I can't imagine Paizo is going to want to throw out their bread and butter to attempt to placate a vocal minority group within the community.
Has there been any attempt to put together a house-ruled version of the game for that group? Seems like there are enough people on the forums that complain about these issues that if they worked together they could create such a rule set.
|
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).
In addition - there's the whole floor vs ceiling balance which Paizo needs to worry about. Really - the balance at the floor of wizard power vs a halfway competent martial isn't half bad. It's mostly once the wizards start getting any real degree of system mastery that they become significantly more powerful.
I believe 2nd edition had this; with a high constitution you rerolled a 1 (or even 2) on your hp die. I think they may have even brought it back for 5th edition?
Sounds good
I also think damage should be more of an issue - if a caster gets whacked for a % of their hp this should definitely have some consequence to their casting ability (more for a D6 less for a D8 class).... after all the process of casting a spell is complex... leaking blood everywhere makes things harder!
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).
I am inclined to agree with this. Besides Unchained, recent books have also been giving martials a lot of love and trying to patchwork improve them somewhat. And for the most part most of classes original to Pathfinder fall out somewhere in the middle between overpowerful wizards and weak core rogues and fighters.
Really most of the issues with Pathfinder are grandfathered in from 3.5, When Paizo was new enough that I don't think they had a concrete vision of the style of gameplay they wanted, were under time constraints to get there own version of the game out to support APs, and were worried about backward compatibility and annoying die hard 3.5 fans by making too many radical changes. A new core rule book that just addressed many of the problem issues people have pointed out (spells, class disparity, feat chains) wouldn't even require revamping the rest of the game, and would probably be the only real "fix" to martial-caster disparity.
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).
I am inclined to agree with this. Besides Unchained, recent books have also been giving martials a lot of love and trying to patchwork improve them somewhat. And for the most part most of classes original to Pathfinder fall out somewhere in the middle between overpowerful wizards and weak core rogues and fighters.
Really most of the issues with Pathfinder are grandfathered in from 3.5, When Paizo was new enough that I don't think they had a concrete vision of the style of gameplay they wanted, were under time constraints to get there own version of the game out to support APs, and were worried about backward compatibility and annoying die hard 3.5 fans by making too many radical changes. A new core rule book that just addressed many of the problem issues people have pointed out (spells, class disparity, feat chains) wouldn't even require revamping the rest of the game, and would probably be the only real "fix" to martial-caster disparity.
So Pathfinder Core Rule Book Unchained? I'd buy that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd hate to derail the thread but what did the SKR reveal specifically?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).
Look up Louis J Porter's interview with SKR on his Transparency Agenda video cast. It's got moat of his reveals.
My favorite reveal was that Jason did no enjoy looking at FAQs, yet every FAQ decicion went through him. Because of this FAQs were very slow and SKR could only get him to look at one per week, oftentimes less.
The only reason FAQs got published as often as they did was because Sean had a lot more power to annoy Jason than any of the new hires, hence why we get less FAQs now that he's gone.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, can't really blame him for that I suppose. If my job included reading every negative post about something in the game by people that can't say anything without being a c@&& about it, I wouldn't look forward to it either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it was SKR's job to do that, Jason only had to look at the original rule, the dev suggested changes, and the rationales for the changes. At no point was it necessary for Jason to look at the original post, unless he wanted to.
So yeah, I can't blame Sean for quitting. He joined the company as a Golarian dude, got forced into the core team, then got forced into being the PR guy, then got FAQs forced on him. Can't blame him for leaving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sean got blamed for a lot of stuff because he was the visible guy. People assumed he was in charge, so they threw a lot of negativity his way. I don't know how much of a factor that was for him leaving but I would not be surprised if it was a factor.
I can't imagine Paizo is going to want to throw out their bread and butter to attempt to placate a vocal minority group within the community.
Has there been any attempt to put together a house-ruled version of the game for that group? Seems like there are enough people on the forums that complain about these issues that if they worked together they could create such a rule set.
