| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see why some people would prefer such restrictions not be "baked in" but rather left to individual tastes. However, it seems symmetric to me - I can add in class/race restrictions as easily as someone else can take them out. Similarly it doesn't seem inherently easier/harder to me to add in shades of grey to a moral absolutist setting than to make a morally subjective world more black and white.In any given RPG that doesn't have alignment or alignment-based restrictions, I can still, if I so desire, self-restrict what I play without any need for anyone else to get involved, or indeed, even be aware I am self-restricting. When the game allows "Paladin or Monk, Alignment: Any", I can still say "Self, even though you can play any way you want, only play the character lawfully".
The converse is not true. It is not remotely symmetrical. If it were, then I could likewise sit down at any given Pathfinder table, declare my intent to play a non-lawful ki-using Monk and legitimately not expect any resistance or friction to my efforts. Instead, I likely would have to face a steeply uphill battle to do so. Which was much more difficult than playing a lawful good Paladin in a game that didn't require its Paladins to be lawful good.
Put it this way: how easily can a person with two hands hold one behind his back and go about his day as though he only has one? And is it just as easy for a person with only one hand to operate as though he has two? Because that is how symmetrical it is to leave alignment restrictions in rather than take them out.
I've ignored alignment restrictions in games that have them. It's really not that hard.
Obviously, if your DM says Paladins have to be LG, you can't do anything but be LG if you want to play a paladin in their games. I was talking about what a publisher gives to a DM, not what opportunities a DM gives to a player.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
in my view, Demons, devils, and most other fiends already made a choice to be evil..back when they were mortals before died. So I am perfectly fine with fiends being evil 99.99% of the time, as basically entities derived from evil souls and composed of concentrated evil.
That doesn't mean you can't play them in a more complicated way than cannon fodder. Sometimes you have to chose the lesser evil, and that lesser evil might be freeing a ticked off demon or allying with a devil with his own grudge against the big bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And people complain about me getting off topic. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion has kinda gone off the rails, so in the interest of talking about if PF needs a 2.0 I would like to say this.
PF started out with races/classes being slightly stronger than 3.5, so naturally monsters were made a little stronger. Things kinda got off the rails once the other classes/races were added in, as well as archetypes, feats, and spells. The new additions were even stronger than Core PF. Once people started using those new feats/classes/spells, then stronger monsters had to be made. The end result is a balance clusterf@$# that got a little silly.
Right now you could not take a core only party (that includes feats and spells along with classes/races) into any of the newer campaigns, those character would be weak and you couldn't form a team like that. Conversely if you took a party that had all rulebooks open to them into one of the early campaigns they would pound it to the ground and complain about how easy it is.
My assessment it that PF 2.0 is needed because balance has gone out the window. PF society has survived largely by throwing out most of the clusterf@&! of imbalanced things.
After reading through this thread, I didn't see any arguments that would actually be solved by a new edition and not just turned into new arguments.
If you're saying they could make the same mistakes over again, yes they could. But they could also do things differently, which is obviously what's being advocated for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Core Barbarian and Wizard would like to have words with you...
Yeah...I would say most of the power imbalance with classes in Pathfinder lies within the core rulebook. Almost all if not all of the new classes sit somewhere within the range of power exhibited by core rulebook classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think even though humans are going to complain about something anyway, it's still possible to fix things in such a way that nearly everybody improves. I mean, nobody thinks the Unchaining of the Rogue was a bad idea, do they?
I mean, there are some things that are going to be controversial (the latest digression relating to "how baked into the rules should one specific setting be"), but it's not like you couldn't fix a lot of things pretty simply if you just printed the book.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is (at least) one person in my group that thinks the core monk is overpowered for a martial class. Again, balance is subjective. Complexity (in this case) is subjective.
People being wrong does not make a topic subjective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have nearly 50 classes in Pathfinder so they can be balanced.
You have 50 classes so everyone can have fun. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have nearly 50 classes in Pathfinder so they can be balanced.
You have 50 classes so everyone can have fun. :-)
Though, if balance issues prevent someone from having fun, then that is a fun issue. Things like "I played my fighter though 9 levels and had a great time but now I have to make a new character because I can't do anything useful anymore" are problems worth solving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I find Pathfinder to be the most balanced edition so far.
