I think Pathfinder has always been unbalanced. That's part of the challenge.
|
I mean, I talk to players but they don't get 100% say in my rulings for a setting. For example, I'm gearing up for a dangerous horror themed game. I look at rules that deal with lingering injuries and massive damage, and I bring it to my players to gauge interest. Same with firearms or some other rule I know some people really don't like. If a player does some math and thinks they have caught me in something, I'll ask them to talk about it after a session and talk it out. I ask for all grievances to be brought up between games.
What I don't go to them with is rules for fear, rules for madness, etc. Things baked into that type of game. I also will never explicitly spell out "I am fudging things sometimes."
See, it's that last bit I have a problem with. Why would you not spell that out? Is that not one of the more important distinctions between types of game?
Objectively false. John Wick is not for everybody, but has a large audience.
Huh? Where did John Wick advocate doing things your players would object to if they knew and keeping them a secret? I'm not remembering that from anything of his I've looked at.
Which actually sorta makes your point moot even if he's said something like that, since I've liked his games and might've donated money to a Kickstarter all unknowing. I very much doubt I'm alone in that.
I mean, I talk to players but they don't get 100% say in my rulings for a setting. For example, I'm gearing up for a dangerous horror themed game. I look at rules that deal with lingering injuries and massive damage, and I bring it to my players to gauge interest. Same with firearms or some other rule I know some people really don't like. If a player does some math and thinks they have caught me in something, I'll ask them to talk about it after a session and talk it out. I ask for all grievances to be brought up between games.
What I don't go to them with is rules for fear, rules for madness, etc. Things baked into that type of game. I also will never explicitly spell out "I am fudging things sometimes."
See, it's that last bit I have a problem with. Why would you not spell that out? Is that not one of the more important distinctions between types of game?
Objectively false. John Wick is not for everybody, but has a large audience.Huh? Where did John Wick advocate doing things your players would object to if they knew and keeping them a secret? I'm not remembering that from anything of his I've looked at.
Which actually sorta makes your point moot even if he's said something like that, since I've liked his games and might've donated money to a Kickstarter all unknowing. I very much doubt I'm alone in that.
John wick has blogged and written pretty regularly that story has to take precedence over mechanics in his opinion. Ask his opinion on GM's fudging things for story on some form of social media sometime, dudes relatively accessable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does John Wick ever say "Go out of your way to hide the fact that you are having the story take precedence over mechanics"? Because if he doesn't advocate for hiding that you might fudge (simply fudging =! players not knowing that you might fudge when you feel it is appropriate), then mentioning him is rather irrelevant.
If you are doing something that a player would not like knowingly, the player being ignorant does not mean it you are suddenly justified to do so. If you steal something from someone and they do not notice, that doesn't somehow make it no longer the wrong thing to do.
I dunno, ask him yourself. Most of his writing on theory supports GM as final arbiter of the game and story taking precedent over mechanics though.
I think he'd be more likely to say, "dont play games with people who object to the gm fudging for the sake of story" but i'm not him so i cant speak for him, just the impression his blogposts and the GM section of games he's authored gives.
I dunno, ask him yourself. Most of his writing on theory supports GM as final arbiter of the game and story taking precedent over mechanics though.
I'm not doing to waste my time trying to talk to a specific random person on the internet to find out whether or not he is relevant to the discussion, when so far there is no sign he is relevant to the matter at hand.
I'd rather people actually just explain why he is relevant and how it relates to the current matter, instead of saying random peoples names and expecting everyone else to actually find out how it is relevant.
I mean, I could tell you all to ask Obama's view on the current topic and so far it'd be just as valid.
I dunno, ask him yourself. Most of his writing on theory supports GM as final arbiter of the game and story taking precedent over mechanics though.I'm not doing to waste my time trying to talk to a specific random person on the internet to find out whether or not he is relevant to the discussion, when so far there is no sign he is relevant to the matter at hand.
I'd rather people actually just explain why he is relevant and how it relates to the current matter, instead of saying random peoples names and expecting everyone else to actually find out how it is relevant.
I mean, I could tell you all to ask Obama's view on the current topic and so far it'd be just as valid.
