all absolutely pitiful.
You get all the spells like a wizard, can cast them like a sorcerer, and can switch out one blade of your galaxy-sized utility knife for another as a full-round action.
Who needs Schrodinger's wizard when you can play an arcanist and always be ready for everything?
You get all the spells like a wizard, can cast them like a sorcerer, and can switch out one blade of your galaxy-sized utility knife for another as a full-round action.
Who needs Schrodinger's wizard when you can play an arcanist and always be ready for everything?
How do they swap out spells as a full action? As far as I can tell, they can only swap out their spells as fast as a CRB wizard, and non-CRB wizards can use arcane discoveries to prepare spells in open-spell slots a minute.
How do they swap out spells as a full action? As far as I can tell, they can only swap out their spells as fast as a CRB wizard, and non-CRB wizards can use arcane discoveries to prepare spells in open-spell slots a minute.You get all the spells like a wizard, can cast them like a sorcerer, and can switch out one blade of your galaxy-sized utility knife for another as a full-round action.
Who needs Schrodinger's wizard when you can play an arcanist and always be ready for everything?
It costs them an exploit and an arcane point to do so.
It costs them an exploit and an arcane point to do so.
*Shrug* wizard's still get the ability to cast any bard/cleric/druid spell.
I really shouldn't ask?
Spell Sage Wizard (admittedly it is from ACG), it costs extra spell slots and takes longer to cast but it let my wizard cast so many more spells. Very useful since he was a magic item crafter so I didn't really end up having to deal with +5 on the check to make the items since I could cast from nearly all but psychic spell lists.
I can't agree its worse.
Core 3.5 fighter or rogue vs 3.5 druid.
Doesn't even compare to the gap today. Today's gap is maybe an inch to that one's yard.
Nope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that the gap is MUCH smaller in Pathfinder.
My entire point is that is a persistent problem from 3.5 that has not changed in Pathfinder. From core to present day there was no corrections made in the name of "balance", though rule systems feel more modular and offer decent streamlined options.
But if anything Pathfinder has worse balance than 3.5, and the disparity between the weakest classes and strongest classes is probably greater at this point because multiclassing is so discouraged.
Not exactly, 3.5 Core casters were the issues. Later books buffed them up.
There were few non-Core casters that were better (well Archivist was pretty good Divine one).In Pathfinder, we have better Non-Core casters like Arcanist. While this isn't a better situation, it is a different one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with bloat, such as it is, is that new feats don't seem to realize that feat slots are limited. Basically, an author thinks of a cool thing, and the immediate response is "lets make a feat for that." However, no character has enough feats to take all these things, so you end up either ignoring the random cool options or making sub-optimal choices.
Consider Two-Weapon Feint from Ultimate combat. It requires that you get Two-weapon Fighting and Improved Feint and then take this feat to combine them. But both of those feats normally have anti-synergy since giving up a move action to feint prevents you from full-attacking. Really, two-weapon feint should have just been an option you get when you have both of its prerequisites.
So here is a feat that looks like it gives you a new option, but it actually requires you spend twice as many feats and does not come online until level 12 or so.
Personally, my favorite feat-based innovation was the style feat chains. Those do everything feats should. They give you new combat options that you actually want to build around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very nicely said, exactly how I feel about feats. :-)
|
I agree. I also find that I have players always thinking ahead to 'end game' when their build finally comes together. Almost like the adventuring bit in the middle is the boring part. Then in some case once the build is finally complete we sort of re-roll and start another adventure. So in many case they only get a short period of time with the full build itself. Cool stuff should happen 'as you level' not just once your level allows 'the build' to be completed.
S.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My wife and kids were instrumental for me not falling in that habit, they absolutely refuse to think what they'll do when they level up next.
It's incredibly refreshing not knowing what they'll do next. :-)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
::hides all his built to 20 concepts:: nothing to see here, nope...
