I'm making a fighter for PBP. I put his only 2 skill points into profession farmer. It would be better if profession, craft, and perform were on a minimum 1 point per level, for the first one of each. That won't stop me from looking for a game. Mook Burley has a long spear, heavy crossbow, club, and a chain shirt. If the GM lets me, I will take superstition.
I can get totally on board giving fighters some more skill points.
Down those lines, in a broader sense, how about ditching the point-buy system? With a typical ~4d6-lowest format one can do away with the dump stat. I mean, I see how that might be a problem for some folks, but by making things less evenly distributed they seem to me to get more fair. Everyone's still going to be better at some things than others, but if one can "dump" a 12 into CHA instead of a 7 or 8 it makes a difference. Especially combined with some skill-point flexibility.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dice rolls over point-buy do not generally make things fairer unless you cheat to make sure that the weaker characters get better rolls....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dice rolls over point-buy do not generally make things fairer unless you cheat to make sure that the weaker characters get better rolls....
Exactly this.
Rolling also doesn't do anything to really get rid of dump stats compared to point buy. Instead of buying up their most important stat and dumping their least important one, players just put the highest roll in their most important stat, and the lowest roll in the least important. The only real difference is that the RNG might give you a more even distribution of stats than point buy. I've seen plenty of roll sets that produced an incredibly unbalanced statline.
Lol, I guess. I'm just talking about getting those low stats up so they'll be, or at least feel, more effective in play. Changes the mindset as much as anything else, since that's an issue for some folks. Of course more important stats still will get the higher number, but it avoids forcing stats lower simply to bump another higher. I think it encourages parity, or at least competence; more people can be better at more things.
|
Dice rolls over point-buy do not generally make things fairer unless you cheat to make sure that the weaker characters get better rolls....
I will say - stat array probably helps a bit, though I'm not a fan of how it reduces customization. The stat array helps MAD classes relative to SAD classes, and the bulk (not all) of the most powerful classes are almost entirely SAD.
Along similar lines - I've considered house-ruling a stat point per character creation rules each level instead of a single stat-up every 4th.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol, I guess. I'm just talking about getting those low stats up so they'll be, or at least feel, more effective in play. Changes the mindset as much as anything else, since that's an issue for some folks. Of course more important stats still will get the higher number, but it avoids forcing stats lower simply to bump another higher. I think it encourages parity, or at least competence; more people can be better at more things.
Only for people who roll well. And even then, it doesn't always work out that way.
I mean if I get an 18, 12, 12, 12, 6, 6 I'm not only pretty much required to play a SAD caster (or be screwed), I'm forced to dump lower than I probably would in point-buy.
And that's not even talking about something like 14, 12, 12, 12, 10, 6 where I'm not only screwed no matter my class, but also have a godawful dump stat to boot.
And both of those can be in the same group as the guy who rolled 18, 16, 16, 15, 14, 12. And nothing forces that guy not to play a Cleric or Druid and still be way more badass than any of the other characters.
In short, rolling is an awful way to attempt to achieve any sort of balance whatsoever. Unless you can somehow magically make your martial players roll better than those who play casters, anyway.
Why I's talking about a rolling setup that lends itself to scores over 10, as does 4d6-1. Add in the three-sets variant.
Not suggesting it'll fix the issues for folks lamenting that other classes supposedly can do things better, etc., but, again simply that it'd make abilities/skills at least a little friendlier than when compelled to lower them to negative modifiers at the outset.
Lol, I guess. I'm just talking about getting those low stats up so they'll be, or at least feel, more effective in play. Changes the mindset as much as anything else, since that's an issue for some folks. Of course more important stats still will get the higher number, but it avoids forcing stats lower simply to bump another higher. I think it encourages parity, or at least competence; more people can be better at more things.Only for people who roll well. And even then, it doesn't always work out that way.
