| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Notice, however, that in all those situations, if you simply sit back and stick to your 'job', the experience becomes demonstrably worse for you.
Imagining PF without core classes/spells is interesting, though would you make an exception for Cure spells?
I totally agree that every martial should have 4 skill pts per level at least. On the topic of paladins, smite is bad ass, but the thing I find OP is lay on hands as a swift action. Pretty much guarantees paladins can never die. At least that's been my experience with paladins.Paladins are amazing tanks... Which is good, because that's what they're supposed to be. They take the hits so that their allies don't have to. That's their role. To compensate for that, they're more than lacking in other areas .
Considering how high is the average damage output in this game , they need a way to mitigate damage without being a burden to their allies .
I think the real problem is that Fighters and most other martial classes lack a way to do the same. There are many ways to challenge Paladins, both in and out of combat. They are really good tanks, because that's their job.
The real problem is that most other martials lack similar tools.
Excellent point, maybe the reason paladins seem so OP to me is because other martial classes have no way to mitigate damage. Maybe the paladin isn't OP so much as other martial classes are weak. Still a balance problem though.
Excellent point, maybe the reason paladins seem so OP to me is because other martial classes have no way to mitigate damage. Maybe the paladin isn't OP so much as other martial classes are weak. Still a balance problem though.I totally agree that every martial should have 4 skill pts per level at least. On the topic of paladins, smite is bad ass, but the thing I find OP is lay on hands as a swift action. Pretty much guarantees paladins can never die. At least that's been my experience with paladins.Paladins are amazing tanks... Which is good, because that's what they're supposed to be. They take the hits so that their allies don't have to. That's their role. To compensate for that, they're more than lacking in other areas .
Considering how high is the average damage output in this game , they need a way to mitigate damage without being a burden to their allies .
I think the real problem is that Fighters and most other martial classes lack a way to do the same. There are many ways to challenge Paladins, both in and out of combat. They are really good tanks, because that's their job.
The real problem is that most other martials lack similar tools.
The Barbarian is similarly effective at mitigating damage since any Barbarian worth their salt is packing the Invulnerable Rager archetype. This, of course, is part of why the Paladin and Barbarian are the only full martials that truly compete with the 6th level casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since when did the game need to be balanced....[...]
if [...] one person is taking the spot light it is your job as the DM to "balance" the game.
Under what other circumstances is this kind of nonsense acceptable?
If I go to the dentist and he drills the wrong tooth, it's not my job to fill the cavities he missed.
If I go to the mechanic and he forgets to re-attach the cylinder head, it's not my job to put it back on.
If I go to a restaurant and get served raw chicken, it's not my job to go back into the kitchen and cook it all the way through.
If I get onto an airplane and the pilot doesn't know how to find San Bernadino, it's not my job to navigate.
If I hire a carpenter and he forgets the fourth leg of my table, it's not my job to work the lathe.
Except that in RPG's as the GM/DM, its exactly your job, so you're the one sending out the raw chicken. Paizo is the company that brings you the ingredients, built the plane, designed the drill, built the car, and made the lumber.
I do have to wonder, is Pathfinder's balance issue, however big or small it may be, the result of trying to be so customizable? Is this really an innate problem with trying to offer people a lot of options to customize their game? Rather Paizo could do better is still a matter of debate to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have to wonder, is Pathfinder's balance issue, however big or small it may be, the result of trying to be so customizable? Is this really an innate problem with trying to offer people a lot of options to customize their game? Rather Paizo could do better is still a matter of debate to me.
No, 99% of the problem is backwards compatibility. Pathfinder's problem are largely carried over from 3.5, and it has taken YEARS for Paizo to feel comfortable raising the power level beyond that of the Core Fighter. People are too quick to call "power creep" on options that are better than existing options that suck, and that's why Fighters can't have nice things.
I'm fairly certain that the Barbarian becoming good so early in the development cycle was a happy accident, especially since Paizo decided to tear the class down with Unchained.
I think with many new options, Pathfinder became actually more balanced.
The perceived problem is though, that with some of that options, it´s even easier for some players to build characters which are a bit too much over the average power curve and some players who didn´t do that before can now do it too.