(good for them Cap, it is fun to wing it sometimes, sometimes, it turns into pure gold)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the feats and stuff didn't have prerequisites you had to plan in advance to get when you want them instead of so many levels down the road, this wouldn't be a problem. I don't want to plan in advance, but I want to play a sneaky rogue mage, and arcane trickster requires so much to get into, and say I want a feat with like four feats as a prerequisite? "Organic" in that instance might as well mean "skip doing what you want."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fortunately have never had a player that did the "Plan build 18 levels in advance" thing. The closest I've had is "I might take a crafting feat at some level". :P
Explain to me why that is fortunate and the opposite unfortunate, as opposed to simply an event that is neither good nor bad.
My players are a mixed bag. Some plan things in advance, some don't. The ones who plan things in advance do so because they know they'll forget what they actually want in between sessions, so they have to write themselves reminders so they can streamline the process for themselves. Those who don't plan things in advance generally have a good bit of system mastery, so know which options are traps.
As for the actual bloat itself... That's why I look at the forums. They help a lot in going through things.
Explain to me why that is fortunate and the opposite unfortune, as opposed to simply an event that is neither good nor bad.
It's fortunate because we do not get to play immensely often and if it takes too long for a concept to start then a player would end up rather disappointed for a long duration, also it increases the speed players can get back into the game when their characters die because they do not spend very long making a replacement since they make it to the level they will appear at rather than a build in development.
My party don't use prestige classes.
I do, but not ones with overly complicated entry requirements.
They also don't cast spells that boost ability scores and only use stat boosting clothes if they loot it, or it looks fashionable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dare say it all comes down to what your style of character design is, and where you want to go with it. I don't lock myself into a "build" but as thejeff denotes, sometimes it pays to know what you need ahead of time. I am more of a theme guy then a min/max sort of guy, I decide what I am trying to accomplish with the character, then find stuff that fills the need. ::gasp:: sometimes I even change my mind ;)
+1 to Kalindlara, wise words.
I do my design BETWEEN sessions. It would be inconsiderate otherwise.
I also consider people who have an entire week that they KNOW they leveled up who wait until game session to do so to be absolute s$#!heads, so my opinion is skewed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prep between games is important, no one likes waiting for Timmy to level up or figure out what he wants to play, we hold that rule pretty sacred at our table. Leveling at the table only happens if we happen to be on a pizza break.
Also, the words "backup character" are mandatory vocabulary for my players when I'm GM, so "getting back into the game" after they die isn't an issue.
We don't level up in session, I'm in charge of paper work so I make sure they're all set on paper, and Herolabs the day before we play, this is where having everyone living in the same house pays dividends. :-)
I like Kirth's solution where he gives feats synergy abilities that activate when you have certain other feats. I made similar scaling feats that should slot into pathfinder and give feat-users more versatility. If anyone is interested, it is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11n73SQEMHsm4BwfPRPB16htX7pz9sxClVVaoo8o 1lIk/edit?usp=sharing
It happened a lot when I was playing Skull and Shackles.
I went through five characters through that game
Kingmaker, conversely, had almost no death rate, though we only made it to book three.
As I said, I play a lot of SW, and that system has wound spirals, exploding dice, and even low level mooks can luck out and murderate a legendary with enough dice explosions. Consequently, in those games, death rate is higher. (Not on PbP oddly, but in person, at least one player every two sessions drops. Part of it is that group plays it like it's Pathfinder and thinks superior stats matter more than tactics, positioning, and superior numbers; they don't.)
Yeah, with Skull and Shackles, you absolutely want an extra character handy.
Just out of interest our veteran group has played three different swashbucklers in the last two years all long term characters, all a lot of fun to play. Power and fun are not necessarily the same thing. Unbalanced is a relative term.
We are a weird bunch. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder balance is so incredibly bad compared to anything I've played, its so weird to see people defend it
Simple, balance does not correlate to fun. It can affect fun in various factors, but there is no direct correlation.
Also, it fits in this weird area of letting me make whatever setting I want while still being specific and restrictive enough with their mechanics that I get sooo much inspiration for plots, settings and concepts that I don't get in many other systems.