I mean if I get an 18, 12, 12, 12, 6, 6 I'm not only pretty much required to play a SAD caster (or be screwed), I'm forced to dump lower than I probably would in point-buy.
And that's not even talking about something like 14, 12, 12, 12, 10, 6 where I'm not only screwed no matter my class, but also have a godawful dump stat to boot.
And both of those can be in the same group as the guy who rolled 18, 16, 16, 15, 14, 12. And nothing forces that guy not to play a Cleric or Druid and still be way more badass than any of the other characters.
In short, point-buy is an awful way to attempt to achieve any sort of balance whatsoever. Unless you can somehow magically make your martial players roll better than those who play casters, anyway.
sure you dont mean dice roll?
^Pretty sure/assumed he did.
Also, just to double back and (maybe foolishly, but why not) double down on what I's originally getting at: Using a point-buy, people can generate the same exact numbers every single time. Using a rolling method, they're almost guaranteed to get different results. I think think that's a helpful thing, as it injects a little randomness into what might be best for a PC's creation at any given time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why I's talking about a rolling setup that lends itself to scores over 10, as does 4d6-1. Add in the three-sets variant.
I have seen rolls like that in 4d6 drop the lowest. On multiple occasions. With the middle set the GM would usually let you reroll, but the top and bottom ones? I've played in games where two people had scores like those.
Not suggesting it'll fix the issues for folks lamenting that other classes supposedly can do things better, etc., but, again simply that it'd make abilities/skills at least a little friendlier than when compelled to lower them to negative modifiers at the outset.
If you don't want people to dump stats in point-buy, you can just not let them. That's a lot fairer than rolling and winding up with some characters vastly more powerful than others.
And I speak from experience having played with lots of GMs who demanded rolling. It's no fun being the one with terrible scores, and being the one with way better scores than everyone else doesn't exactly feel amazing either.
Also, just to double back and (maybe foolishly, but why not) double down on what I's originally getting at: Using a point-buy, people can generate the same exact numbers every single time. Using a rolling method, they're almost guaranteed to get different results. I think think that's a helpful thing, as it injects a little randomness into what might be best for a PC's creation at any given time.
I've never seen two characters by the same person with the same stat distribution in point-buy. Never even mind different people.
And I don't think how powerful my character is compared to the other PCs being random is especially fun. I never have.
Dice rolling worked better in older editions because ability scores werent so tied to things like saving throws and the math was flatter. Look at LotFP, Beyond the Wall, or really any retroclone and you can see that. In 3.X, stats are more important, so you can really feel the sting. Also, many retroclones have funnels where you basically make a bunch of charcters and run them through an adventure. Whoever survives is your character.
Why I's talking about a rolling setup that lends itself to scores over 10, as does 4d6-1. Add in the three-sets variant.
Not suggesting it'll fix the issues for folks lamenting that other classes supposedly can do things better, etc., but, again simply that it'd make abilities/skills at least a little friendlier than when compelled to lower them to negative modifiers at the outset.
Rolling stats is arbitrary and impartial, but hardly fair, given the impact that 30 seconds of dice rolling has on the campaign - some of which go for years, and high or low stats are the result of complete dumb luck.
I've played a 1st ed cleric whose lowest stat was 16 (I rolled three 18s, 2 17s and a 16. In front of the GM and other players), who was an unkillable god that took the GM about 3 months to kill off after he was made an NPC when I left the country.
I've played a 2nd ed cleric whose highest stats were Wisdom and Con... of 11. And he was a dwarf. He was dead weight to the point of silliness and after two sessions of being largely ineffectual he died an ignominious death.
In the former, my stats were so ridiculous as to actually make me feel bad about playing the character. In the latter, my character was so bad at everything he attempted that I wound up feeling bad about having to be carried by his party members.
I will say - stat array probably helps a bit, though I'm not a fan of how it reduces customization. The stat array helps MAD classes relative to SAD classes, and the bulk (not all) of the most powerful classes are almost entirely SAD.