What i observed in several games is that this creates an arms race between players and GMs. Now some might say it has always been that way and it kind of was. Only now there are so many options, that it´s really hard to keep track of them and some of them are fairly complicated too.
Many encounters in prewritten adventures which are single BBEG only don´t make that job easier.
Stating that the GM needs to invest all the time to balance that out isn´t going to solve any problems. I think the time GMs need to invest for that is steadily rising and what i can see is that more and more people grow hesitant to GM.
So, instead of saying Pathfinder became unbalanced, i would say complexity grew to a level where some people feel uncomfortable.
It might be the right time for some more products to counter that and to take this into consideration when designing other products, APs among them.
|
I seriously think playing this game without core would balance it so much more, like no joke.BECOMING???!!! HWHAWHEIUAWHEIUAWHEAIUWEHAWIUEHWIUWHEIUWEHUAWA!!!
No, seriously... The most overpowered stuff is right there in the CRB.
Lets look at where the bad and stupidly good classes came from:
Bad
Core: 3 - Rogue, Fighter, Monk
Non Core: 4 - Cavalier, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Brawler?Broken
Core: 4 - Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Druid
Non Core: 5 - Summoner, Witch, Arcanist, Shaman, OracleOh, and just for fun
Vaguely Balanced
Core: 4 - Bard, Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin
Non Core: 9 - Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Bloodrager, Slayer, Hunter, Investigator, Skald, WarpriestThis is counting the entire core line aside from unchained and the Occult stuff(which is mostly reasonable, if I understand correctly).
A little under half of the brokenly good or brokenly bad classes are in core, while over two thirds of the reasonably balanced classes are non-core.
I mostly agree. The two I might disagree with are Gunslinger (I've never played one - but I've seen them be quite potent) and definitely the monk IF you allow all of the archetypes would be bumped up to vaguely balanced. Core only monk definitely belongs there.
That - and not a true disagreement - but Brawler is pretty much right on the cusp between Bad & Vaguely Balanced. (I could see it in either category.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since when did the game need to be balanced....[...]
if [...] one person is taking the spot light it is your job as the DM to "balance" the game.
Under what other circumstances is this kind of nonsense acceptable?
If I go to the dentist and he drills the wrong tooth, it's not my job to fill the cavities he missed.
If I go to the mechanic and he forgets to re-attach the cylinder head, it's not my job to put it back on.
If I go to a restaurant and get served raw chicken, it's not my job to go back into the kitchen and cook it all the way through.
If I get onto an airplane and the pilot doesn't know how to find San Bernadino, it's not my job to navigate.
If I hire a carpenter and he forgets the fourth leg of my table, it's not my job to work the lathe.
Lol, well seeing as how every single example you used was an actual job and this is in fact a game we are playing for fun and kicks i take all of that with a grain of salt and not as you put it "acceptable nonsense"
Now sticking with your examples the DM is the dentist, the cook, the mechanic, the pilot and the carpenter all in one. He is taking the materials he is given and making them work for him to create a finished product if you have issues with what that product is talk to the DM not the raw chicken or the metal in the drill.
You are advocating for Paizo to be all those things, which is impossible, to create a "balanced" pen and paper role playing / story telling game... when in reality there is no need for it to be balanced...
first: it is a game
Second: who cares if the druid is stronger then the wizard or the wizard is stronger then the fighter ect ect we are all on the same team and work together to overcome the challenges the story throws at us, sometimes certain classes are better at certain situation but every class has their strengths and weaknesses.
third: this is not a competitive game with ladders or leagues so "balance" does not matter. you are not competing with the other players to be better then them...
forth: if you have a problem at your table and feel like certain players are making you feel inferior then talk with your DM about changing up the encounters so that you can have your spot to shine, that is purely a table issue and not a system problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Gunslinger belongs in the "bad" category because they're suited to WTF PWN'ing enemies with a truck load of damage but do... basically nothing else. Gunslingers generally just serve as proof that Paizo relies too much on natural armor to boost creature AC.
The Gunslinger belongs in the "bad" category because they're suited to WTF PWN'ing enemies with a truck load of damage but do... basically nothing else. Gunslingers generally just serve as proof that Paizo relies too much on natural armor to boost creature AC.