It's called Kirthfinder. I tried to put together a PbP game because I wanted to give it a genuine go but nobody bit. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't access a link well on my phone, but the Sean interview with Louis J Porter is very enlightening.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Link to SKR interview. I just found it. :)
edit:
This skips to about the 11:30 mark where he talks about him not being the lead developer <---
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Link to SKR interview. I just found it. :)
Thank you :)
Let's see how long it stays up this time... Every time it's posted, it soon gets excluded.
I believe 2nd edition had this; with a high constitution you rerolled a 1 (or even 2) on your hp die. I think they may have even brought it back for 5th edition?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.
Actually stat array is the 'fairest', because it restricts how high of stats you can have, while letting you assign them where you like. So mages can't buy down Str and Con and Wis to up Int and Con and Dex better then, say, martial classes.
As for rolling hit points, easy fix. just use d6's.
D6 for hp = d6 for hp
d8 for hp = d6+2, instead.
d10 for HP = d6+4, instead.
d12 for hp = d6+6, instead.
So mages get 3.5 hp/die
Rogues and monks get 5.5 per die...better by 1 on avg, but the minimum is 2 better.
Fighters get 7.5 per die. Now the wizard needs an 18 con just to have as many HP as a fighter does with no con bonus. And a minimum of 5!
Barbs end up with 9.5 per die, which makes them incredibly tough, and no way a mage will ever have as many hit points.
In effect, everyone has the same hit die, you're just handing out Toughness feats instead of bigger hit die. And ENFORCING the idea that combatants really will have more hit points then casters.
=======
Of course, the cleric blows this comparison out of the water. The cleric should be divided into two classes...a d6 9 spell levels primary caster, and a d8 6 levels mixed caster (like the inquisitor/magus/bloodrager, etc) to equalize things. No way it should get the best of both worlds.
I probably wouldn't let this happen for any class that has 20 levels of spellcasting. They have enough advantages...an Inquisitor and Bard have enough advantages over a rogue with spellcasting, there's no way they deserve equal hit points.
In all likelihood, I'd probably restrict the benefit to barbs, fighters, rogues and monks. Maaaaybe for paladins and rangers do d8+2, to reflect their casting ability.
==Aelryinth
I believe 2nd edition had this; with a high constitution you rerolled a 1 (or even 2) on your hp die. I think they may have even brought it back for 5th edition?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.
My books at the house, but I don't think that kicked in until you were in the 19+ Con range. I could be wrong though.
Also, if I remember right only fighters(and their sub-classes like Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Cavalier) got access to the highest Con bonuses.
1E and 2E just completely different games from PF though. I'd house ruled early on that wizards got same bonus spell per day (using INT) as clerics did for high Wis. But as a no-armor, 1d4 (and a limit on Con bonus) - it was all I could ever do to convince someone to take a chance on playing a wizard. But to a degree - similar to now, "if" they lived to start accessing those 7-9th level spells, they were BA. Like a lot of games today in PF (I assume), many groups never played to that level except for some one-shots or modules though. Just took to long with a regular group, and a higher death rate in the game as a general rule.
You are correct...only fighter classes and sub classes got the benefits of high Con, and the min HP didn't actually start until 20 Con (19 was the +5 hp/hd).
IF you kept them out of melee wizards rocked in 1e, because dmg spells were so much more powerful. Roll well on a fireball, and it was literally save or die for many enemies. two wizards tossing fireballs at the same target was definitely a save twice or die scenario, and maybe even a Save-and-die anyways. The low hp just made you play them a lot more carefully then happens in 3e...something the high hp of PF casters doesn't really require.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, the cleric blows this comparison out of the water. The cleric should be divided into two classes...a d6 9 spell levels primary caster, and a d8 6 levels mixed caster (like the inquisitor/magus/bloodrager, etc) to equalize things. No way it should get the best of both worlds.
The Warpriest is the cleric restricted to be martially inclined; it would have been great if Unchained had included an "Unchained Cleric" that was restricted to being a pure caster without any martial abilities.
Actually stat array is the 'fairest', because it restricts how high of stats you can have, while letting you assign them where you like. So mages can't buy down Str and Con and Wis to up Int and Con and Dex better then, say, martial classes.
