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".
It existed in AD&D but was severely diminished when compared to 3.X/Pathfinder. Namely because most of the fancy showy things you could do in Pathfinder/3.X were next to impossible to do in AD&D if you followed the rules strictly. A lot of the spells classic spells had some horrendous drawback (ie. Haste in its various incarnations) that no longer existed. On top of that I believe your spells known was severely restricted.
| 5 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.
I wish to respect your opinion here, but I think this is a huge mentality problem that plagues a lot of the Pathfinder community.
There are many people that want "Core only" games because they assume it will lead to a more balanced game. It won't. As many have said, some of the strongest and weakest options in the game are all present in the Core Rulebook.
I won't deny that the occasional overpowered feat or spell sneaks into a Player Companion, but they are pretty few and far between.
I personally believe that a lot of these splatbooks do a ton for making martial characters more viable in the later levels; they grant more narrative power, more combat options, and - best of all - add fun to the game.
You can make the argument that each splatbook releases more spells that definitively make classes like the Wizard and Cleric stronger while not always adding a boost to limited-or-no spell classes. I just think that there are normally better spells of the same level inside the pages of the Core Rulebook.
I don't want to turn this into a Martial-Caster disparity post, but I think this thread is already on its way onto that index anyways.
|
Most effects of the disparity begin around level 6, although they frequently don't affect gameplay much until level 11 or so.
This is pretty much true. I think that much of the reason for it is that in earlier editions of the game, gameplay was expected to end around 10ish, but a lot of the crazy epic stuff (level 6+ spells) were grandfathered in from editions where they weren't expected to be used by the players.
That - and by level 10 characters (especially martials) were expected to pass their saves most of the time by then, making save vs death & save vs suck less dominant.
Now - overall I prefer 3.x & Pathfinder, but those were design fails on converting spellcasting from 2e to 3e which we're still dealing with.
| 1 person 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.
And Clerics and Sorcerers. Basically any 9 level caster destroys this system.
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.I wish to respect your opinion here, but I think this is a huge mentality problem that plagues a lot of the Pathfinder community.
There are many people that want "Core only" games because they assume it will lead to a more balanced game. It won't. As many have said, some of the strongest and weakest options in the game are all present in the Core Rulebook.
I won't deny that the occasional overpowered feat or spell sneaks into a Player Companion, but they are pretty few and far between.
I personally believe that a lot of these splatbooks do a ton for making martial characters more viable in the later levels; they grant more narrative power, more combat options, and - best of all - add fun to the game.
You can make the argument that each splatbook releases more spells that definitively make classes like the Wizard and Cleric stronger while not always adding a boost to limited-or-no spell classes. I just think that there are normally better spells of the same level inside the pages of the Core Rulebook.
I don't want to turn this into a Martial-Caster disparity post, but I think this thread is already on its way onto that index anyways.
This hits on another common fallacy, that full casters that prepare will not need other characters because they will always have the perfect load out of spells prepared.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In your example you forget to mention the rogues ability to pick locks, stealth into area's, sneak attack damage.
Excuse me! I didn't forget anything. You never said anything about, "ability to pick locks, stealth into area's, sneak attack damage" in your statements.
And still.
The druid and wizard are better at stealthing into an area.
The druid cause he could turn into a bird or a cat or a rat, so on top of the large bonuses to stealth he gets from that, may people wouldn't care about 1 specific rat in the rogues hideout in the sewer.
And the wizard has invisibility.
And if the rogue gets spotted while stealthing he's pretty dead. While the druid and the wizard have stuff to help them escape if needed.
the ability to pick locks.
The oracle could have bonuses to it, but any class can pick locks. And the hardest of locks DC isn't that high. again, excluding any spells that could trivialize the entire thing.
Sneak attack. Well I thought the premise for this skillful character was, "isn't going to do combat, and let the others do their thing" but hey, lets look at sneak attack in combat. It is bad. There, like the rogue with d8 hit die and light armor and no in class abilities that up it's AC is supposed to either "Get Behind" an enemy to flank, or hope that Feint works at melee range. This class also has no in class bonuses to be able to Hit said enemy to trigger sneak attack with it's 3/4th bab. All to do some D6s, if you can see okay. So sneak attack is one of the worst combat effectiveness boosting mechanics on a class with no other combat effectiveness boosting mechanics. Yeah, sneak attack isn't making you suddenly okay at combat.