Also, stat array is worth less than 20 point buy which seems rather standard (being only worth 15). I've be considering doing stat array and then +2 to any two scores of players choice (must be different), and -2 to any one score of players choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've considered a
16 14 14 12 12 10 stat array (and allowing a player to lower any of the stats, but they wont gain any points out of it)
At that point dumping a stat is just a choice for roleplaying. Also this array helps MAD characters without giving SAD characters too much an advantage.
Point buys are the fairest method - I've seen some horrendous situations arise from rolling.
That being said I have less of an issue with rolling for HP at leveling time - although in my mind giving max HP is the fairest way to reflect the differences between classes and give some balance to caster/martial.
In fact some way to give a min HP per level for martial (D10+ hp) classes might be a good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always get confused on threads like this. The original premise had to do with whether Pathfinder is unbalanced with regard to classes, an implicit question about the tier system in general the C/MD specifically. It seemed to get pretty solidly derailed into a question about whether GM's spoil player agency and the game overall when they fudge rolls. Now it's shifted closer to the original premise but is dealing with specific mechanics that technically apply to all characters and is now a comparison to power levels in prior editions.
It's confusing because everyone seems to have been more or less okay with the topic shifts.
That said, I have gained a better appreciate for the "don't fudge rolls; be an open GM" camp. I have a confession; I'm a roll-fudger and to make matters worse I'm not inclined to even let the players know. I have tried to gauge player reaction and adjust encounters on the fly without telling them. I wanted to increase the tension and make the "story" more "interesting". I now realize I was making it more interesting for me, not necessarily for them. To be fair, I recall they enjoyed finally defeating encounters that ended up being ramped up on the fly, but I suspect they would have enjoyed simply steam rolling it just as much and it would have been clear they achieved it on their own, likely making it all the sweeter. Assuming I ever GM a game again, I'll be taking that into account. Thanks for that.
Trying to swing things back to the original premise:
I'll reiterate, Pathfinder is not balanced, specifically the classes in Pathfinder are not balanced against one another. It never was balanced. It is an iteration of an already unbalanced game, D&D 3.5, and was purposefully crafted with a degree of backwards compatibility.
Moreover, the imbalance is extreme and covers all of the meaningful aspects of the game. Given that the game is a RPG with crunch, it attempts to gate all meaningful interactions with the world behind success/fail checks. Access to magic provides an effective means of rendering many success/fail checks moot. There is a direct correlation (causative in my opinion) between a class's access to magic and their relative power level.
Finally, I believe this imbalance should not be the default level of power balance. I believe that any player approaching the game with little to no prior knowledge of what to expect, would expect that whichever route they went, their choices would all provide similarly potent options, enabling them to handle any encounters they would meet with, on average, similar likelihood of success and with similar capability to contribute as anyone else. I believe that the grittier, more grounded approach, with Fighters/Rogues/Monks having much lower ceilings, is something that should have been an alternate rule or path, with clear forewarning that doing this will cause the sort of inequity found in the current game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's confusing because everyone seems to have been more or less okay with the topic shifts...
Trying to swing things back to the original premise...
I like it in such a way because it lets discussion feel like any other conversation one would have in person (and keeps people active, if a bit disorganized).
Regarding the original topic, the thought of equitable contribution is my position as well. I would expect something like a fighter either to have his own ways of handling a variety of situations, or to be extremely powerful in his niche.
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.
I don't know that that's entirely the case, or at least not entirely the way to frame it. I don't think breaking events into combat / skill / social encounters is necessarily fair, because each of those "things" is a solution rather than an event.
For example. There's some kind of treasure in a vault below a mansion, the owner of whom is hosting a party. You need the plot device in the vault. How do you get it? Depending on the answer, the encounters are different. Do you pretend to be guests / servants / entertainment (social)? Do you attempt to sneak through the party without being noticed / climb walls / hide in a food cart (skill)? Do you wade in, shout aggressively and start cleaving your way through guards and guests (combat)?