I meant "fairest" in terms of class design not class balance (ie caster vs martial).
I do prefer max hp.... Arnold "The Barbarian" Schwarzeneger should absolutely have x2 the basic hp of a 1000 year old grey bearded Gandalf !
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ask and ye shall receive.
This compilation is somewhat more recent; Toz's links are to the Beta playtest version.
Does Kirthfinder cover martials having more attacks while moving? If so what chapter/doc is it in?
I believe 2nd edition had this; with a high constitution you rerolled a 1 (or even 2) on your hp die. I think they may have even brought it back for 5th edition?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.
In 2nd edition you couldn't gain more than 2 hp/level for bonus con unless you were a fighter/paladin/ranger iirc, it wasn't a reroll though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does Kirthfinder cover martials having more attacks while moving? If so what chapter/doc is it in?
Yes; that's one of the first things we did.
In linked playtest versions, it's right up front in the Introduction chapter.I'm currently working on a Combat chapter that will go into more detail.
You yourself state there is a dichotomy between PF at release and PF now. That is the difference between PF editions. Gradual, incremental change that doesn't invalidate rulebooks, only updated them. Paizo doesn't think rewriting the entire system at once is necessary to enact change.
Oh come on, Tri. Taking one line out of my post and using it to change what I was saying is annoying.
The dichotomy of PF "then" as opposed to PF "now" isn't one of rule changes. Adding more stuff to a game isn't a rule change, it's just adding more stuff. The dichotomy comes from the Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and Gamemastery Guide being designed specifically with the intent of continuing 3.5 (and thus why PF received the 3.75 moniker) but that is clearly not the design goal anymore (as I already stated)
As I stated quite clearly in the very first line of my original post, I was attempting to address why so many threads and arguments just seem to go around in circles even when everyone seems to agree on the general philosophy. That I've now had to completely restate what I already mentioned (in under 24 hours) has pretty much validated my entire point.
I will amend one thing from my original post: I would change "probably pointless" to "definitely pointless".
It's called Kirthfinder. I tried to put together a PbP game because I wanted to give it a genuine go but nobody bit. :/
That's surprising that you couldn't put together enough people for a game. Maybe advertise in the numerous Martial/Caster disparity threads?
As I see people continue to complain about these issues, I'll try to remember to point them in that direction.
Adding more stuff to a game isn't a rule change, it's just adding more stuff.I didn't say it changed the rules, I said it changed the game. That is why I picked out your dichotomy statement.
It changes the game alike pouring water down a well changes it.
Edition change has the advantage that you can ignore old rules.Incremental change like this does not have that advantage.
|
It changes the game alike pouring water down a well changes it.
I can say for a fact that games where my oracle/cleric (already a change right there if I'm allowed to use oracle) can use the Grace spell are noticeably different from ones where they can't. You talk about adding rules being adding water to water, when sometimes it's like adding oil and sometimes it's like adding soap.
My group has consistently playing this game for 6 years, the group, and I can say with no reservations the most difficult class has been the fighter. more encounters have broken because of the fighter. we had to self nerf that damn class. the only other class that came close was a 12 level barbarian with come and get me.
maybe it's because we use the critical hit deck, and don't roll to confirms crits, but in our games for the last 5 years , well constructed and built fighters have wreak more havoc than any other class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well yeah. If critical threats are auto-crits you're giving the fighter half his 20th level ability at lv1. And my guess is that the critical deck adds things in addition to damage? So yeah, the fighter would seem better than normal.
Still he should have easily been outclassed by all the other martial classes. Like how is the Come and get me barb not blowing the fighter out of the water?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group has consistently playing this game for 6 years, the group, and I can say with no reservations the most difficult class has been the fighter. more encounters have broken because of the fighter. we had to self nerf that damn class. the only other class that came close was a 12 level barbarian with come and get me.
maybe it's because we use the critical hit deck, and don't roll to confirms crits, but in our games for the last 5 years , well constructed and built fighters have wreak more havoc than any other class.
...Yeah, you're massively overvaluing TWF Fighters with those house rules. Though again, a Ranger with two kukris is going to be just as if not more terrifying so I don't really know how you're having problems with the fighter specifically.