Please note, I have no knowledge of 5th edition.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What arguments do you feel would actually be solved by a new edition (and not just turned into new arguments) and do you feel that those arguments actually warrant a new edition?
Well to me it's not about arguments to be solved. it's just that I think that in the last 16 years, RPGs have developed quite a bit and that Pathfinder misses out on a lot of those developments because it artificially restricts itself to being the D&D 3E legacy edition.
And I simply would like to see what the Paizo designers could come up with without those restrictions.
Apart from that, and with respect to the C/MD, I think that progress has been made at this specific front, but it would probably easier if players wouldn't have to look through different sources but could just look the class of their choice up in the Core Book. I actually don't care if you call it Pathfinder Revised or Pathfinder 2.0, but I actually think that the last argument alone warrants a new edition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is (at least) one person in my group that thinks the core monk is overpowered for a martial class. Again, balance is subjective. Complexity (in this case) is subjective.People being wrong does not make a topic subjective.
+>9000
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you put forward an argument, there's presumably some evidential or theoretical basis underlying it. When someone makes a claim like "the core monk is overpowered" there's presumably a reason they are making that claim.
I would be fairly confident that those reasons would not hold up under scrutiny. By what standard could an unarchetyped core monk be a better combatant than a Paladin, Ranger, or Barbarian?
It's conceivable that there's something I'm missing, but most people who dislike the monk in this game do so because it's too weak, or because its fiction doesn't fit their vision of the world, not because it's actually good.
Actually making a core monk competitive with other classes requires a significant degree of systems mastery and generally multiple stacked archetypes. "X can be good, but only if you own six player companions and use these optional rules from Unchained" is precisely the sort of thing you'd want to fix in a revised edition: examine how a class can be good at what it is supposed to do and make it relatively simple to accomplish that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's conceivable that there's something I'm missing, but most people who dislike the monk in this game do so because it's too weak, or because its fiction doesn't fit their version of the world, not because it's actually good.
What you may miss (not sure, can't speak for KwsM), that a lot of the theoretical arguments made about balance issues don't necessarily apply to any game table.
For example, I've played through 3E, 3.5 and Pathfinder since 2000 and have never ever had any issue with the C/MD. And I actually think that we didn't do anything special this whole time but played the game as it is supposed to be played. Which, please, is not the same thing as saying that anyone who stumbled over this problem did anything wrong.
So if the player experienced the monk as being overpowered (and I admit I have a hard time imagining that ^^), simply to say that he's wrong is neither helpful nor accurate. Because no matter what Theorycrafting 101 has to say about it, it doesn't change the player's experience.
Which is also why I don't like theorycrafting too much, because it will lead to very different outcomes depending on the axioms you base your theory on.
Still no argument against a rules revision /new edition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah...I would say most of the power imbalance with classes in Pathfinder lies within the core rulebook. Almost all if not all of the new classes sit somewhere within the range of power exhibited by core rulebook classes.
This. Anyone suggesting that core wizard is weaker than, say, swashbuckler, or kineticist has a pretty flawed analysis.
There are stronger and weaker classes in every book, including the core rule book.
Do I think pathfinder is absolutely balanced? Nope. But I don't think it should be. Perfectly balanced classes end up being overly samey.
The game is not a contest (unless you're running an arena or something) so I don't see why it matters that Bob the barbarian is way stronger than Wendy the witch at level 2, but Wendy is way stronger at level 12.
First of all, most games (judging from sales of adventures - where lower level adventures sell more than higher level) are ending by level 10 or so anyway, so the worst of the caster-martial disparity never becomes an issue.
Second of all, if a GM wants the game to be more balanced they can simply decide to not allow the stronger options or not allow the weaker options.
Or they can choose to restrict which magical items are available - and ensure that the weaker classes get items that boost them more than the stronger classes.
I own almost every Paizo hardback (only missing intrigue, mythic and strategy guide - not interested in these) - I buy a lot of Paizo books. That will end if they bring out a second edition.
I am not going to rebuy all the books. I won't.
I think most issues can be addressed by more Unchained books and a new better organized PRD, perhaps Compilations for those people who prefers a printed option.
Since somebody suggested Magic Unchained several pages back I can't avoid to think how cool will be if Paizo published it, I mean it could be the perfect opportunity to address things like vancian casting that some people don't like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, I've played through 3E, 3.5 and Pathfinder since 2000 and have never ever had any issue with the C/MD. And I actually think that we didn't do anything special this whole time but played the game as it is supposed to be played.When there is a contradiction between 'as it is meant to be played' and 'as it is written' you have a problem.