The problem is, most classes bring different options. All those routes are open to a bard or ranger or wizard. Paladins may have a harder time figuring out what to do. But fighters, at least on their base chassis, have one option (and one most players wouldn't take). The barbarian has that same option, but with more skill points is a little better suited for the other options (and with more innate ability through rage and rage powers, can leave his weapons / armor behind if need be to increase his chances of success without completely losing his abilities).
I think this is a clearer issue than breaking things into encounters. That is, the fighter's solution to any problem is "hit it with a stick." Most other classes have "hit it with a stick as well as a fighter, or...." The game is about resource management and problem solving, and some classes are given more problem solving tools than others. Even the core rogue, with all its complaints, has multiple options because of its skill points & talents. That magic tends to be far more certain than skill checks I expect is its main problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of it is the removal of meaningful restrictions on casters, especially as they level. Most metamagic feats help them get around such restrictions which really makes them ramp up.
What I've done in my games is that for spells, I take a lot of inspiration from novels and such on restrictions on magic. Wild Magic, magic that harms the caster, turning most high level spells into long rituals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a quick but not entirely perfect way of making pathfinder more balanced is only allowing classes from the 4th, 3rd and 2nd tiers to be picked.
This has been mentioned in other threads before and probably mentioned here too...somewhere. Still I believe it is worth repeating because it is a fast enough fix for those who do not want to add too many house rules or use 3pp.
|
|
I've considered a
16 14 14 12 12 10 stat array (and allowing a player to lower any of the stats, but they wont gain any points out of it)
At that point dumping a stat is just a choice for roleplaying. Also this array helps MAD characters without giving SAD characters too much an advantage.
As I've said many times, I do 25 point-buy, but no stat above 16, and only one below 10 (and that no lower than 8) all before racials.
That allows a mild stat-dump of one stat and restricts SAD whileempowering MAD characters, but gives players a few more choices (two 16s if they want is a big one to have available).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I go even more extreme and say no stat above 16 after racial adjustment, and no stat under 10 before racial adjustments.
This puts a cap on caster power, without really harming martial characters at all. It also encourages characters who are more versatile, and work better within the CR system.
Alright, I'm going to make a (probably pointless) attempt to address why "balance" is an issue and why most of our arguments about it seem to go in circles.
I got into PF before it was PF; it was Golarion that fascinated me. When I got the Beta rules and the playtest stuff the goal was very clear: continue with 3.5 because a whole lot of people had no interest in 4E but fix the most egregious errors of it (e.g. dead levels, classes that had no value except for level dipping, etc.). The Core Rulebook, the Bestiary, and the Gamemastery Guide were all written with that focus in mind - a continuation of 3.5. Paizo themselves billed the game as that ("3.5 doesn't survive, it thrives!" posters are still hanging in every game store in my area).
At the time, PF was just as often called edition 3.75. No one calls it that now; but why? We still have the Core rulebook, the Bestiary, and the Gamemastery Guide. Because ever since the APG came out, the game has quickly moved away from being 3.75 and quickly became it's own thing. Except that it hasn't because the entire foundation of the game is based on 3 books written specifically for the purpose of maintaining 3.5 (albeit to a higher standard).
Pathfinder is the rpg equivalent of Stretch Armstrong and we have pulled and twisted the holy crap out of him. And every new book that has been released has injected more of that gooey stuff that makes ol' Strech work into him. The problem with that is that Stretch Armstrong is now Stretch Fat Albert. Yet, we continue to pull and twist the holy crap out of him.
There's too much of a dichotomy between what PF originally was and what it has become. However, most people don't want a PF 2.0 (even though this would solve many problems) because it would require an update of an ungodly amount of material.
Yet, until that happens, we will continue to have 20+ people on one thread who all share the same philosophy and yet agree on absolutely nothing despite sharing the exact same ruleset.