So now our best case is that the Rogue is brought along as the lockpicker.
|
| 1 person 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.I wish to respect your opinion here, but I think this is a huge mentality problem that plagues a lot of the Pathfinder community.
There are many people that want "Core only" games because they assume it will lead to a more balanced game. It won't. As many have said, some of the strongest and weakest options in the game are all present in the Core Rulebook.
I won't deny that the occasional overpowered feat or spell sneaks into a Player Companion, but they are pretty few and far between.
Let me add to this statement by saying that 90% of the 'broken' or even 'very good' feats/spells/class features/etc that are released in the later books are often nerfed into oblivious after release, while there's very little core errata (which is also due to how hard it would be to do so), and the closest we've gotten to banning a class is PFS saying no chained summoners.
Core will always be stronger because it will never be touched, while other options always have that sword hanging above their head, fearing the dreaded E word at any moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Core will always be stronger because it will never be touched, while other options always have that sword hanging above their head, fearing the dreaded E word at any moment.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.I wish to respect your opinion here, but I think this is a huge mentality problem that plagues a lot of the Pathfinder community.
There are many people that want "Core only" games because they assume it will lead to a more balanced game. It won't. As many have said, some of the strongest and weakest options in the game are all present in the Core Rulebook.
I won't deny that the occasional overpowered feat or spell sneaks into a Player Companion, but they are pretty few and far between.
Eh, Paladin was nerfed very early on, so it isn't a hard rule. But there are a lot of sacred cows that probably won't get touched. Spells from the d20srd are likely on that list and are definitely part of the problem.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This hits on another common fallacy, that full casters that prepare will not need other characters because they will always have the perfect load out of spells prepared.
No one claims to have the 'perfect' load out. But common load outs are good enough that spellcasters are rarely unable to do anything. And it's not a fallacy to say that adding another caster is almost always better than adding a martial to the mix.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This hits on another common fallacy, that full casters that prepare will not need other characters because they will always have the perfect load out of spells prepared.
This hits on another common fallacy: that the notion of the hyper-prepared caster involves an assumption of having the perfect loadout of spells prepared.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty what is the point of this?
If your goal is to somehow get the devs to balanced the game the way you want it to be, they would have to remake of the entire game and a build a new system all together.
that's not going to happen...
the majority of what i see here are people complaining about the system. I'm not trying to complain about a system I thoroughly enjoy playing. Especially at this level were you are advocating removing half the material.
Some people have offered solutions like taking away the core book but i really do not understand that. that is almost half the materials for the game. others say take away full casters from the game, that's a little more reasonable and would be a fun game to play, i would classify that as a mid to low magic style game though. and would not enjoy playing that every single game.
I am playing devils advocate and saying it does not need to be balanced, but you seem to not like hearing from people who disagree with you. If anything i apologize for my "joke" as that seemed to get a couple of you up in arms really quick. and if i did misread or misunderstand what you said then i also apologize.
I in fact do think that every class has strengths and that every class has weaknesses. I do not think there is a single class in the game that has no weakness and is able to do everything every other class can do and better.
I have seen the builds of wizards, druids or sorcerers that have soloed entire modules alone but i have also seen builds of monks, fighters, paladins, and rogues soloing the same module.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This hits on another common fallacy, that full casters that prepare will not need other characters because they will always have the perfect load out of spells prepared.This hits on another common fallacy: that the notion of the hyper-prepared caster involves an assumption of having the perfect loadout of spells prepared.
Yep, most (semi) optimized casters pick spells that are as universally useful as possible (summon monster being a big one) stretching out the value of their spells far more than other class's class features.
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.
If you're just wanting to throw around houserules to limit full casters, how about this one:
*You can only learn/memorize spells of a level up to 1+(Character Level/3)So, a wizard or cleric works as normal until he gets to level 5, but at first he can't learn any third level spells, because 1+5/3 is less than 3. Now this is based on character level, so that wizard or cleric could take a level of whatever class at level 6 and he'd now be able to learn level 3 spells, because both the limits of his class and his character level allow it.
This would top out at level 18, with 1+18/3=7, so 7th level spells would be the highest level spells you would ever expect your players to have. The full casting classes and most of their spells would still exist in your world, but at a reduced rate. And full casters would still end with a full spell level over a 6th level casting class.