Except Obama AFAIK hasn't put out several fairly successful RPG's that don't directly crib from the d20 system?
Mostly for those who secretly fudge:
So if you hide that you're fudging and the player figures it out, and he quits the game immediately(mid-session) is he wrong, are you wrong, or is nobody wrong.
We will assume that he quietly leaves and does not make a big scene.
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
John wick has blogged and written pretty regularly that story has to take precedence over mechanics in his opinion. Ask his opinion on GM's fudging things for story on some form of social media sometime, dudes relatively accessable.
That particular opinion of his also leads to products like this when it isn't coupled with respect for the game. John Wick's forays into Pathfinder have consisted of products with great story and horrifically unbalanced and/or unclear mechanics. To quote Endzeitgeist "Editing and formatting are beyond sloppy, they’re amateurish: From typos to punctuation errors etc., we encounter quite a bunch of bad glitches that wouldn’t be as bad as they are, would they not extend to the register of pathfinder: The language is often ambiguous, making identification of stacking bonuses or the intention behind rules obtuse at best and sometimes even impossible."
John Wick is an amazing storyteller who has seen success in other gaming systems, but by and large his forays into Pathfinder have consistently been rated mediocre to downright bad by respected reviewers specifically because of his lack of attention to clarity and design paradigms. I hesitate to espouse, at least in this context, the opinions of someone whose forays into the game in question generally throw any semblance of mechanical balance to the wind in favor of a "great story" that often can't actually be executed since the rules to enable the story are difficult to parse or completely destroy the balancing systems that form a major part of the storytelling device (i.e. the Pathfinder Roleplaying game itself, which is very "crunchy" and is built on a rules-heavy framewrok). The opinion may be generally valid, and in fact, there are many successful game systems built upon a rules-lite premise for exactly that reason, but there are a vast array of RPGs in the world that all facilitate group story-telling in certain ways, and a personal preference for rules-lite systems shouldn't cause one to disregard the framework of the specific game being played or discussed.
That being said, progressing the story and encouraging everyone at the table should take precedence over minor rules issues, but making the rules as clear and concise as possible in the first place will typically negate the need to choose.
On the subject from the OP- Pathfinder has always been unbalanced, right out of the CRB. The question now is "has it become easier to abuse the system?" If you're letting a player simply pick the most favorable bonus from a table that you're supposed to randomly roll on (as it sounds like happened with the character given as an example), then it probably is a bit easier to create a character who performs above the expectations of his level. In my experience, if the system mastery of the GM is at least equal to or greater than his players, the game is by-and-large as balanced now as it was at creation. It's actually incredibly rare in my experience for GMs to actually fully leverage the tools at their experience against a party; I've had players who thought they had the most min/maxed killbot imaginable get wrecked by encounters of the same or lower CR simply because of the fact that they weren't prepared for the environment (black dragons, for example are one of those creatures where their natural environment is practically a CR 6 creature all by itself).
I can't speak to the OP's group dynamics in particular, but generally I find that if the enemies are using their options anywhere near as efficiently as the party, you should be able to avoid single round KOs and rocket tag, at least until fairly high levels of play.
Except Obama AFAIK hasn't put out several fairly successful RPG's that don't directly crib from the d20 system?
That does not mean his view is relevant to this discussion, since so far the only aspects of his view that has been discussed so far have been irrelevant.
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly for those who secretly fudge:
So if you hide that you're fudging and the player figures it out, and he quits the game immediately(mid-session) is he wrong, are you wrong, or is nobody wrong.
We will assume that he quietly leaves and does not make a big scene.
It's pretty rare for me to fudge a die roll, and more often than not, I do it when my dice are a little too "hot" and I've just confirmed a statistically improbable third critical hit against a low level group who is playing well but fighting dice karma.
My answer to your question would be: both parties are wrong.
If the GM is going to fudge dice rolls to facilitate story, that's probably a general fact that should be made up front, hopefully with a disclaimer like "Hey guys and gals, just so this is out there, if I think the dice are doing more to hinder the story than help it along, my style is to occasionally ignore them in favor of ensuring everyone has a good time. I'll try to do this as little as possible, and if I do need to do it, I'm not going to try and screw you over."