Keep in mind the recent double-barreled errata basically means they can't even do that anymore.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since when did the game need to be balanced....[...]
if [...] one person is taking the spot light it is your job as the DM to "balance" the game.
Under what other circumstances is this kind of nonsense acceptable?
If I go to the dentist and he drills the wrong tooth, it's not my job to fill the cavities he missed.
If I go to the mechanic and he forgets to re-attach the cylinder head, it's not my job to put it back on.
If I go to a restaurant and get served raw chicken, it's not my job to go back into the kitchen and cook it all the way through.
If I get onto an airplane and the pilot doesn't know how to find San Bernadino, it's not my job to navigate.
If I hire a carpenter and he forgets the fourth leg of my table, it's not my job to work the lathe.
Lol, well seeing as how every single example you used was an actual job and this is in fact a game we are playing for fun and kicks i take all of that with a grain of salt and not as you put it "acceptable nonsense"
Now sticking with your examples the DM is the dentist, the cook, the mechanic, the pilot and the carpenter all in one. He is taking the materials he is given and making them work for him to create a finished product if you have issues with what that product is talk to the DM not the raw chicken or the metal in the drill.
You are advocating for Paizo to be all those things, which is impossible, to create a "balanced" pen and paper role playing / story telling game... when in reality there is no need for it to be balanced...
first: it is a game
Second: who cares if the druid is stronger then the wizard or the wizard is stronger then the fighter ect ect we are all on the same team and work together to overcome the challenges the story throws at us, sometimes certain classes are better at certain situation but every class has their strengths and weaknesses.
third: this is not a competitive game with ladders or leagues so...
Unless you're pathetically naive having the GM baby your character so you can "have your chance to shine" or some nonsense just feels patronizing and even more demoralizing than your initial inability to contribute.
Second: who cares if the druid is stronger then the wizard or the wizard is stronger then the fighter ect ect we are all on the same team and work together to overcome the challenges the story throws at us, sometimes certain classes are better at certain situation but every class has their strengths and weaknesses.
third: this is not a competitive game with ladders or leagues so "balance" does not matter. you are not competing with the other players to be better then them...
While I agree with you, I think there actually are a lot of people that do play it competitively now. As in, if two players make characters that are focused on dealing damage, they try to do more damage than the other person.
If one player doesn't do as much damage as the other, you start hearing words like "underpowered," "unbalanced," and/or phrases like "I'm not having fun because my character feels like a sidekick."
When you view mechanical power as something that is earned through a player's skill at character creation, then balance takes on a different meaning.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a system is so bad that it requires the GM to make sure that it works, then why play it? If you like the world, there are a lot of good generic systems. I am not saying that Pathfinder is that bad,I am just addressing the argument of what is the GM's job to fix.
|
|
In all the games i have played iv never had the issue of feeling vastly inferior to another character. and i have played many different classes.
sure some classes i have played have done nothing in combat, i just sit back and let every one else do their thing, but those characters shined at finding the secret doors talking their way through some encounters and knowing everything there was to know. but that goes had in hand with all characters have their strengths and weaknesses. It seems that you guys are all advocating for a balanced combat simulator and that every character should be equal in power at every level regardless of gear, rolls, and everything else.
I just do not understand that, this game is more then just combat and has never been about balance. its been about story and working as a group to have an adventure but not in a competitive way.
Im not pathetically naive and do not have GMs baby characters and have never babied characters as a GM, i have designed unique encounters that suite certain characters strengths and others weaknesses, sometimes encounters that play on every characters weaknesses, thats called tailoring the encounters for your players and challenging them in different and interesting ways.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
sometimes certain classes are better at certain situation but every class has their strengths and weaknesses.
This is definitely the ideal. In fact, there's even a special term for when certain classes are better at certain situations but every class has strengths and weaknesses.
It's called "balance".
Yeah, "balance". That thing that you later said didn't matter outside of competitive games? Yeah, that's what you just lauded the virtues of.
When people say "Pathfinder is unbalanced" or "I wish Pathfinder had better balance", they're saying "I wish Pathfinder were a game where certain classes are better at certain situations and every class has strengths and weaknesses, but it's not".