My group has consistently playing this game for 6 years, the group, and I can say with no reservations the most difficult class has been the fighter. more encounters have broken because of the fighter. we had to self nerf that damn class. the only other class that came close was a 12 level barbarian with come and get me.
Everyone's experience will be different, and while some people will find your post interesting, be prepared for a slew of veiled "You're playing the game wrong / You're not skilled enough to see the problem" responses.
Really most of the issues with Pathfinder are grandfathered in from 3.5,...
I could not agree more. In fact, and SKR even mentions this in the interview, is that some things that were put into 3.0/3.5 never achieved their intent. But all that stuff still got carried over to PF.
As some have suggested, you could use Unchained as sort of the Core rulebook (I would do this as I don't like the action economy of iterative attacks and skills are overvalued in PF (IMO)) but the problem with that is that no books or AP's are written with that in mind.
I believe 2nd edition had this; with a high constitution you rerolled a 1 (or even 2) on your hp die. I think they may have even brought it back for 5th edition?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.
Actually stat array is the 'fairest', because it restricts how high of stats you can have, while letting you assign them where you like. So mages can't buy down Str and Con and Wis to up Int and Con and Dex better then, say, martial classes.
As for rolling hit points, easy fix. just use d6's.
D6 for hp = d6 for hp
d8 for hp = d6+2, instead.
d10 for HP = d6+4, instead.
d12 for hp = d6+6, instead.So mages get 3.5 hp/die
Rogues and monks get 5.5 per die...better by 1 on avg, but the minimum is 2 better.
Fighters get 7.5 per die. Now the wizard needs an 18 con just to have as many HP as a fighter does with no con bonus. And a minimum of 5!
Barbs end up with 9.5 per die, which makes them incredibly tough, and no way a mage will ever have as many hit points.In effect, everyone has the same hit die, you're just handing out Toughness feats instead of bigger hit die. And ENFORCING the idea that combatants really will have more hit points then casters.
=======
Of course, the cleric blows this comparison out of the water. The cleric should be divided into two classes...a d6 9 spell levels primary caster, and a d8 6 levels mixed caster (like the inquisitor/magus/bloodrager, etc) to equalize things. No way it should get the best of both worlds.I probably wouldn't let this happen for any class that has 20 levels of spellcasting. They have enough advantages...an Inquisitor and...
My group is actually in the middle of a rather large discussion about this. The issue with allowing for max HP is you change the ratio of HP because the classes.
3.5/6.5 == 0.538 vs. 6/12 == 0.500
That means higher HDs end up benefiting more from this method, than the default.
(Same with adding +2 to the d6s, but more amplified 3.5/9.5 == 0.368)
We're currently between allocating average HP (starting at 2nd level with the low part of the average first), and rerolling all of your HD every level and taking the new result if it's higher than your previous result.
e.g. 6th Level Fighter -
1st - 10
2nd - 10 + 1d10
3rd - 10 + 2d10
4th - 10 + 3d10
5th - 10 + 4d10
6th - 10 + 5d10
So at 6th level you only keep your total if it's higher than whatever you used at 5th.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could do what PFS does. full lv1 and then the high average each level.
It's called Kirthfinder. I tried to put together a PbP game because I wanted to give it a genuine go but nobody bit. :/I can't imagine Paizo is going to want to throw out their bread and butter to attempt to placate a vocal minority group within the community.
Has there been any attempt to put together a house-ruled version of the game for that group? Seems like there are enough people on the forums that complain about these issues that if they worked together they could create such a rule set.
Where do I bite? =P
It changes the game alike pouring water down a well changes it.I can say for a fact that games where my oracle/cleric (already a change right there if I'm allowed to use oracle) can use the Grace spell are noticeably different from ones where they can't. You talk about adding rules being adding water to water, when sometimes it's like adding oil and sometimes it's like adding soap.
Except new options only change the game if they are used.
This might sound an asinine thing to say but that is the problem.Consider Unchained. If one wanted, it has tons of tools to kick casters in the kneecaps for example if the classic disparity is your pet peevee.