The player probably should have brought up the issue to the GM when he discovered it, and explained that he or she feels that it isn't the GM's place to manipulate the game in that way. It could be that the GM has never looked at the game from that point of view, and the other players may even agree with the dissatisfied player's point of view. If the GM and the rest of the group felt differently, at that point it is absolutely fine for the player to decide that perhaps this isn't the right group for them.
|
|
John wick has blogged and written pretty regularly that story has to take precedence over mechanics in his opinion. Ask his opinion on GM's fudging things for story on some form of social media sometime, dudes relatively accessable.
Oh, I knew that. But unless he advocates lying about that (which I've never heard of him doing), that's completely irrelevant to the point Artificial 20 and I are making.
Which is not that story trumping rules is wrong (story trumping rules is fine), it's that not telling people that's how your game works is wrong. Given his writing, I'm betting he'd advocate telling people if story trumps rules in your particular game.
Which makes hiiamtom's attempt to use him as evidence kinda fall flat.
If the GM is going to fudge dice rolls to facilitate story, that's probably a general fact that should be made up front, hopefully with a disclaimer like "Hey guys and gals, just so this is out there, if I think the dice are doing more to hinder the story than help it along, my style is to occasionally ignore them in favor of ensuring everyone has a good time. I'll try to do this as little as possible, and if I do need to do it, I'm not going to try and screw you over."
To reiterate again. This. This is all I'm trying to advocate here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DM explicitly laying out that he occasionally fudges dice rolls is begging for arguments where something happens and a player dies and then questions whether there wasn't something the DM could have done.
Much better for a player that has an issue with this to say "hey look DM, I don't know whether you fudge rolls or not occasionally, but that isn't for me so don't cut me any slack you know. If I die because of a bad roll I'd rather take it on the chin and roll a new character."
Then the DM knows where they stand with that character. Problem solved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DM explicitly laying out that he occasionally fudges dice rolls is begging for arguments where something happens and a player dies and then questions whether there wasn't something the DM could have done.
Not really. Many players know that a lot of GM's fudge. Many accept it, and some even expect it. They just expect for the fudging to help them more than hurt them.
It really depends on your players, but like I said in a previous post sometimes the GM just can't win.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, after you've gamed a certain amount you're probably wise to just assume your GM is going to fudge a die roll now and then. I'm sure there are GMs out there who have -never- fudged one, but I can't believe its a very high %.
I'd be disappointed if a player quit because of that and they felt betrayed because I didn't state upfront that I would do it. IMO its public knowledge that GMs do it, so I probably wouldn't feel the need to publically state it every time a new player joined the game. But if the opinions in this thread are an indicator, it seems like some people feel the default is GMs shouldn't unless the tell everyone they're going to vs assuming the GM does.
I can see Swords point though that if the players know you fudged in the past, then when a PC dies it has potential (depending on the maturity of the group) to create IRL feelings of either favoritism or that your out to get that particular player.
I think that if you have a player who really knows what he wants from the game telling him/her is the way to go. They can honestly say to themselves "this is/is not ok".
Now if you have a player who thinks he knows what he wants, but really doesn't then he might complain anyway, but at that point it is all on him because you told him already that you may fudge to avoid a TPK(just an example).Some people don't like fudging even if it keeps their character alive.
I think stating it up front will help you avoid players that you might not enjoy gaming with.<--I realize that may not always be teh case.
Mostly for those who secretly fudge:
So if you hide that you're fudging and the player figures it out, and he quits the game immediately(mid-session) is he wrong, are you wrong, or is nobody wrong.
We will assume that he quietly leaves and does not make a big scene.
I always ask my group before the campaign, if they want me to roll in the open or hidden so I can cheat, when I think it might be necessary.
|
Design Manager
|
The DM explicitly laying out that he occasionally fudges dice rolls is begging for arguments where something happens and a player dies and then questions whether there wasn't something the DM could have done.
Much better for a player that has an issue with this to say "hey look DM, I don't know whether you fudge rolls or not occasionally, but that isn't for me so don't cut me any slack you know. If I die because of a bad roll I'd rather take it on the chin and roll a new character."