This houserule has the advantage of making multiclasses featuring the full casters less punishing, as you can now take levels of other classes without relatively slowing your acquisition of higher level spells.
And if you feel like you need to give the full casters something in compensation for this, give them a bonus metamagic feat every 6th level. Then they'll be able to do something with their empty higher level spell slots.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am playing devils advocate and saying it does not need to be balanced
Except that you also said that you like balance. Look you even say it again:
I in fact do think that every class has strengths and that every class has weaknesses.
So which is it? Seems like when you actually use the word "balance" you have one opinion, but then when you describe the concept of balance your opinion is the opposite.
And then you reply to things nobody said, and when you're called out on it you attribute it to people not liking contrary points of view.
Are you just having a conversation with yourself or something?
|
|
I am playing devils advocate and saying it does not need to be balancedExcept that you also said that you like balance. Look you even say it again:
I in fact do think that every class has strengths and that every class has weaknesses.So which is it? Seems like when you actually use the word "balance" you have one opinion, but then when you describe the concept of balance your opinion is the opposite.
And then you reply to things nobody said, and when you're called out on it you attribute it to people not liking contrary points of view.
Are you just having a conversation with yourself or something?
Ok so i guess i have to define my use of balance compared to yours.
When i say balance i mean that every class has a fair chance 1v1 and everyone is compareable in power and ability. This is also what you are saying, Your problem with "balance" that you can otheres have stated is that some classes outshine and make your character feel inferiror.When i say strengths and weaknesses i mean he can be really good at X, Y and Z and sometimes T and K, but is not so good at G, E, and P but can still get by sometimes on S, and D. now some of these overlap with other classes and some don't, this does not mean they do not have strengths and weaknesses, in fact there are varying degrees of strengths and weaknesses within each depending on the cituation.
When you say balanced you want
player 1 to be good at X, bad at Y, and ok at Z
Player 2 to be good at Y, bad at Z, and ok at X
Player 3 to be Good at Z, bad at X, and ok at y
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am playing devils advocate and saying it does not need to be balancedExcept that you also said that you like balance. Look you even say it again:
I in fact do think that every class has strengths and that every class has weaknesses.So which is it? Seems like when you actually use the word "balance" you have one opinion, but then when you describe the concept of balance your opinion is the opposite.
And then you reply to things nobody said, and when you're called out on it you attribute it to people not liking contrary points of view.
Are you just having a conversation with yourself or something?
To be fair, I often wonder if people are having conversations with themselves in person. It's almost like it's in vogue to intentionally missenterpret everything anyone says.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok so i guess i have to define my use of balance compared to yours.
When i say balance i mean that every class has a fair chance 1v1 and everyone is compareable in power and ability. This is also what you are saying, Your problem with "balance" that you can otheres have stated is that some classes outshine and make your character feel inferiror.When i say strengths and weaknesses i mean he can be really good at X, Y and Z and sometimes T and K, but is not so good at G, E, and P but can still get by sometimes on S, and D. now some of these overlap with other classes and some don't, this does not mean they do not have strengths and weaknesses, in fact there are varying degrees of strengths and weaknesses within each depending on the cituation.
When you say balanced you want
player 1 to be good at X, bad at Y, and ok at Z
Player 2 to be good at Y, bad at Z, and ok at X
Player 3 to be Good at Z, bad at X, and ok at y
I'm not seeing a material difference between your explanation of "balance" and your explanation of "strengths and weaknesses". And yet, you deny the need for one and proclaim the virtue of the other, while they're basically the same thing.
So what are you even talking about? You seem self-contradictory.
Wow, the misrepresentations and strawmans come flying from every corner.
First of all, I did not say "core only". I said "core plus some additions, plus you need to cut out some of core". Yeah, it requires quite a bit of work to actually create a balanced game. I did not say or even imply that all or none of the core rulebook or every or no splatbooks are balanced.
I ban a lot from the core rulebook. I also ban a ton of splatbooks, but I also have a lot of them still allowed. It's all a case-by-case basis. Investigator? Sure. Unchained rogue? Absolutely, it's a well needed buff. Warpriest, butterfly sting, sacred geometry? Hell no.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes having strengths and weaknesses does not mean they are equal in power level...
Balance in my book means equal power level
Sorry for any confusion this brought, I really did not think it was a hard concept to grasp.