But as long as it is not a core rule, it is not going to affect all tables and thus improve the game for all tables. That is the advantage of real edition change.
Oh, I found the rule. It doesn't start until you have at least 20 con, so I guess it's mostly like really tough monsters that got that.In 2nd edition you couldn't gain more than 2 hp/level for bonus con unless you were a fighter/paladin/ranger iirc, it wasn't a reroll though.I believe 2nd edition had this; with a high constitution you rerolled a 1 (or even 2) on your hp die. I think they may have even brought it back for 5th edition?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.
Incorrect. Monsters did not get any bonuses from stats in 1e, and only to a minor extent in 2e. They got bonuses to hit dice, instead. Daemons were the only creatures that effectively got a +bonus to hit dice, and it varied by the daemon (mezzodaemons were 10HD + 40 HP, and nycas were 12 HD +36 hp).
Most creatures didn't get Str bonuses TH or damage, either. It was all a part of HD.
==Aelryinth
...I believe 2nd edition had this; with a high constitution you rerolled a 1 (or even 2) on your hp die. I think they may have even brought it back for 5th edition?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.
Actually stat array is the 'fairest', because it restricts how high of stats you can have, while letting you assign them where you like. So mages can't buy down Str and Con and Wis to up Int and Con and Dex better then, say, martial classes.
As for rolling hit points, easy fix. just use d6's.
D6 for hp = d6 for hp
d8 for hp = d6+2, instead.
d10 for HP = d6+4, instead.
d12 for hp = d6+6, instead.So mages get 3.5 hp/die
Rogues and monks get 5.5 per die...better by 1 on avg, but the minimum is 2 better.
Fighters get 7.5 per die. Now the wizard needs an 18 con just to have as many HP as a fighter does with no con bonus. And a minimum of 5!
Barbs end up with 9.5 per die, which makes them incredibly tough, and no way a mage will ever have as many hit points.In effect, everyone has the same hit die, you're just handing out Toughness feats instead of bigger hit die. And ENFORCING the idea that combatants really will have more hit points then casters.
=======
Of course, the cleric blows this comparison out of the water. The cleric should be divided into two classes...a d6 9 spell levels primary caster, and a d8 6 levels mixed caster (like the inquisitor/magus/bloodrager, etc) to equalize things. No way it should get the best of both worlds.I probably wouldn't let this happen for any class that has 20 levels of spellcasting. They have enough
Remember that average hp/hd is only meaningful in a universe with no con bonuses.
The reason you give martials more hp/hd is so that more HP becomes a true class thing for martials over casters, and they can't catch up.
As it stands, a wizard who takes Toughness and a 16 Con has the same HP/level as a fighter with 12 con. The wizard also gets to cast False Life, and so can easily end up with more operating HP then a fighter.
So the fact the ratio is higher has to be further modified by average con...probably 14 or 16, depending on the class. Adding 1 hp/level to the wizard and fighter skews things in favor of the wizard, and as you add more Con (belts, inherents, etc), the ratio skews smaller and smaller.
What looks like a big ratio at level 2, at level 20 is essentially quite minor because of the Con scores of characters at those levels.
==Aelryinth
But as long as it is not a core rule, it is not going to affect all tables and thus improve the game for all tables. That is the advantage of real edition change.
I agree completely - everything 'Unchained' needs to become gospel not some set of possible rules that can be applied.
| 1 person 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).
this is my take on the whole balance of power (it will take a couple of points, so bear with me):
In pathfinder, fights are over many times in a couple of rounds.
In 2nd edition, bad guys had a LOT more hp compared to the amount of damage characters could deal, and there weren't that many ways of upping damage (this isn't saying that 2nd ed was balanced; it had issues).
Spellcasting resources were much more limited (1 or 2 spells at 1st level). The most reliable steady damage had to come from a fighter or similar beating the crap out of guys. The best way a wizard could use his one spell was to make the fighter hit things better, or help the fighter get to the bad guys or whatever else.
In pathfinder, all wizards will start out with at least 3 spells per day, plus usually some other source of magical damage. Sorcerers will start with 6. It's now possible to make a spellcaster that just blasts.