Then the DM knows where they stand with that character. Problem solved.
I think this is a terrible suggestion.
Your first paragraph assumes that the player is an entitled child who will expect the GM to always leap in and save their character.
Your second paragraph encourages the players to go right out the gate with a confrontational attitude towards the GM. It'd be difficult not to interpret such a statement as "I think you might be a cheater, and if I catch you at it, it's on."
I agree with your third paragraph. The GM now knows that the player is a confrontational jerk who will most likely be a toxic element at the table.
The GM is the arbiter of the game, the one who sets the houserules and parameters of play. It is his or her job to be clear and up front about what those parameters are, and if they change. The GM is the one who should be making it clear what type of game they'll be running and ensure that their table is on the same page.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does everyone have fun?
I would start by going over the different ways the players and GM have fun and discussing them as a group. This is NOT the time to argue, it is a time to be HONEST with yourself and the group, and express and LISTEN to everyone's opinions. Do you like Rollplaying more then Roleplaying? Be open about it! Your not doing yourself or anyone else a favor by pretending to like things you don't really like. Be open to new experiences and playstyles, but express your desires and expectations honestly. Come to some kind of consensus with the GM and players about how you will all enjoy the game.
In addition to how YOU have fun, this is a great time to discuss other aspects of play, such as:
House rules.
Use of computers and/or phones and access to reference material at the table. In general characters should have access to information about their own characters, but most GMs frown on players looking at information about enemies. Reading the adventure path or module is usually very strictly forbidden.
What books and material are allowed in the game and what restrictions are there. Do these restrictions apply equally on both sides of the screen?
Dice handling and GM and/or players ignoring dice. This usually take one of three forms:
-GM roles in the open, results are not altered by the GM
-GM rolls in secret, and may or may not follow the dice. Requires the players to trust the GM will fudge, but they will not know when, for fun to be maintained.
-GM dictates action in some opposed circumstances without dice rolls. Requires players to trust the GM will dictate the action for the benefit of the game (without the 'illusion' of dice rolls) for fun to be maintained.
more...Click on the Optimizing Pathfinder for fun spoiler.
EDIT: The most important part is to find out what players (and yourself as GM) enjoy and then provide that experience. It won't always be easy because each person at the table will have fun for different reasons and in different ways. The "aspiring actor" player is probably going to care more about the drama and story, while the "systems analyst" is going to have fun dealing a lot of damage or solving a difficult as efficiently as possible with a single spell. The first player will enjoy a large amount of GM ignoring the rules for fun, while the second player will have his fun undercut if the GM ignores rules and dice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that Kirth can, and has, said it far better then I'm about to:
The concept of, "The game is balanced because the GM has control", really is a spectrum of how much the GM is expected to override the rules to maintain balance.
The group that feels the game needs to be fixed are generally the people who attempt to follow the rules and dice closely, and generally are not into games with heavy GM 'fudging'.
The group that feels the game is working fine, are generally the people who expect and encourage GM overriding the rules and dice.
The thing is, modifying the rules so that the first group is happy, won't really affect the second group at all, since they already alter the rules as they see fit, and generally don't rely on the numerical aspects of the game. The second group really has nothing to lose from some fairly small alterations to the rules, in order to reduce perceived balance problems. As has been said many times, NO ONE WANT'S THE CLASSES TO BE IDENTICAL OR EXACTLY EQUAL IN POWER. However, some re-balancing would add to the total number of players who can enjoy the game without having to learn the pitfalls the hard way.
Finally, saying that something isn't broken because the GM can fix it, is poor game design. If the GM is required to override a rule or decide something, the game should just clearly say that, and not have a bad rule in the first place.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say, if I was immune to poison, and the GM then made up a poison I was not immune to, and THEN had me immune to the antidote 'because' of my poison immunity...I'd rip up my character in front of his face, drop the remnants on his head, walk out, and never look back.
*&^(&^ his story hour. He can slap himself on the back all he likes for 'trumping' me. If he can't find a story that doesn't deal with )*^)&*^ me over on my one strong point, there's a place he can go that's warm enough for him.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that Kirth can, and has, said it far better then I'm about to:
The concept of, "The game is balanced because the GM has control", really is a spectrum of how much the GM is expected to override the rules to maintain balance.The group that feels the game needs to be fixed are generally the people who attempt to follow the rules and dice closely, and generally are not into games with heavy GM 'fudging'.