This makes me really curious what you think "power level" means, as well as what you think the point of classes having strengths and weaknesses is.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think somebody needs to start a thread on argumentation. All this arguing from bad faith is a serious problem. It really undermines the benefits of the forums.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, the misrepresentations and strawmans come flying from every corner.
First of all, I did not say "core only". I said "core plus some additions, plus you need to cut out some of core". Yeah, it requires quite a bit of work to actually create a balanced game. I did not say or even imply that all or none of the core rulebook or every or no splatbooks are balanced.
I ban a lot from the core rulebook. I also ban a ton of splatbooks, but I also have a lot of them still allowed. It's all a case-by-case basis. Investigator? Sure. Unchained rogue? Absolutely, it's a well needed buff. Warpriest, butterfly sting, sacred geometry? Hell no.
Sorry if I misrepresented you, although I'm sure as to the issue that you have with the warpriest. From what I've seen, it's a more balanced and interesting 6th level caster, fitting in well with inquisitors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since when did the game need to be balanced.... this is not designed as a pvp game were every class must be balanced with each other so they can match up 1v1 and it be a fair fight....
this is a group role playing game and if your group is destroying your encounters or one person is taking the spot light it is your job as the DM to "balance" the game and make it challenging.
1. You realize this is irrelevant because pvp wasn't being discussed.
2. You do realize that is It a PvP game even without the party members fighting at all right since NPC's use the classes.3. You realize the whole combat system's method of evaluation (CR) is based on the assumption that characters are balanced?
4. You realize that if you increase the challenge to deal with an outlier player that rest of the party get's screwed over?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes having strengths and weaknesses does not mean they are equal in power level...
Balance in my book means equal power level
Sorry for any confusion this brought, I really did not think it was a hard concept to grasp.
Dude, no need to be rude. When you are using a different meaning of a word than others are using, and so people ask you to explain your meaning, you know, seek to understand you, and then when you explain it so it's still confusing why wouldn't they ask for further clarification?
Because so far you're the only one I'm aware of that has brought up 1v1 as a meaning of balanced.
Also many people, rightly, feel that if a class has strengths and weaknesses that those are being based off of same baseline, or comparative to the other classes. Because honestly the rogue does okay at skills and bad at combat. You seem to see that as the rogues strength is in skills and weakness is combat. We see it as the rogue is just bad at combat, because to consider something a strength of the class it needs to be better at that thing that a good majority of the classes and in the same area as other classes that are good at that thing.
So hopefully you see that when we are all using the definition that balanced = classes have strengths compared to other classes and weaknesses compared to other classes, and then you come in with your own view that balanced = 1v1 and that a class doing somethings better than itself doing other things = classes have strengths and weaknesses, why people would be confused at what you're saying.
I ban a lot from the core rulebook. I also ban a ton of splatbooks, but I also have a lot of them still allowed. It's all a case-by-case basis. Investigator? Sure. Unchained rogue? Absolutely, it's a well needed buff. Warpriest, butterfly sting, sacred geometry? Hell no.
What's wrong with the Warpriest?
Not you N. Jolly, you just agreed with a response to my point, not really addressing my point directly. Basically this happened.
Me) I think X.
Xethik) Well Y is wrong.
N. Jolly) Yeah, Y is wrong.
Me) I never said Y.
As far as warpriests go, they're hilariously broken. Make a reach-based warpriest of Erastil and it's just stupid.
But anyways, this is one of the most toxic threads I've seen in a long time and I'm already regretting commenting on it. Good day.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really is too bad that we (as a community) can not seem to discuss certain topics in a civilized manner, or whatever term you want to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as warpriests go, they're hilariously broken. Make a reach-based warpriest of Erastil and it's just stupid.
Care to elaborate? In most cases, you can do about as well damage-wise with an inquisitor, and the inquisitor has a lot more non-combat options.
|
|
Not you N. Jolly, you just agreed with a response to my point, not really addressing my point directly. Basically this happened.
Me) I think X.
Xethik) Well Y is wrong.
N. Jolly) Yeah, Y is wrong.
Me) I never said Y.As far as warpriests go, they're hilariously broken. Make a reach-based warpriest of Erastil and it's just stupid.
But anyways, this is one of the most toxic threads I've seen in a long time and I'm already regretting commenting on it. Good day.