What did you THINK people were talking about when they complained about a lack of "balance" in Pathfinder?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it's not a competition between the party, but a character can feel useless and cause the player to not have fun.
I'm a core fighter, I have put my skills into profession soldier because it fits my backstory and handle animal and ride. I'm in a party with a druid and a wizard and an oracle. Honestly if I were gone the other three wouldn't notice the difference. The druid's animal companion and the oracle and druid are about as good as I am at low levels for combat. My skills are useless, so if we're not fighting I just stand around not saying anything as to not ruin the diplomacy we're trying to do. And already the casters can end the fight on the first round between their spell options.
So what's supposed to happen here? The fighter doesn't have the skills to do anything outside of combat. Even if the GM tried to make profession soldier useful for something, the oracle could probably bluff that he was a soldier, so again the fighter is just tagging along while the casters solve the problems and make our deals. Then in a fight again the fighter is just kinda there.
So no one meant to make the fighter feel useless, it just is innate in the system. So would everyone who plays this fighter have a bad time? No, some wouldn't notice or care that their guy wasn't useful. But there's plenty of people who would soon realize that their guy wasn't needed for the party to succeed any given task and then proceed to not enjoy being the guy that hangs out with the real heroes.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there actually are a lot of people that do play it competitively now. As in, if two players make characters that are focused on dealing damage, they try to do more damage than the other person.
If one player doesn't do as much damage as the other, you start hearing words like "underpowered," "unbalanced," and/or phrases like "I'm not having fun because my character feels like a sidekick."
I kinda have to wonder how often people's balance complaints actually result from trying to be competitive with their tablemates, versus how often you just heard someone complain about balance and you just sort of assumed it was because of competitiveness.
EDIT: With "assumed" including the possibility of encountering a true example or two and then erroneously extrapolating that competitiveness is even remotely close to being a common source of balance complaints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same think can happen to a rogue that isn't going to do combat but "shined at finding the secret doors talking their way through some encounters and knowing everything there was to know."
But the druid is better at finding secret doors, ignoring his spells to boost his perception or the spell that auto-finds all secret doors.
The Oracle is better at bluff and diplomacy, so he's the guy to go to for talking their way through something.
And the oracle or wizard could both have better knowledge checks then the rogue.
So here too, we have a character that could leave and the party not really notice a difference. And for this party, these casters still didn't lower their combat effectiveness that made the fighter feel unneeded.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Same think can happen to a rogue that isn't going to do combat but "shined at finding the secret doors talking their way through some encounters and knowing everything there was to know."
But the druid is better at finding secret doors, ignoring his spells to boost his perception or the spell that auto-finds all secret doors.
The Oracle is better at bluff and diplomacy, so he's the guy to go to for talking their way through something.
And the oracle or wizard could both have better knowledge checks then the rogue.
So here too, we have a character that could leave and the party not really notice a difference. And for this party, these casters still didn't lower their combat effectiveness that made the fighter feel unneeded.
I had an experience recently (that I've brought up before, but will bring up again because it's a really good example) where my Rogue's investment in stealth was completely and utterly invalidated by an Alarm spell because there is no mundane way to detect it.
So here I am, trying to play a Rogue and believing that I had done a good job at covering all my bases and finally making a Rogue properly work. But no, the game had to remind me that casting is always dominant and if you don't have it you're cursed to suck. And I don't want to hear anything about my GM "intentionally screwing me over", this was a published AP and Alarm is a first level spell while our party was in the span where 4th level is readily available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here we see actual "Balance" happening. Characters with different strengths and weaknesses working together to accomplish the task.
The Oracle is good at talking, but not the best at knowledge or perception.
The Wizard is good at knowledge but not perception or talking.
The Druid is good at perception but not knowledge or talking.
All three have different ways they help contribute in a fight. Wizard with control, Druid, his pet and oracle with the actual hitting of things. And options for the hitters to do other things if needed, like blind an enemy.
And here we see the imbalance.
The Rogue is okay maybe at some skills, but not as good as the others at them so he's more often than not watching them do the skills. And he was build to do nothing in combat, just sit back and let every one else do their thing, so he's not helping there either.