I mean "the players decide to play along and not obliterate the entire plot with their godlike power" has been a workable solution in TTRPGs for a while. You just get issues when the players, or more likely one player, doesn't want to play along.
But "as it is supposed to be played" is pretty nebulous; particularly since a game ideally can be played in a variety of different ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not going to rebuy all the books. I won't.
Same. I'll keep volunteering my time, but I won't pickup the print copies. If a reboot ever happens, anyway.
I will point out that my advocacy has never been for a book that someone who has old books must purchase to remain relevant. Quite the opposite.
But rather, I want a new book with better clean up, organization, and printing (and a rearrangement of base classes) because I think it will be good for the health of the gaming community, and be more inviting to new people who look to play the game.
If a PF2 Core book is printed in which the core classes were (randomly selected by me with no real reason) alchemist, barbarian, bard, gunslinger, hunter, inquisitor, oracle, paladin, swashbuckler, slayer, vigilante, and witch (as an example) you've got a very different example of "core" play.
Then trade out all the spell lists, feats, and skills, and neaten up and reorganize how information is presented. Use clarification of intent and maybe add side notes to point out differences between the Core book and Golarion (or leave that as a sidebar for the Golarion book), and you've got a pretty "new" product that is entirely compatible with current products; this necessitates no new purchases, but could encourage such behavior.
Either way, it could be more approachable to newer players - it can be organized in a less-labyrinthine way, and made clearer, with incorporated errata.
But that's just one example.
(I have other preferences, but knowing the excellent Mr. Jacobs' and Mr. Bulman's preferences, it ain't'a gonna happen.)
There is (at least) one person in my group that thinks the core monk is overpowered for a martial class. Again, balance is subjective. Complexity (in this case) is subjective.
People being wrong does not make a topic subjective.
While this has already been addressed, I just wanted to mention: right as you are, Rhedyn (and you are correct), it's worth noting that even people with a lot of experience and intelligence can be confused or deceived by perceived intent and personal experience.
For example, I like and respect a guy on YouTube called ProJared - very much so. He makes great videos and has promoted the concept (invented by him) of D&December - a method of popularizing and informing people about our hobby in a way that expands the potential audience. But I strongly disagree with his estimation of what is and is not balanced (and noted that he, too, felt that monks were OP for the entirety of the 3.X system).
Frankly, before I'd played many of them (and, to be fair, I still haven't played "many" of them), I'd come to the same conclusion. On paper, they seem awesome: all good saves, decent attack and hit points and skills, never need a weapon, seemingly no need to get expensive gear to get such "cool" features as SR and DR and super-speed, and lots of attacks and free continuous damage upgrade over the course of your career?! SIGN ME UP!!
... but in practice, of course, it doesn't really work out that way, at least not if you're playing strictly by the rules.
I mean, sure, compared to rogues (his favorite class) they can seem pretty powerful, but... not really in compared to others. All of those awesome-looking benefits don't really do quite what it seems like they should.
But that's not something you come to naturally. You have to hunt that sort of information, really dig deep and examine the system to come to that conclusion.
If you're just playing "for fun" you can easily miss some of those issues and, even in play, come away with the impression that it's OP.
The guy is awesome, and I respect the daylights out of him... but he's wrong, in this instance... at least according to a strict interpretation of the math and system. Doesn't mean he's dumb or bad as a player.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When there is a contradiction between 'as it is meant to be played' and 'as it is written' you have a problem.
Generally yes. Though I think that in lot of those discussions both sides interpret the wordings of the rules in such a way as to support their cause. Meaning that even people that are talking about RAW are in fact using specific interpretations under specific boundary conditions that might be more important to the interpretation than the wording of the rule themselves. While in actual gameplay, the supposed problems might not be as game-shattering as you might think after reading such a discussion.
I mean "the players decide to play along and not obliterate the entire plot with their godlike power" has been a workable solution in TTRPGs for a while. You just get issues when the players, or more likely one player, doesn't want to play along.
Can't argue against that. Though I generally assume that "playing along" is a base assumption of any group activity, so if a player is't willing to do that, they probably shouldn't play in this specific game but look for another one that better fits their taste.