Yeah, things like that happen, I just think it's important to be willing to apologize and discuss things in a rational manner.
I'm still not seeing how warpriest is broken, but it seems we can agree to disagree here. I mean I did write the new guide for them, and to me they open up a lot of options that would be terrible for everyone else, something I really liked. Cleave/Vital Strike builds with them are viable due to a lot of their features, although their spell list is really lacking, it really should have been a custom list. Seriously, only a few paladin spells would have been beautiful for them, but I will always lament this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Core classes are crazy broken. My group's current campaign is Core only, and we've been annihilating everything we go up against in the AP (Rise of the Runelords). Personally I was against the core only structure of the campaign because I find core classes and races dreadfully dull, but we've been seeing in every session that core classes are the most powerful in the game.
The other thing we're seeing: magic is king. Don't even bother playing a non-caster character in this system. 4 level caster seems like the absolute minimum if you don't want to suck.
|
The other thing we're seeing: magic is king. Don't even bother playing a non-caster character in this system. 4 level caster seems like the absolute minimum if you don't want to suck.
This is a little exaggerated, but true if everyone is playing full casters to their full potential or something like that. Even then there are a few builds that buck the trend and are pretty viable. An Invulnerable Rager Barbarian with Beast Totem, Superstition, Spell Sunder, and a way to Rage-Cycle leaps to mind...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes having strengths and weaknesses does not mean they are equal in power level...
Balance in my book means equal power level
Sorry for any confusion this brought, I really did not think it was a hard concept to grasp.
The confusion is from everyone already wanting classes to have strengths and weaknesses as balance, so you saying it as if it was an exception to the standard is confusing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not you N. Jolly, you just agreed with a response to my point, not really addressing my point directly. Basically this happened.
Me) I think X.
Xethik) Well Y is wrong.
N. Jolly) Yeah, Y is wrong.
Me) I never said Y.As far as warpriests go, they're hilariously broken. Make a reach-based warpriest of Erastil and it's just stupid.
But anyways, this is one of the most toxic threads I've seen in a long time and I'm already regretting commenting on it. Good day.
I in no way meant to misrepresent your opinion. I apologize for doing so.
What I meant:
You) I think X.
Me) I've seen a lot of people see X and draw conclusion Y. I don't agree with conclusion Y.
I very obviously did not make that clear. I know that you do not make conclusion Y, but my experience is that other people would. I wanted to speak against Core Only conclusion (or Pathfinder RPG line only).
I shouldn't have quoted your post at all. My apologies and cheers.
|
|
Core classes are crazy broken. My group's current campaign is Core only, and we've been annihilating everything we go up against in the AP (Rise of the Runelords). Personally I was against the core only structure of the campaign because I find core classes and races dreadfully dull, but we've been seeing in every session that core classes are the most powerful in the game.
The other thing we're seeing: magic is king. Don't even bother playing a non-caster character in this system. 4 level caster seems like the absolute minimum if you don't want to suck.
They're also some of the weakest in the game. Core has some hardcore polarizing class balance. I mean as has been said before, it's the same book where the druid is next to the fighter.
I do kind of agree that for the most part, magic is king. Magic is options, and options are king, which is why the perfect barbarian is so good since it gives options like sundering magic and such.
| 2 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.
But if you go to McDonalds with your kids and choose to use the ball pit, it IS your responsibility to make sure that the play environment is safe and appropriate for your children. McDonalds provides the play area; its your job as a parent to make sure your kids are safe and properly entertained, because different parents have different parenting styles, and it isn't McDonald's place to tell any parent that their method of parenting is "unfun."
Unless of course you're a child abuser, in which case the odds are that you're not going to have kids for much longer.
|
|
Classes having strengths and weaknesses does not mean they are equal in power level...
Balance in my book means equal power level
Sorry for any confusion this brought, I really did not think it was a hard concept to grasp.
Dude, no need to be rude. When you are using a different meaning of a word than others are using, and so people ask you to explain your meaning, you know, seek to understand you, and then when you explain it so it's still confusing why wouldn't they ask for further clarification?
Because so far you're the only one I'm aware of that has brought up 1v1 as a meaning of balanced.