And the fighter is pretty good at hitting things, but not so much so that he's vital for winning a fight. And he's bad at all the skills.
The first three have meaningful strengths and ways to contribute. The latter two just have weaknesses and sit around and watch.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagining PF without core classes/spells is interesting, though would you make an exception for Cure spells?
It pains me to admit that there is some stuff in Core that just has to stay to keep the game able to function. I think I might make a thread on this later.
I figure you have to keep the core healing/status removal spells, and a handful of others. Although really, I could put in a core spell ban list far easier. Most of the core classes could go though, as the most powerful thing most casting classes have at the moment is unrestricted access to the sorc/wiz or cleric list. If I had to leave a full caster around, it might be the Sorc, if only for the restrictions on its casting being the most tough, thus making it hard to 'anytool' away a situation with a spell.
|
|
sometimes certain classes are better at certain situation but every class has their strengths and weaknesses.This is definitely the ideal. In fact, there's even a special term for when certain classes are better at certain situations but every class has strengths and weaknesses.
It's called "balance".
Yeah, "balance". That thing that you later said didn't matter outside of competitive games? Yeah, that's what you just lauded the virtues of.
When people say "Pathfinder is unbalanced" or "I wish Pathfinder had better balance", they're saying "I wish Pathfinder were a game where certain classes are better at certain situations and every class has strengths and weaknesses, but it's not".
What did you THINK people were talking about when they complained about a lack of "balance" in Pathfinder?
then have everyone play the same class. Boom, Balanced. problem solved everyone has the same strengths and weaknesses. Honestly, show me a system that has the diversity and character options that pathfinder has, that is also completely balanced on a 1v1 scale. i would be impressed. There isn't one that i have found at least.
Now i completely agree that the game is not balanced on a 1v1 aspect not trying to say that it is not balanced.
I just don't think it needs to be. Now chess pwn's issue is a real issue i have seen at times and part of it is player perception and the spiral you take looking down on your character vs other characters in your party instead of looking at what you are good at and i have also seen DMs and players solve it with relative ease. without patronizing the players or even changing the rules or taking power away for the other players. its all about how you build the encounters.
the same thing would happen in a group of all rogues
Rogue 1 is good at talking, but not the best at knowledge or perception.
Rogue 2 is good at knowledge but not perception or talking.
Rogue 3 is good at perception but not knowledge or talking.
Rogue 4 spread his points out in all the above so he can do a little bit of everything but now finds himself completely useless.
You should work with the party at this point to see what is lacking and fill that role.
In your example you forget to mention the rogues ability to pick locks, stealth into area's, sneak attack damage. (also rogues can disable the alarm spell - "A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.")
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alarm isn't a magic trap, it's just magic. There is no disable device DC for it.
Yeah, I thought that was stupid too. And even if it WAS a trap, that doesn't change the fact that the Rogue has no ability to detect it without the ability to cast Detect Magic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
then have everyone play the same class. Boom, Balanced.Are you even reading what is being said to you?
I am listening, thank you for understanding the joke. This was a stab at the comment saying that every class should have the same strengths and weaknesses and not being better or worse at different citations.
|
|
Alarm isn't a magic trap, it's just magic. There is no disable device DC for it.
Yeah, I thought that was stupid too. And even if it WAS a trap, that doesn't change the fact that the Rogue has no ability to detect it without the ability to cast Detect Magic.
I honestly was under the impression that alarm could be disabled, The DC would be set by the caster just like any other spell. Spell Level + Stat modifier + 10. if it is not then that is news to me. but i could have sworn i have seen it somewhere that alarm could be disabled.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly was under the impression that alarm could be disabled, The DC would be set by the caster just like any other spell. Spell Level + Stat modifier + 10. if it is not then that is news to me. but i could have sworn i have seen it somewhere that alarm could be disabled.Alarm isn't a magic trap, it's just magic. There is no disable device DC for it.
Yeah, I thought that was stupid too. And even if it WAS a trap, that doesn't change the fact that the Rogue has no ability to detect it without the ability to cast Detect Magic.