I don't see how I can view it as anything other than 3.75 when the entire foundation of the game is still rooted in the Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and Gamemastery Guide (EDIT: All of which are still, by design, rooted in 3.5).
EDIT: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Are you advocating dumping those books?
Paizo doesn't think rewriting the entire system at once is necessary to enact change.
I think it's more accurate to say they're not foolish enough to do it... At least for now, right when their biggest rival has just released a new edition and is still the most well-known RPG around.
|
|
I go even more extreme and say no stat above 16 after racial adjustment, and no stat under 10 before racial adjustments.
This puts a cap on caster power, without really harming martial characters at all. It also encourages characters who are more versatile, and work better within the CR system.
The only problem with this is that you've basically just flip-flopped the bias from Sad classes to Mad classes. There are plenty of classes that perform admirably with only a 16 in their highest stat (paladin's, clerics/oracles, druids, alchemists, summoners, etc.) that that really won't see a drop in power under this rule. But along with nerfing the wizard, the fighter becomes a much less enticing class. Same with barbarian, cavalier, brawler, slayer, and swashbuckler. Most of them have very little reason to not have an 18 in their primary stat using a point buy, and gain very little from spreading stats around.
18 post racial is a nice middle point between keeping sad classes in line and punishing them for not having class features that rely on other stats.
The only problem with this is that you've basically just flip-flopped the bias from Sad classes to Mad classes. There are plenty of classes that perform admirably with only a 16 in their highest stat (paladin's, clerics/oracles, druids, alchemists, summoners, etc.) that that really won't see a drop in power under this rule. But along with nerfing the wizard, the fighter becomes a much less enticing class. Same with barbarian, cavalier, brawler, slayer, and swashbuckler. Most of them have very little reason to not have an 18 in their primary stat using a point buy, and gain very little from spreading stats around.
18 post racial is a nice middle point between keeping sad classes in line and punishing them for not having class features that rely on other stats.
I don't expect these limits to really affect most PCs much at all. The builds that are the most disruptive to play in my opinion are not the classes that fight and cast spells (because those builds generally require giving up some casting power in order to be good at fighting). Anything that cuts into a full casters spell casting makes them a less powerful character. This is designed to limit the real culprits of imbalance, the high stat casters.
In order for me to believe that this rule would negatively impact fighters, barbarians, cavaliers, etc. You would need to show that the character would not be able to deal enough damage in order to participate effectively in CR appropriate encounters. I've never seen anyone show that full BAB classes can't do enough damage. In fact, martials dealing lot's of damage is often considered disruptive to lower level campaign balance.
Since we are talking about at most +1 to hit and +2 to damage, the difference is +4 to hit 1d12+4 or +5 to hit and 1d12+6 damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually a Druid or Cleric would be MORE powerful with those rules for character creation as they have little incentive to max their casting stat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is designed to limit the real culprits of imbalance, the high stat casters.Arguably the most powerful are the summon-based builds - which that rule does almost nothing to weaken.
Summons aren't necessarily the most powerful...they are the most versatile and make it easy to replace the party muscle/melees.
A high Stat SAD caster that can take 3 feats, buff a save DC to the moon, and basically auto-kill every encounter...that's real power. In addition to getting bonus spells. DC 34 Flesh to Stone spells can just ruin any DM's plans, you know?
==Aelryinth
Unchained seems to have a slightly weak big 6 removal plan.
It does however let you gain higher main stats as you need them.
I prefer a menu based bonus system. Every even level the character can choose between +1 an ability, +1 hit and damage, +1 to armor class, or maybe an extra feat. The bonus requirement on weapons and armor are waived, so more special powers can be placed.
With max, pre-race stats of 16, there is, in either case, more incentive to play. Greater reincarnate, with only one lost level, at 9th spell level will give more incentive to druids.
You might try to encourage casters to use true strike and touch attack spells to put these on weapons and hand wrap items, for fighters and monks to use. Tattoos that give the recipient a magic power 3 times a day are also a good idea.