And it's not as if spell-casters couldn't do any cool things in my games, so I think there's a middle-ground to be found in most cases.
But "as it is supposed to be played" is pretty nebulous; particularly since a game ideally can be played in a variety of different ways.
I totally agree. But if you can interpret the rules in a way, that support playing the game without causing game-shattering problems, then I think that this interpretation might probably be superior to one that causes the game to become unplayable.
I'm not denying C/MD. I just don't think that I played the game wrong, just because it never caused problems in my games. And I fear, that you can't solve this "problem" without creating a system that would be way to simplified or streamlined for my taste.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...For example, I like and respect a guy on YouTube called ProJared...
...Doesn't mean he's dumb or bad as a player...
I think it's weird to take, "The monk is not overpowered" as "You and your friends play the game wrong and are dumb".
I personally wouldn't tie deep system mastery of a niche hobby to overall intelligence, nor do I think you need deep system mastery to enjoy your experience with it (and thus playing it right).
I do think it is asinine to think game balance is subjective just because people you know have differing opinions on what is powerful. That's a nonsense line of reasoning.
*all 'you' words are used in the general sense
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some classes that might be overpowered in the current system. The Summoner has been a target of pointed fingers as an example. I believe a new version of Pathfinder would roll these classes into an aspect of other (already well known) classes, possibly in the core rulebook. The summoner could be a specialist Sorcerer or a focused wizard. The Oracle could be a cleric that trusts in herself instead of particular god. The Witch could be a Sorcerer who dabbles with rituals and item foci.
The possibilities are endless, and though we likely won't see a new version within the next five years, I believe breaking away from Wizards OGL might free up design to do some truly fantastic things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The summoner could be a specialist Sorcerer or a focused wizard.
What replace bloodline/schools with the eidolon?
The Oracle could be a cleric that trusts in herself instead of particular god.
Clerics can already do that, and it doesn't end up like an Oracle at all outside of being medium BAB divine casters.
The Witch could be a Sorcerer who dabbles with rituals and item foci.
That has nothing to do with witch at all.... Literally nothing. Did you mean occultist? Even then, sorcerers don't exactly have many abilities to trade away for actually interesting class features.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, all classes are just specialized versions of the medium.
I turned mine up to 11.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...For example, I like and respect a guy on YouTube called ProJared...
...Doesn't mean he's dumb or bad as a player...
I think it's weird to take, "The monk is not overpowered" as "You and your friends play the game wrong and are dumb".
I personally wouldn't tie deep system mastery of a niche hobby to overall intelligence, nor do I think you need deep system mastery to enjoy your experience with it (and thus playing it right).
I do think it is asinine to think game balance is subjective just because people you know have differing opinions on what is powerful. That's a nonsense line of reasoning.
*all 'you' words are used in the general sense
Again, I agree - but it's still important to note the difference because, as this is the internet, even entirely innocuous statements - even those intended to be kind or understanding - can easily be taken as, "I hate you and you're stupid and/or awful."
It's happened with me here on Paizo. I started a thread intending to say, "Hey, guys, you two both brought up good points, and I'd like you to consider things from the view of the other person, as both are interesting, and it's worth exploring understanding others." - but I was fairly strongly rebuked for "attacking" people or something like that. This was never my intent - and I kind of thought I was being both cautious and clear. And yet...
And that's why I think it's worth noting. You're not going to ensure that no one misunderstands, but at least you can make it less likely that misunderstandings occur.
Anyway, now we're pretty far afield of topic, soooooooo...
... how 'bout that PF v.2, eh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
I personally wouldn't tie deep system mastery of a niche hobby to overall intelligence, nor do I think you need deep system mastery to enjoy your experience with it (and thus playing it right).
{. . .}
But . . . but . . . but . . . if you don't have enough Intelligence, you don't have enough skill points to invest in Gamemastery while still investing enough in the Craft, Perform, or Profession skill needed for your day job . . . .
Really, all classes are just specialized versions of the medium.