Also many people, rightly, feel that if a class has strengths and weaknesses that those are being based off of same baseline, or comparative to the other classes. Because honestly the rogue does okay at skills and bad at combat. You seem to see that as the rogues strength is in skills and weakness is combat. We see it as the rogue is just bad at combat, because to consider something a strength of the class it needs to be better at that thing that a good majority of the classes and in the same area as other classes that are good at that thing.
So hopefully you see that when we are all using the definition that balanced = classes have strengths compared to other classes and weaknesses compared to other classes, and then you come in with your own view that balanced = 1v1 and that a class doing somethings better than itself doing other things = classes have strengths and weaknesses, why people would be confused at what you're saying.
In my defense i have been basing everything around 1v1 balance and have stated this since my first post. but i do see were the confusion is coming from now that i reread some of the posts with your explanation of balance.
With that said i still think that some classes are better at things then other classes. though a lot of casters can make up for some of this with magic.
When comparing classes in regards to strengths and weaknesses i will always do a 1 to 1 comparison of what that class can and cant do that the other class can and cant do.
Sure a druid, wizard and a cleric can cover all the skills and abilities that a rogue could do and more but that's 3 classes vs 1 not a really fair comparison. the way i look at it is rogue vs wizard, then rogue vs druid, then rogue vs cleric, then cleric vs wizard, ect ect to see who is stronger and weaker.
yes the casters will have more in the strengths column but the rogue will have some skill or abilities that the casters did not have.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you go to McDonalds with your kids and choose to use the ball pit, it IS your responsibility to make sure that the play environment is safe and appropriate for your children. McDonalds provides the play area; its your job as a parent to make sure your kids are safe and properly entertained, because different parents have different parenting styles, and it isn't McDonald's place to tell any parent that their method of parenting is "unfun."
It's the parent's responsibility to decide whether "public ball pit" is a place they're okay with their kid playing. Their might be plastic allergies to consider, or any number of concerns. But if the parent decides that a ball pit is an acceptable place for their child to play, and McDonalds advertises that it provides just such a thing to their paying customers, then a ball pit (and every reasonable assumption that comes with it) damn well better be what McDonalds provides. If McDonalds didn't bother to build it to code and it collapses on the kids, it's not the parents' fault for not performing structural inspections themselves and personally bolting on reinforcements prior to letting their kids play on it.
In the same way, a GM (and their group) needs to decide whether "fantasy class-and-level RPG" is what they want to play. There's plenty to consider, but if they decide that Class-and-Level Fantasy is what they want, and if that's what Paizo (or any publisher) is advertising that they'll provide to their paying customers, then Class-and-Level Fantasy (and every reasonable assumption that comes with it) damn well better be what the publisher provides. If the publisher didn't build a good foundational structure and the game implodes when used as described, it's not the GM's fault for not having redesigned the system from the ground up.
|
|
to add, i do not think this is a fundamental flaw in the game, nor has this disparity between casters and martials really effected any of my games i have played. we all still have fun and enjoy the game, yes we realize a lvl 20 wizard is almost a god compared to the lvl 20 fighter, but that fighter still can do things that wizard cant. in a fight between the fighter and wizard at lvl 20, i would put money on the wizard 100% of the time, but i wouldn't ban my players from ever using wizards because of this.
|
|
But if you go to McDonalds with your kids and choose to use the ball pit, it IS your responsibility to make sure that the play environment is safe and appropriate for your children. McDonalds provides the play area; its your job as a parent to make sure your kids are safe and properly entertained, because different parents have different parenting styles, and it isn't McDonald's place to tell any parent that their method of parenting is "unfun."It's the parent's responsibility to decide whether "public ball pit" is a place they're okay with their kid playing. Their might be plastic allergies to consider, or any number of concerns. But if the parent decides that a ball pit is an acceptable place for their child to play, and McDonalds advertises that it provides just such a thing to their paying customers, then a ball pit (and every reasonable assumption that comes with it) damn well better be what McDonalds provides. If McDonalds didn't bother to build it to code and it collapses on the kids, it's not the parents' fault for not performing structural inspections themselves and personally bolting on reinforcements prior to letting their kids play on it.
In the same way, a GM (and their group) needs to decide whether "fantasy class-and-level RPG" is what they want to play. There's plenty to consider, but if they decide that Class-and-Level Fantasy is what they want, and if that's what Paizo (or any publisher) is advertising that they'll provide to their paying customers, then Class-and-Level Fantasy (and every reasonable assumption that comes with it) damn well better be what the publisher provides. If the publisher didn't build a good foundational structure and the game implodes when used as described, it's not the GM's fault for not having redesigned the system from the ground up.