The group that feels the game is working fine, are generally the people who expect and encourage GM overriding the rules and dice.The thing is, modifying the rules so that the first group is happy, won't really affect the second group at all, since they already alter the rules as they see fit, and generally don't rely on the numerical aspects of the game. The second group really has nothing to lose from some fairly small alterations to the rules, in order to reduce perceived balance problems. As has been said many times, NO ONE WANT'S THE CLASSES TO BE IDENTICAL OR EXACTLY EQUAL IN POWER. However, some re-balancing would add to the total number of players who can enjoy the game without having to learn the pitfalls the hard way.
The issue though is on three fronts:
First, there are some people who think the disparity is a plus, and would not want a perfectly balanced game.
Secondly, many of those people would feel that addressing many of the long standing issues often discussed here regarding balance and similar concerns are worried about this requiring a new edition, and suddenly having to buy all new books.
Thirdly, how do you accomplish that balance? Amongst people who think balance is an issue, how do you go about resolving that? Nerf 9th level casters and buff martials? Something in between? If in between where within that continuum?
I have heard points 1 and 2 argued by regular posters, and I admit to being concerned on point 3 (since I tend to see casters as the greater problem than martials in the balance equation, which often feels like a minority viewpoint). If you share these concerns, you are likely to argue because Paizo significantly rebalancing the game may indeed impact your enjoyment of it.
Regarding "fudging," is it crazy to think that "gamemaster" has "master" right there in the title for a reason?
I really don't understand why a GM would hide, or lie about, fudging, and there're limits to everything. But to call a GM's manipulating numbers "cheating" seems silly to me. It's fine to refuse to play in a game run under such an assumption, of course, but I think it does misrepresent the gamemaster's role. The GM isn't a plug-in component for throwing the bad guys' dice but rather the whole game. S/he creates the game for the players in an act that necessarily must transcend the numbers. Even all the rules, and the dice, must run through the GM, or else they're meaningless. They're never unfiltered.
By way of analogy, s/he isn't the ref who rolls the basketball onto the court and then referees the game, though that's certainly part of the job. Rather, the GM is the ref and the ball and the court and the goals and even the crowd. S/he's the other team. S/he creates, embodies it all for the players. The rules exist outside ref/GM, but they're subject to his/her observation and understanding and judgment. Some calls will be missed. Makeup calls will be made. It's a human component, which means there will be human error.
It's inevitable on some levels, and I think it adds to the game. I'd rather embrace than fight it. Use it to the GM's advantage. To hearken back to someone's post earlier: It is indeed shared storytelling. To deprive the GM of the authority implicit to the role of storyteller, as master of the game, is no better than denying the player his/her agency in interacting with the game.
I guess that's right in line with most the lamentations for game balance: People want the numbers (and/or/not-just the dice) to resolve all issues. I understand the impulse, but I'm not sure it's plausible. Nor that it's necessary, really. Even if we can errata our way to a better fighter or rogue or whatever (mark me down for being one terrified of a new edition; I have waaaay too much invested in the current setup), which I think it'd be just fine even if I don't feel the same need for it, it still takes a GM running an adventure to make it mean anything.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding "fudging," is it crazy to think that "gamemaster" has "master" right there in the title for a reason?
I really don't understand why a GM would hide, or lie about, fudging, and there're limits to everything. But to call a GM's manipulating numbers "cheating" seems silly to me. It's fine to refuse to play in a game run under such an assumption, of course, but I think it does misrepresent the gamemaster's role. The GM isn't a plug-in component for throwing the bad guys' dice but rather the whole game. S/he creates the game for the players in an act that necessarily must transcend the numbers. Even all the rules, and the dice, must run through the GM, or else they're meaningless. They're never unfiltered.