Let's take an encounter at level 4 for an example. In 2nd ed, this could mean 3 orogs (15 hp) and 3 orcs (5 hp). A level 4 2 handed fighter would do possibly 1d10+2 (and there was no cleave back...
Ahem.
The highest level 2nd level spell was Aganazzar's Scorcher, which you are forgiven for not knowing because it was a Realms spell. 2-16 dmg/rd for 1 rd/level.But! for your orog encounter...the wizard would simply cast sleep and take out the orcs and 1-2 orogs instantly. Or web them all and kill them easily. Or stinking cloud them all and wipe them out while they were helpless.
There was a Firecube spell from FR as well, but 5' radius and 4d4 probably wouldn't do the job. Flame Arrow would do 4d6, but would only hit one of them. You picked an inconvenient level for damage spells, because next level the wizard casts fireball and they all die to avg 17 dmg and needing a 16 or 19 to save.
=====
Actually, in 1e, melees did much more dmg/health of their opponents per swing. No Con bonus, big str bonuses, and the fact swords did extra dmg against size L creatures were a thing. It was also much easier to hit them reliably.
In 2e, the same applied...BUT, they added a whole slew of higher HD monsters (i.e. taking dragons up to 20 HD and stuff). That's skewing your perceptions. A 7hd monster in 2e was just as vulnerable to a fighter as it was in 1e. Now, they gave Giants +4 HD and AC to give them another round of staying power, and did much the same with dragons and age levels, and definitely to fiends and stuff. But there were still very few creatures that got to the 100 HP range, and a high level fighter in 2e could 1-2 round solo 95% of the creatures in the game with a decent set of gear.
Melee characters got WORSE in 3e because they gave con bonuses to monsters, which doubled and tripled hit points easily, raised armor classes to the stratosphere (AC -10 (30) for Lolth was superseded by -11 (31) in 2e for Great Wyrm dragons (From the original max of -2 (22) for Dragons)...before buffs!...and those AC's are now 40+!) and they took the multiple attacks of melees, gave them to everyone, and then made it so you needed to not move to actually do your best damage, which drastically lowers your over-time Damage/rd.
They did the exact opposite with spellcasters, allowing them to move and do full damage, and made more spells more effective with level, instead of less effective (saving throws meant save or suck spells, well, sucked at high levels, because the monsters saved).
On a pure ratio of every combat, melees were a much better damage output threat in 1 and 2E then in 3e and PF.
And then you add in how strong things like Giant Slayers and Dragon Slaying weapons were (the forerunners of Bane weapons) and yeah, melees got hosed good.
==Aelryinth
I suppose what I am asking is does anyone else feel these supplements are beginning to unbalance the CR system?
Short answer: yes.
I always reverse engineered the CR system (something 5e has already done for you) to have all of the XP needed for my players whenever I homebrewed anything. The simple reality is this: the players have magnitudes more options now than they did in the past, and some of those options just so happen to easily begin to break the game's intended power level.My advise is to take a note from D&D 5e.
Find out what your PCs equivalents would be if they were monsters using the Monster Creation Rules, assign a CR to each aspect (go with averages for damage) and then average the CR of each aspect of the PC. This should give you an effective CR for the PC that you should treat them as. Each level, redo this for each PC. Remember to round to the nearest, ignore the always round down rule.
Your PCs will be more or less where they should be CR wise in this case. The thing is, this is going to take you a lot more time. Some PCs are going to be glass cannons, and when they show up dealing with things equal to their average CR, things might go badly for them just as easily as they might go badly for the monsters.
For the barbarian dude, just target his Wis. In almost all of these cases, you can get around the PCs being too powerful by having things use ability damage or negative levels.
Taku,
I have to give your system the Ashiel test.
NPC's are at half CR by level. So, a Warrior/20 is effectively CR 10.
give a warrior/20 level 10 NPC wealth, does he hit CR 10 appropriately?
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree completely - everything 'Unchained' needs to become gospel not some set of possible rules that can be applied.
Heavens, no...