I dont think paizo ever promised us a balanced Table top RPG. they provided a high fantasy magic rpg were magic is powerful. if you do not like the way they wanted to build their game that is your issue not theirs.
in the same regards because you think it would be more fun to have the slide end in the ball pit at McDonalds it is not McDonalds job to change their play area
to add, i do not think this is a fundamental flaw in the game, nor has this disparity between casters and martials really effected any of my games i have played. we all still have fun and enjoy the game, yes we realize a lvl 20 wizard is almost a god compared to the lvl 20 fighter, but that fighter still can do things that wizard cant. in a fight between the fighter and wizard at lvl 20, i would put money on the wizard 100% of the time, but i wouldn't ban my players from ever using wizards because of this.
There's nothing a fighter can do that a wizard can't. The fighter has a few skills and hits things. That's it, from lv1 to lv20, those are the fighter's options. The wizard can do both of those at all levels as well. And if you're wanting to compare pure DPR, my money is that a wizard built to do non-spell DPR would beat the fighter at it as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quote from the dev James Jacobs.
Do you have any plans on dealing with the martial/caster disparity in pathfinder or do you think it's not a wide enough gap to be worried about it?I think the martial/caster disparity is mostly present in the view of folks who favor martial characters who are jealous of casters, or from the point of view of folks who favor caster characters who are jealous of martial characters.
AKA: I don't think its as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be. In my games, casters and non-casters tend to be equally valuable to the party, and equally dangerous in various situations as enemies. I've seen parties get into big trouble when their only strong spellcaster wasn't at the game, and I've seen them get into big trouble when their only strong non-spellcaster wasn't at the game.
To a large extent as well the responsibility to keep things fair and fun for all involved lands on the GM's shoulders. If every single fight is against flying creatures that use ranged attacks, the characters who focused on melee stuff are going to be cranky. Likewise, if every single fight is against golems or high SR foes, the spellcasters are going to be cranky.
It's a balancing act.
From Fergie's Page, he has alot of good stuff on it about this issue.
The most important part of dealing with the Caster Martial disparity, is understanding how it affects YOUR game. Once you see what the effects are, determine which effects are benign, and which are problems. This determination is best done in an honest and open discussion (NOT argument or debate) with the players and GM. Once the problem aspects are defined (for me personally, action-denial magic is the worst culprit), decide as a group what can be altered by the GM, and what needs to be house ruled. If your group can agree to allow the GM control of the character generation method and magic item economy and remove a few spells from the game you have fixed most of the problems.
Finally, there will always be imbalances and issues that need fixing. If players and GM agree to work towards a game that is fun for everyone, and not disrupt the balance, that will do more to promote fun then any rule or house rule. The game can be broken and rules can be abused - so DON'T break the game or abuse the rules.
With that said i still think that some classes are better at things then other classes. though a lot of casters can make up for some of this with magic.
Yes, some classes are better at things than others. That's how it should be in a balanced game. A barbarian is a lot better at physically fighting than a wizard. A wizard can cast much better than a barbarian.
When comparing classes in regards to strengths and weaknesses i will always do a 1 to 1 comparison of what that class can and cant do that the other class can and cant do.
Okay so we do the 1 to 1 comparison. Note that we are now moving away from actual balance checking and only seeing which is the superior between the two at various things. If you did this to all the classes then you could use the data to find out where in the actual spectrum of usefulness you lie.
Sure a druid, wizard and a cleric can cover all the skills and abilities that a rogue could do and more but that's 3 classes vs 1 not a really fair comparison. the way i look at it is rogue vs wizard, then rogue vs druid, then rogue vs cleric, then cleric vs wizard, ect ect to see who is stronger and weaker.
The example was to show that a rogue was bringing nothing useful to a party. This is important because at first glance the rogue looks like they'd be a good skills guy since they get lots of skill points a level, but since they're not going to be the primary person for a lot of those skills they don't get to actually be the skills guy. This rogue is building to be THE skills guy, and is only better at lockpicking compared to the other classes that weren't specializing at skills, just the skills they'd be good at. So my 8+ skills a levels effectively made my the lock picker, and not the skills guy.