By way of analogy, s/he isn't the ref who rolls the basketball onto the court and then referees the game, though that's certainly part of the job. Rather, the GM is the ref and the ball and the court and the goals and even the crowd. S/he's the other team. S/he creates, embodies it all for the players. The rules exist outside ref/GM, but they're subject to his/her observation and understanding and judgment. Some calls will be missed. Makeup calls will be made. It's a human component, which means there will be human error.
It's inevitable on some levels, and I think it adds to the game. I'd rather embrace than fight it. Use it to the GM's advantage. To hearken back to someone's post earlier: It is indeed shared storytelling. To deprive the GM of the authority implicit to the role of storyteller, as master of the game, is no better than denying the player his/her agency in interacting with the game.
I guess that's right in line with most the lamentations for game balance: People want the numbers (and/or/not-just the dice) to resolve all issues. I understand the impulse, but I'm not sure it's plausible. Nor that it's necessary, really. Even if we can errata our way to a better fighter or rogue or whatever (mark me down for being one terrified of a new edition; I have waaaay too much...
Most people aren't saying "Don't fudge, ever". They're saying that you should be open about the fact that you do. If you're not because you know your players would be mad, then you probably shouldn't have fudged in the first place.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding "fudging," is it crazy to think that "gamemaster" has "master" right there in the title for a reason?
Not at all. This philosophy isn't the only one, but it's entirely valid. I just think whatever your philosophy is should be made explicit before the game starts when you run a game, so as to avoid problems down the road with people whose philosophies differ.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But to call a GM's manipulating numbers "cheating" seems silly to me.
I believe the view is that it's only cheating if the GM is doing it while giving the players the impression that they would never manipulate the numbers.
John wick has blogged and written pretty regularly that story has to take precedence over mechanics in his opinion. Ask his opinion on GM's fudging things for story on some form of social media sometime, dudes relatively accessable.That particular opinion of his also leads to products like this when it isn't coupled with respect for the game. John Wick's forays into Pathfinder have consisted of products with great story and horrifically unbalanced and/or unclear mechanics. To quote Endzeitgeist "Editing and formatting are beyond sloppy, they’re amateurish: From typos to punctuation errors etc., we encounter quite a bunch of bad glitches that wouldn’t be as bad as they are, would they not extend to the register of pathfinder: The language is often ambiguous, making identification of stacking bonuses or the intention behind rules obtuse at best and sometimes even impossible."
John Wick is an amazing storyteller who has seen success in other gaming systems, but by and large his forays into Pathfinder have consistently been rated mediocre to downright bad by respected reviewers specifically because of his lack of attention to clarity and design paradigms. I hesitate to espouse, at least in this context, the opinions of someone whose forays into the game in question generally throw any semblance of mechanical balance to the wind in favor of a "great story" that often can't actually be executed since the rules to enable the story are difficult to parse or completely destroy the balancing systems that form a major part of the storytelling device (i.e. the Pathfinder Roleplaying game itself, which is very "crunchy" and is built on a rules-heavy framewrok). The opinion may be generally valid, and in fact, there are many successful game systems built upon a rules-lite premise for exactly that reason, but there are a vast array of RPGs in the world that all facilitate group story-telling in certain ways, and a...
Add some necromancy and that product could be used with Pathfinder.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On this topic of fudging I think we should add raising the DC's of skills when the player has a high modifier in a skill.
As an example a GM asked what to do about a player with a +40, IIRC, perception modifier.
If a player invest skill points, feats, magic items(money), and so on, which are all resources and you(the GM) raise the DC's so he has the same chance of success as he would, had he not used all of those resources then you are invalidating his build to a large extent.
If you don't raise the DC, but you use other methods to make it harder then that is no better.
If you don't like for a player to really push a certain skill or AC, or attacks rolls then just say so. He might not like it, but he will know to use those resources for other things.
If a GM tells me he does not like SoD effects with really high saves I just won't build one. It is better than me building one, and him nullifying it.
Yes, I did the SoD(not exactly but it was still combat ending). The GM didnt like it too much so we came to an agreeable arrangement.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just the fact that some get magic, some get all armor/weapons, even among martials not all get tower-shield would indicate that its about variety, not equals.
I think if you view variety as being in opposition to equality, you are missing the point of those who seek change.