You're wrong, just like I was wrong when I got upset with my GM for not giving me a chance to perceive and disable the spell. Now, of course, a Psychic Investigator can cast detect magic at will and would have easily dealt with the alarm just by dispelling it. Don't even have to worry about waking people up with her casting since psychic spells don't have audible components.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am listening, thank you for understanding the joke. This was a stab at the comment saying that every class should have the same strengths and weaknesses and not being better or worse at different citations.then have everyone play the same class. Boom, Balanced.Are you even reading what is being said to you?
No one said that. People actually said the opposite - that different classes should be better or worse in various situations, but those situations should vary who is the best at them.
Becoming? Man, you are way behind the curve. Years late.
It's all the damn splatbooks that do it. Stick with core and a few additions (like ultimate combat, ultimate magic) and make sure to take out some of the key problem causers (like leadership) and it can be pretty balanced.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm, this is a surprisingly complex topic. And before I go on, let me just admit that I'm not up to speed on every rule in every book.
In the beginning... The roots of tabletop role playing (AD&D) were never well balanced to begin with. In the beginning, balance mattered less because there was virtually no basis for comparison, and the answer to every question was, "seek out a sage" a.k.a. "ask the DM". Players didn't know what went on behind the DM screen, because the DM had the big rule book with the whacky charts, so he made the calls.
As the game evolved through the editions, most aspects got more balanced, although some issues remained or grew worse. Probably the most well know issue was the Caster - Martial Disparity. While the C/MD existed in AD&D, it was only a problem at high level play, and AD&D unofficially topped out at 10th level. Also, the GM ran the show, and controlled magic items, spells, etc. Pathfinder is the first edition of "the world's favorite role playing game" that put all the rules in the players hands, (continuing a 30+ year trend) and "ask the DM", turned into, "tell the GM you are making a DC 22 rules check".
3.5 Core D&D had brutal problems with C/MD that Pathfinder generally tried to minimize, with mostly positive results. While many small and a few large rules changes generally helped, there were a few flaws built into the foundation, that were not fixed. These flaws make it so that it is almost impossible to introduce new content without making the existing problems worse. Here are a few quick examples.
Feats vs Spells. Let's say Paizo introduces two new books, one of feats, the other spells. One player has a 10th level fighter, who has about 10 feats he can draw from the new book, that then become a permanent part of his character. So, he looks over all his options, and decides to keep 5 core feats, and selects five feats from the new book. He has no use for a book of spells. He is slightly more powerful, but only in specific circumstances. Another player has a 10th level wizard. This player skims the feat book and selects one or two that make her magic more powerful, but this generally doesn't affect her power level more then a slight bump. HOWEVER, that book of spells is like crack to her! Everyday she can look through all those options and build her daily spell list to fit the needs of the situation. She can also make scrolls, wands, and even wondrous items of all those weird, situational spells. Basically, most of that book is potentially useful to the wizard every day, while the fighter is lucky to get more then a page of useful material over the lifetime of the character. Oh yeah, and the one feat the wizard did pick? Well, it might have been spell perfection, or dazing metamagic, or many of the other feats that take whatever she is already game-breakingly good at, and make it even better!
There are several other areas of the game where new material yields vastly different benefits depending on class. For example, a race that lets you start with a 22 or even 24 in an ability score is likely to offer marginal benefit to a martial character (assuming it also has penalties), however a caster is likely to gain crazy power from that race. Every bestiary that comes out offers the caster more options for polymorphing, summoning, and familiars, but no benefit for the martial character. Every book of magic items are more things the caster can craft at half price, while the martial pays full. You can have a whole book that increases the power of skills, but is Acrobatics or Climb ever going to be better then Fly?
Summary: The System is set up so that existing problems in the game are made worse by every new book, and every option that comes out. This isn't because of what is in the new books, but rather because of how the different classes can use the new material. I think that Paizo is generally making a good effort to maintain balance in the game, especially with books like Pathfinder Unchained. Unfortunately, the reality of a business means that for every positive step there is a half step back, and "it is up to the GM to maintain balance" is often difficult to shoehorn into the business model.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's all the damn splatbooks that do it. Stick with core and a few additions (like ultimate combat, ultimate magic) and make sure to take out some of the key problem causers (like leadership) and it can be pretty balanced.