I honestly wouldn't mind a second edition, but with minor changes. Keep the same basic engine but fix up what's wrong.
Or maybe a Pathfinder Unchained 2. I'd actually really like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep the same basic engine but fix up what's wrong.
Ah, but then comes the inevitable issue of the dev's having different views on what's wrong and what needs rebalancing to the community.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep the same basic engine but fix up what's wrong.Ah, but then comes the inevitable issue of the dev's having different views on what's wrong and what needs rebalancing to the community.
Truth. I rather doubt the Caster Martial Edition would be addressed by a Pathfinder 1.5 edition when Paizo's position on the disparity is "It's a myth propagated by people with an agenda." One can also look at all the various rebalancing errata that've been released over the last few years. People who were annoyed by the Slashing Grace & Fencing Grace nerfs aren't likely to finder Pathfinder 1.5 doing anything they like with regards to Dex-to-Damage.
What I would hope to see out of a Pathfinder 1.5 isn't so much better game balance as cleaner rules. Paizo's general dislike of changing rules text has lead to way too many cases of really tortured interpretations in order to get the "right" outcome. Interpretations that often lead to lots of messy knock-on effects like the metaphorical hands of effort debacle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truth. I rather doubt the Caster Martial Edition would be addressed by a Pathfinder 1.5 edition when Paizo's position on the disparity is "It's a myth propagated by people with an agenda."
As far as I'm aware, James Jacobs was the person who said that, not any individual on the design team and James Jacobs is superceeded by the design team in regards to mechanics (if this weren't true CRB clerics wouldn't be able to get power from concepts).
What I would hope to see out of a Pathfinder 1.5 isn't so much better game balance as cleaner rules. Paizo's general dislike of changing rules text has lead to way too many cases of really tortured interpretations in order to get the "right" outcome. Interpretations that often lead to lots of messy knock-on effects like the metaphorical hands of effort debacle.
Ah, the wondrous flaws of "If we add an extra line here, that paragraph goes over to the next page, which pushes this column to the next page, which pushes x to y, etc., etc."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truth. I rather doubt the Caster Martial Edition would be addressed by a Pathfinder 1.5 edition when Paizo's position on the disparity is "It's a myth propagated by people with an agenda."As far as I'm aware, James Jacobs was the person who said that, not any individual on the design team and James Jacobs is superceeded by the design team in regards to mechanics (if this weren't true CRB clerics wouldn't be able to get power from concepts).
The quote may be Jacobs, but between the design choices we've seen in Pathfinder and everything SKR revealed after leaving the company, the sentiment seems to apply to at least some of the people in the design team as well.
The quote may be Jacobs, but between the design choices we've seen in Pathfinder and everything SKR revealed after leaving the company, the sentiment seems to apply to at least some of the people in the design team as well.Truth. I rather doubt the Caster Martial Edition would be addressed by a Pathfinder 1.5 edition when Paizo's position on the disparity is "It's a myth propagated by people with an agenda."As far as I'm aware, James Jacobs was the person who said that, not any individual on the design team and James Jacobs is superceeded by the design team in regards to mechanics (if this weren't true CRB clerics wouldn't be able to get power from concepts).
I'd hate to derail the thread but what did the SKR reveal specifically?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The quote may be Jacobs, but between the design choices we've seen in Pathfinder and everything SKR revealed after leaving the company, the sentiment seems to apply to at least some of the people in the design team as well.
... that must be why rogues and monks were strengthened, summoners were weakened, theres is a whole chapter of a RPG-line hardcover about weakening mages, a system that you can give martials to make them abit more powerful for free, the weaker spellcasters in occult adventures, and they've started making more powerful feats for fighters like the bravery feats in Ultimate Intrigue...
The design team seems aware of the issue to me. Whether or not they have always agreed, I cannot say, but recent materials seem to indicate they are taking more action (YMMV on whether currently level of the action is enough of course).