Yes, but several of them are more well done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there is ever a formal 2.0, I hope it's done in such a way that promotes player invention. I've never seen a GM allow a magic item that had anything other than a discreet spell effect on it that wasn't an item that already existed, a class ability that wasn't lifted entirely from another class when trying to invent a new class for a player, and so on. My perception of the average D&D/PF GM is one being very unfriendly to ideas that don't fit neatly into the rules. That's one huge thing I liked out of 5E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is ever a formal 2.0, I hope it's done in such a way that promotes player invention. I've never seen a GM allow a magic item that had anything other than a discreet spell effect on it that wasn't an item that already existed, a class ability that wasn't lifted entirely from another class when trying to invent a new class for a player, and so on. My perception of the average D&D/PF GM is one being very unfriendly to ideas that don't fit neatly into the rules. That's one huge thing I liked out of 5E.Both 5e and PF have and heavily encourage the use of rule 0 though.
You are correct, however given that Pathfinder is quite complex and has a lot of moving parts, many GMs (at least, many GMs I've played with) feel uncomfortable with the idea of deviating too far from the published rules. The concern being that a small tweak for convenience may well have unintended consequences.
5th Edition went for "simple at all costs" and as such is generally less intimidating for GMs wishing to make adjustments and rulings. Indeed, due to the fact that they often deliberately omit any official verdict on a whole pile of stuff, they force the GM to make judgement calls.
Personally... for me the sweet spot would be about halfway between Pathfinder and 5th edition.
If there is ever a formal 2.0, I hope it's done in such a way that promotes player invention. I've never seen a GM allow a magic item that had anything other than a discreet spell effect on it that wasn't an item that already existed, a class ability that wasn't lifted entirely from another class when trying to invent a new class for a player, and so on. My perception of the average D&D/PF GM is one being very unfriendly to ideas that don't fit neatly into the rules. That's one huge thing I liked out of 5E.Both 5e and PF have and heavily encourage the use of rule 0 though.
They give it a couple mentions and then are wholly silent about it. It gets pushed into one of those assumptions about the game that they don't feel they need to bring up to remind us it exists. So, you have "the most important rule" paragraph and a paragraph or two in the Gamemastering chapter followed by a deluge of set mechanics. If you say to someone "run this game," how do you think they'll do it? Humans are simple creatures still often scared by the dark and need to feel the reassurance of the flashlight in hand to go boldly into the night.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to monks being OP... All to often I see people respond to declarations of OP/UP based on what sort of damage the class puts out. For many of us who have been playing this game for decades, damage is only a -small- part of the game.
I've been part of games where it's a heavy grindfest session after session. I've also been part of games where we might not make an attack roll 10-12 sessions.
I've been part of games where the rogue was -easily- the most powerful class at the table... because of the value of scouting and sneak attacks on an unaware bad guy camp. The rest of us, being roleplayers, were more than willing to not run up and get beaten on, cut up, smacked around, and generally damaged just for the sake of our egos.
Sure, magic IS powerful. But I've rarely played in a game where you have the 15 minute adventuring day, like so many pathfinder games seem to be.
I was in a game recently where a 4th level caster wanted to not pursue the main bad guy (and this was before noon) until the next day because it was an undead, and they wanted to swap their acid splash for disrupt undead, even though no-one had used a single consumable yet that day. Nothing else. Just that one cantrip. And the rest of the party was fine with waiting. (Not trying to get into alignment thoughts, with bard guy out there killing people, etc... just the thought of 'downtime' not mattering.)
I sat down to a level 9-ish PFS game, where I was the only person who had a resistance bonus to saves. Because to the rest of the table, saves just don't come up enough to matter.
Other tables, Cloak +1 is one of the very first things you buy. Because saves matter.
Which leads me back to the monk. Which has -awesome- saves.
Now, I don't deny that at high levels, there is a large caster vs melee disparity. But I can easily see the monk being considered (with everything taken into account) the most powerful core melee. Saves, Skills, AC; special abilities built in... It all depends on the playstyle, setting, etc, which DOES make views of OP/UP subjective.
So, why mention this in a thread about 2.0?
Because I'm bored atm. My local 24 hour restaurant stopped being 24 hour.
But mostly to point out that just because some people think things need to be trimmed down, or re-balanced, or options cut back... doesn't mean the options YOU want cut back are going to be the ones that get cut back, or balanced, or the like.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But mostly to point out that just because some people think things need to be trimmed down, or re-balanced, or options cut back... doesn't mean the options YOU want cut back are going to be the ones that get cut back, or balanced, or the like.
That's fair. My only real requirement in a new version to to learn from the old one and to try to make the next version better based on the feedback of the community and to make it consistent with itself. I think all any of us can do is prop up our own little reasons why to nudge at Paizo to show it is wanted.