You have to cut a LOT out of core to be balanced. Like... druids & wizards.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am listening, thank you for understanding the joke. This was a stab at the comment saying that every class should have the same strengths and weaknesses and not being better or worse at different citations.then have everyone play the same class. Boom, Balanced.Are you even reading what is being said to you?
As Jiggy inferred, I don't think anyone made the claim you're saying was made, that "every class should have the same strengths and weaknesses". In fact, what I have seen argued is that classes need variation but need to be able to contribute equally, a somewhat different affair.
Naturally the point of Pathfinder, being a game, is for everyone to be able to have fun and get something out of the experience. Paizo's responsibility in all of this would be to give out a set of tools which, in the default use case, will provide a reasonable group of players (lumping the GM in as a player here) a good chance at everyone having an equally good time.
The problem is that unlike most other games the players all have different abilities to affect the outcome. In poker everyone is equally affected by random selection of cards. In many board games all players begin with equivalent starting states and adhere to the same rules. Few games match a TTRPG for the ability of each player to begin with relatively distinct starting points. That doesn't, however, change the purpose of the game itself, for everyone to have fun.
I would argue, then, that a reasonable person approaching a TTRPG like Pathfinder, upon hearing that the premise is you get to create a character who will be the hero (or villain) you wish them to be and will adventure alongside other players doing the same, would expect that no matter what path I take, whether Fighter or Wizard, Rogue or Cleric, I will have a roughly equivalent chance to be "heroic" and save the day.
And here's the critical part of that argument: that the expectation of equal ability to affect outcome should hold generally across "most" tables and assuming either the "default" rules or the most "common" or most "likely" rules. I would include PFS in this case.
And that is where the failure to deliver lies. At your particular table, your GM may be taking a proactive approach to this by making sure to custom tailor the adventure to the PCs. But that means the players (again, lumping in the GM here) are having to bring in gaming meta-knowledge about Pathfinder to plan out how to run the adventure. An entire group of first time players with a first time GM are almost absolutely going to run into problems because the GM is likely going to pull in encounters which some of the players simply cannot contribute meaningfully to defeating. And this pattern will hold, growing worse over time in fact, if the GM attempts to spread encounter makeup evenly across the available encounters.
"But no GM should do that," you claim. "The GM is given Rule 0 to prevent this in the first place."
No. Or rather, yes, but. Rule 0 does exist but it's supposed to allow you to be able to either tailor things to your group's liking (e.g. we don't like to track ammunition so we handwave that) or to make on the spot rulings for ambiguous corner cases (e.g. any FAQ candidate before being answered by Paizo) or to make larger scale changes but then only based on experienced observation (e.g. we're moving to Kirthcraft rules everyone).
What Rule 0 should not *have to* be used for is to make up for deficiencies in delivering what a reasonable and otherwise unsuspecting potential Pathfinder player/GM would tend to expect in a game with as much documentation as this game has.
Put another way, just because you want to play Gandalf and I want to play Rache of the Renshai warriors, doesn't mean that my ability as a *player* to contribute meaningfully to the group's success should end at the point of my sword while you are able to deal with every threat in one way or another.
"But Rule 0 would allow you to do that, there's no need to change the rules. Why stick your anime/wuxia crap into my LotR saga?" you ask.
I, and others, contend that the *default* ought to be "distinct but still equally capable of contributing" and that the low-magic/low-impact world that Fighters and Rogues (and to a lesser extent CoreMonks and others) are currently relegated to by default should have been the optional path or something that Rule 0 would enable. The only leverage that argument has is that Paizo *did* choose to make the low-magic/low-impact aspects of Fighters/Rogues/CMonks and other bads the default.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
sometimes certain classes are better at certain situation but every class has their strengths and weaknesses.This is definitely the ideal. In fact, there's even a special term for when certain classes are better at certain situations but every class has strengths and weaknesses.
It's called "balance".
Yeah, "balance". That thing that you later said didn't matter outside of competitive games? Yeah, that's what you just lauded the virtues of.
When people say "Pathfinder is unbalanced" or "I wish Pathfinder had better balance", they're saying "I wish Pathfinder were a game where certain classes are better at certain situations and every class has strengths and weaknesses, but it's not".