To use your examples above, let's compare the fighter who gets all weapons* and armor, including tower shields. These allow fighters to essentially deal damage, and have a good AC.
The wizard gets limited weapons, and no armor, but gets spells. The spells allow fighters wizards to essentially deal damage, and have a good AC.
So far, things are fairly balanced. The fighter has some advantages, such as "always-on armor" and very good average damage. The wizard has some advantages, such as variety of defensive boosts, and attacks that target touch AC, deal elemental damage or even automatically hit, and target multiple opponents.
Looking at it in this way, the characters are fairly equal, even though they do their offense/defense in different ways and have different options. Things are good and balanced.
But wait! Once the fight is over, the fighter essentially starts sharpening his sword for the next fight. There isn't much he can do that a commoner could not. The wizard is just getting started. He has useful options for social encounters, adventuring, etc. etc. He still has a large variety of class features (spells & spell-like abilities/familiar/crafting) that are incredibility useful, the fighter has virtually none of these options. But it gets even worse... the wizard has much better options in combat then chipping away at HP. He can blind, stun, drain levels, and inflict just about any condition in the rulebook. He can control the battlefield, summon allies, move friends and enemies, and Wish for anything he wants.
Things are not all good and balanced. I don't think that balance issues are really that bad, but it is difficult to compare various classes at 10th level and above, and not see issues that require a GM to work really hard to present challenges that are fun for everyone. The fighters are basically only equipped for challenges that require HP damage to solve, while the wizard can handle just about everything, including HP damage.
There have even been posts saying its -unplayble- (not on this thread).
Yeah, all the hyperbole and even out right myths make it really difficult to get a handle on balance issues. During my early days on the messageboards, there was some extreme caster/martial disparity proponents who would really overstate the issue. I was usually on the 'game is fine as-is' side of those arguments, and find myself still on that side often. It took me a while to find the middle ground that matched my game experiences and analysis of the rules. Thankfully, there were some patient posters who really cared about the game, and were willing to post builds, and really explain their beliefs and opinions. There are some great guides, posts, and articles that would save a new GM a lot of headaches, but they are not always easy to find.
The funny thing is, I'm more inclined to play a more classic AD&D style of Pathfinder then a by-the-book playtest. I prefer beer and pretzels laid-back play, over an optimized highly lethal game. But altering the rules to make that happen requires a fairly decent understanding of what is under the hood. Some of the most common fixes, such as giving monsters more HP or DR just make the problem worse. Also, many GMs see the martials as overpowered when they first start playing, while the casters power generally appears later, and often in more subtle ways.
My goal in all of this is not really for my home games. I have figured most of this stuff out, and have a fair number of changes that make the game play the way I would want. I just think it would be great if some of this stuff was stated up front, and didn't require wading through thousands of posts. It could be a few rule changes, a few alternate rules, or even just a sidebar about what players and GM can expect if they play the game as written at higher levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this juncture I come out of lurk mode and remind everyone.
Just because there is a class power disparity does not mean the players know/care/or even try to use it.
If a player never takes invisibilty sphere then whos rogue is being invalidated?
When discussing this topic with someone and it seems "they're playing a completely different game" it's likely they are playing a completely different game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use Unchained Rogue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are three main types of encounters. Combat, social, and skill. Every other class can contribute something to these encounter types. Rogues have sneak attack and skills to deal with people, obstacles, and traps. Unchained rogue has other stuff that I don't recall right now for combat. Barbarians have a good skill list, rage, and some nifty rage powers to help them deal with obstacles. Wizards and clerics have magic and with more feats that let them break what little constrains they have, plus are consistently buffed by additional spells added to their list. . Rangers have skills, spells, weapon styles, an animal companion... You get the picture.
Fighters though don't have that same versatility. In combat, they do damage, but so does a barbarian. More often than not, the barbarian and ranger can come close and occasionally out damage while still having utility outside of combat. Without a great deal of investment, they can have some decent skills while still contributing greatly in combat. If a fighter wants the same skill points as a barbarian, they need at least an Intelligence of 14 to get the minimum 4 points that a barbarian straight up gets without any intelligence investment. They'd need an 18 in Intelligence to get the same 6 that a Ranger starts off with. And while they can get feats to shore up the weaknesses of a lack of skills, they become less effective in combat. Remember that while they get a feat every level, half of those must be combat feats. And putting points into Int or Charisma makes your Wisdom suffer, which is really bad because your will save is terrible. Bravery only works on one type of Will save. Mind control is pretty much your enemy, even with Iron Will. If you put points into Wisdom, then you will be hard pressed to find room for Int and Char.