Same for the fighter, you're adding some HP damage, but the party already has that at a fine spot, so you're not adding to the party abilities, and you'll be standing around waiting for the next fight.This is doing a check to see what does this class add to the party and is an important part of class evaluation.
but to do the class by class comparison you'd need to define what you're checking against and then decide if you're allowing specialized builds or not. Like the wizard can be a much better dex based skills guy than the rogue, he just normally doesn't go that route since it's not really that important. So are you comparing a wizard trying to outdo the rogue to a rogue or a rogue to the general wizard?
yes the casters will have more in the strengths column but the rogue will have some skill or abilities that the casters did not have.
in a 1v1, yes the rogue would beat a fair number of classes at some skill or another, but, like you said, it's a team game, and if we already have a talker, a know it all, and a scouter, a rogue that kinda does all of those just brings weaknesses to the party.
|
|
There's nothing a fighter can do that a wizard can't. The fighter has a few skills and hits things. That's it, from lv1 to lv20, those are the fighter's options. The wizard can do both of those at all levels as well. And if you're wanting to compare pure DPR, my money is that a wizard built to do non-spell DPR would beat the fighter at it as well.
Correct me if im wrong but are you trying to tell me you believe a sword wielding wizard not using spells is going to out DPR a sword wielding fighter.
While i disagree with you on the fundamental level of that statement i will agree and said this in my last post, the wizard does out match the fighter in almost every way, but the fighter will still be able to do things the wizard can not. For instance, pit a fighter and a wizard against a golem, the fighter has a significantly easier time fighting the golem.
The fighter also can continue to fight at full capacity well after the wizard has cast all his spells. the wizard is only as powerful as his spell list is prepared to be, and after a dozen or so spells, 12 rounds or 2 minutes of casting, the wizard is significantly weaker and has less options to accomplish his goal while a fighter can keep going at full strength for 8 hours without issue, that's 4,800 rounds, the wizard would run out of spells well before that if casting spells every round, he would have about 45-50 spells in total which the vast majority of them being level 1-4 spells which at high levels are almost useless in combat situations
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct me if im wrong but are you trying to tell me you believe a sword wielding wizard not using spells is going to out DPR a sword wielding fighter.
There's nothing a fighter can do that a wizard can't. The fighter has a few skills and hits things. That's it, from lv1 to lv20, those are the fighter's options. The wizard can do both of those at all levels as well. And if you're wanting to compare pure DPR, my money is that a wizard built to do non-spell DPR would beat the fighter at it as well.
That's not actually what he said. He said non-spell DPR. While a wizard couldn't do that at lower levels, at high levels with some buff & polymorph spells, he could likely out-DPR a fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing a fighter can do that a wizard can't. The fighter has a few skills and hits things. That's it, from lv1 to lv20, those are the fighter's options. The wizard can do both of those at all levels as well. And if you're wanting to compare pure DPR, my money is that a wizard built to do non-spell DPR would beat the fighter at it as well.Correct me if im wrong but are you trying to tell me you believe a sword wielding wizard not using spells is going to out DPR a sword wielding fighter.
While i disagree with you on the fundamental level of that statement i will agree and said this in my last post, the wizard does out match the fighter in almost every way, but the fighter will still be able to do things the wizard can not. For instance, pit a fighter and a wizard against a golem, the fighter has a significantly easier time fighting the golem.
The fighter also can continue to fight at full capacity well after the wizard has cast all his spells. the wizard is only as powerful as his spell list is prepared to be, and after a dozen or so spells, 12 rounds or 2 minutes of casting, the wizard is significantly weaker and has less options to accomplish his goal while a fighter can keep going at full strength for 8 hours without issue, that's 4,800 rounds, the wizard would run out of spells well before that if casting spells every round, he would have about 45-50 spells in total which the vast majority of them being level 1-4 spells which at high levels are almost useless in combat situations
Arguing from bad faith.
|
|
yes the casters will have more in the strengths column but the rogue will have some skill or abilities that the casters did not have.in a 1v1, yes the rogue would beat a fair number of classes at some skill or another, but, like you said, it's a team game, and if we already have a talker, a know it all, and a scouter, a rogue that kinda does all of those just brings weaknesses to the party.
And its the game or systems fault for you wanting to play a role that is already filled?