What did you THINK people were talking about when they complained about a lack of "balance" in Pathfinder?
then have everyone play the same class. Boom, Balanced. problem solved everyone has the same strengths and weaknesses. Honestly, show me a system that has the diversity and character options that pathfinder has, that is also completely balanced on a 1v1 scale. i would be impressed. There isn't one that i have found at least.
Now i completely agree that the game is not balanced on a 1v1 aspect not trying to say that it is not balanced.
I just don't think it needs to be. Now chess pwn's issue is a real issue i have seen at times and part of it is player perception and the spiral you take looking down on your character vs other characters in your party instead of looking at what you are good at and i have also seen DMs and players solve it with relative ease. without patronizing the players or even changing the rules or taking power away for the other players. its all about how you build the encounters.the same thing would happen in a group of all rogues
Rogue 1 is good at talking, but not the best at knowledge or perception.
Rogue 2 is good at knowledge but not perception or talking.
Rogue 3 is good at perception but not knowledge or...
Why is it that, despite the fact that this is a decade and more year old issue, there is always someone that thinks this is a either a simple problem, or that we're all actually stupid and don't know what we are talking about?
Do people just not read anymore?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The caster/martial disparity is a tendency for higher level magic using characters to outshine their non-magic using counterparts in many aspects of adventuring.
Before we go further, let's get specific about what we are talking about here:
Casters: For purposes of this topic, casters are the classes that have a caster level equal to class level, and generally have access to 9th level magic. Wizards are the most classic example of "caster", while druids, clerics, sorcerers, generally present similar issues. Classes that only have access to 6th level spells are generally considered "casters", although many people have far more problems with summoners then bards. Each class fits into the disparity is slightly different ways, although the end result is usually similar.
Martials: Martials are classes that never have a caster level, and whose class features are usually extraordinary special abilities, not supernatural or spell-like abilities. Fighters are the most representative martial class, with rogues, barbarians, and monks presenting fairly similar issues.
Others: Classes that have access to 4th level spells such as rangers and paladins are generally not considered to be representative of balance problems, and are used more as a reference point for appropriate class power rather then an exception to it. Some people put bards into this category, although summoners are almost always considered representative of casters.
Now that we have defined the caster/martial part, let's move on to "disparity". While many words such as imbalance and inequity get used to describe the issue, it is important to realize this is NOT about identical performance, perfect balance or sameness! No one is asking for the classes to perform the same, or have perfect mathematical equality. Generally, people find the core problem to be a lack of options for out of combat effectiveness for martial characters. Beyond use of skills, martial characters generally have no class features that allow them to influence the narrative. Monks and rogues have adequate and great skills respectively, however both classes infamously struggle to stay relevant in combat. As both classes were recently rewritten in Pathfinder Unchained, I'm not going to bother discussing their previous issues, except to mention that they both required full round actions to contribute well, and almost completely lacked a decent ranged attack option.
At the lowest levels of play, martial characters are often considered to be better off then casters. A strong fighter or skilled rogue can effectively solve most problems that low level adventures face, and magic is usually fairly limited. This is not to say that casters are weak, they are fully effective at facing CR appropriate encounters, and if built for it, can disrupt encounters from level 1.
Most effects of the disparity begin around level 6, although they frequently don't affect gameplay much until level 11 or so. These effects can be broken into several categories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... only when you are playing with people who are trying to play a traditional P&P RPG like a video game...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is going to shift around depending on your group, your campaign style and what challenges you pull out for them.
I've got a 6th level, AC heavy group at the moment. There is very little that can threaten them even at APL+5 because most creatures simply can't hit them.
I pulled out a single CR3 shadow and it threw the group into a panic.
CR and Encounter Levels are suggestions. Your group is always going to trivialize some things and be exceptionally vulnerable to others.
We played an entire group of Aasimars once. It was awesome until we ran into our first Devils. Unholy Blight at will nearly annhilated us completely.
but just by CR it should have been an easy encounter.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
... only when you are playing with people who are trying to play a traditional P&P RPG like a video game...
Yay! Rote responses from the the disparity myths list!
And now I know that reading is the problem.