It's not a matter of being a "dirty rotten min-maxer". I'm actually a firm believer that you don't NEED an 18 in your primary stat. But I've played a two handed fighter that didn't have an 18 Strength or a negative Charisma. And it was still difficult to contribute to anything outside of combat. With 20 point buy and the intent to not min-max, I found myself with a 14 Strength, a 14 in Dex, a 14 in Con, and a 13 in Int, with a 12 in Wis, and a 10 in Charisma. This is without picking a race mind you. That gets you 3 skill points and if you pick a trait that gives you Diplomacy as a class skill, that's really only a +4 to Diplomacy, which is okay, but nothing special. And now you have only two other skill points to use. Your perception is going to be +2 unless you can find a way to make it a class skill. Plus, your other physical skills are lower. You have a lower AC and HP, so you will feel that pain. Your Will save is +1. It's going to be a long rough road unless you pick a race to compliment your stats.
Meanwhile, a barbarian has their rage and rage powers to continue to rock out. Superstition is like an Iron Will that levels with you, and the drawback has rarely come up in game. So that makes up for your poor Will save, along with the bonus from Rage. Meanwhile the ranger has their spells and weapon styles and two good saves that make them still rock and roll in and out of combat without nearly the investment that the fighter needs. With 20 point buy, I can give my ranger similar stats and they will bring more to the table. Without min-maxing, I decide to give my ranger a 14 Strength, a 14 in Dex, a 14 in Con, and an 8 in Int, with a 14 in Wis, and a 12 in Charisma. . Since I have six skill points, I don't need Int, so I can give myself some more Con for HP or Dex for AC. With me purposefully dumping my Int, I have 5 skill points, the same AC and Health, but a better Will save, more skills, a better Perception, and if I take the same trait to make Diplomacy a class skill, a better Diplomacy. Hell, I could be better at Intimidate (the only social skill a Fighter gets as a class skill) than a fighter. And comparing feats, yeah a Ranger only gets one while a fighter gets two, but both are probably snagging Power Attack. While the fighter can get another fear (combat or social), the ranger still has a better Will save, way more skill points, and later one, will have spells and a cool pet to kick ass with. Or the ability to support my allies with the other Hunter's option. And some of your skills improve in the right terrain, so unless you are travelling to a different terrain type every session, you're covered.
The problem isn't actually balance. It's equity. It's everyone having something to bring in during combat, skill, or social encounter. They don't have to bring the same thing as another, or even be 'equal'. But they have to bring something to do so they don't stay silent and twiddle their thumbs while the grown ups are talking. A bard can fight, surprisingly well in combat. But they bring their spells and Inspiring Song to the table for combat. For skills, again, spells are useful and they have a wide variety of skills they can use, plus Jack of All Trades. For social encounters, bards can use their Performance skills in place of their social skills to have duels of wit. They aren't damage dealers like barbarians or reality shapers like wizards, but they still bring interesting options to the table. Same with a paladin and ranger and even a barbarian! Every other class has class features that help them bring something different to the table in any of those three scenarios, and most of them have spells to boot, which are stronger than feats. To do the same with a fighter, you have to sacrifice more than any other class to have an 'okay' Diplomacy that has a 45% chance of success against an indifferent person. And you still only have two more points to spend, assuming you don't go human or favored class skill. And that's it. No spells, no class features, no nothing. Just that and the hopes that the GM will throw you a bone with magic items.
With only three skill points in a non-min-maxed Fighter build, what can they bring to the table in a social encounter? Or a skill encounter? That's the problem They don't NEED to be skill monkeys or faces, just like the bard isn't a massive damage dealer. But the bard still has options in combat. And the fighter needs options in social and skill encounters. That's essentially my problem with the fighter in just about every iteration of D&D.