"Party resting whenever casters run out" (15 minute adventuring day) is the easiest problem to overcome and I don't understand how people have such trouble with it. Some pressure for time, such as reinforcements at your back or whatever, will force mages to ration there spells, which also brings theor general power down a bit.
On top of that, I use wild, overclocking, and limited magic (from Unchained) together to give magic a more 'powerful but volatile" feel. And with that, I'm very happy with how magic stands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Party resting whenever casters run out" (15 minute adventuring day) is the easiest problem to overcome and I don't understand how people have such trouble with it. Some pressure for time, such as reinforcements at your back or whatever, will force mages to ration there spells, which also brings theor general power down a bit.
The thing is, published adventures aren't generally written that way. They're written so that the party can stop and rest easily. This is basically how they balance them for a variety of skill levels. A skilled group can explore the whole dungeon and defeat eight encounters in a single day, where optimized martials slaughter enemies then heal up with a wand, while bored wizards conserve their spells for emergencies. An average group can fight four encounters, then retreat and rest. An inexperienced group can fight two encounters, carelessly lose a PC, retreat to town and pick up a new character, then return to the adventure.
If the party has a strict time limit, then the inexperienced group is basically dependent on GM fiat to avoid a TPK.
A skilled GM who is creating an adventure for his specific group might be able to create a balanced time-limited adventure, but for most it isn't as easy as you make it sound.
Magic vs Martials
I prefer to set a magic system where magic has versatility but lacks raw power. Thus martials can out fight a pure mage but the mage can fill in for any party role required. About the only thing a mage can do that martials can't combat-wise, is aoe effects. Heck, with that setup done right, you don't have to limit mana points, spells per day, or otherwise limit how often spells can be cast.
Levels
I see levels as benchmarks of improvement, with the type and amount of improvement being set by each system in particular.
Personally, I prefer levels with smaller improvements that are gained often. In fact, one of my d20 varients is a setup that allows gaining any number of levels without improving raw power, thus characters grow in versatility but not so much in power.
15 minute workday and adventure expectations
The way I see it, if the game is being run purely from the module without plenty of other stuff based on the group, then the players are, in my opinion, getting a very substandard experience.
One of the arts of gming is to weave many elements together while accounting for the players (their skill, bg, playstyle, their character's mechanical ability and role coverage, among many other things).
To use a metaphore comparing a campaign to a character class, a module is like the primary class features, while bab, saves, and skills points are not covered by the module and the gm sets these up according to the requirements, abilities, and goals of the group.
Thus, to me, the module is just a framework upon which to build an adventure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of making things stronger because of wizards seems like treating the symptom to me.
I believe, not that such variety of scale does not exist, but there is no real intent behind it.
You say you can run every type of fantasy. That is true. But I do not think that is what happens. I think DnD is used to run the same fantasy, over and over again, regardless of level. I have no way to prove it, but I feel the typical party rarely thinks like they are doing anything more than just playing with fancier toys when they get a level. The classic adventure, dungeon crawling.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really seems odd to me that people would point to an outlier as being the balancing point for a future edition, either wizard or fighter. Generally it seems the 6th level-4th level casters tend to be considered to be a good middle ground to strive for, and I would prefer the 9th level casters to be brought closer to those classes, even if it mean reduction in power/nerfing, and fighters and other less powerful classes raised up in effectiveness to their level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they wanted to communicate those guidelines as guidelines, then they did so poorly.I don't think this actually matters. The 3.x books are constantly reminding you that they are guidelines. Those core books are littered with that fact. Yet it still became the norm to treat the rules as immutable as the rules to chess.
I have no faith that the general player base would consider a ruleset as mere guidelines, no matter how clear it is said, nor how much it is encouraged.
It sounds like you're talking about confirmation bias, where you selectively perceive that which supports what you already believe.Incorrect (though I admit, I'm terrible at communication).
To use your example, if you make a homebrew setting and say it is similar to Star Wars, then players would assume using special powers would like using the force even though it wasn't explicitly stated. Therefore, if the gm wanted that detail changed, they would need to be explicit about it because players wouldn't have zero expectations until told, rather they would form expectations based on Star Wars and start dreaming about jedi-like characters.
That's... exactly my point. The player in my example is not enamored with the idea of Psyker-esque reality screwing for his mental warrior character, so he seeks out a game where he expects that not to happen. Star Wars is such a game. He doesn't expect the GM to suddenly overhaul the Force mechanics in the game to reintroduce Psyker-esque risks while using mental powers. It would be unusual if it happened once, and he should try his luck in the lottery if it happened multiple times back to back.
I was originally talking about how much influence a ruleset has on what a group's individual game actually ends up going with. So it's sounding like you're actually agreeing with me, that whatever setting restrictions the core rules have stay in the game even outside that setting.
I meant that as I said it. It would make me dislike the rulebooks even more, I still don't see any necessity for it, and I guess it would still not change the fact that you can't simply do anything you want in any game you partake, because it's still the GM who defines what's allowed and what's not, but in the end, it's the setting that needs restrictions to give it structure, not the rules (technically they do, but not in any setting defining sense). So if that's needed to compromise, I'm game.
The question is: What do we do about those products in the Pathfinder Companion line? Because I still would expect that there are setting-relevant products which interpret the rules in a setting-specific way. And for economic reasons, that very much means that Paizo still might publish rules in those product that don't exist in the generic rulebooks and that have restrictions you will have again to talk with your GM about. Like setting-specific Prestige classes or archetypes, magic items or feats, spells, maybe even whole subsystems, and so on.
So if I leave your rulebooks alone, can you leave those products alone? Or do we need to have the same discussion again? Because that might very well be where my will to compromise ends.
If you want me to acknowledge the sanctity of the Golarion material, then sure. If they want to say that Monks in Golarion can only be Lawful, that Paladins in Golarion can only be Lawful Good, that (in Golarion) Bladed Brush can only be taken by worshippers of Shelyn, etc, etc, then sure. I acknowledge that once the game the players are preparing to play has progressed from Pathfinder to Golarion specifically, then Golarion's flavor takes precedence. I acknowledge that said setting lore, where it manifests as mechanics, may even need to be represented not just by "this or that feat is usually taken by worshippers of Torag", but by "must worship Torag" being an outright prerequisite.
So my answer is yes. I can acknowledge Paizo declaring whatever they want with whatever they want, classes, feats, spells, prestige classes, etc, as it pertains to Golarion.
Unfortunately, it must be a provisional yes, in that I can't acknowledge these distinctions being constricted to which physical books have what. I'm willing to say that Monks in Golarion should only be Lawful if that's what's appropriate to the setting. Nor am I particularly fussed about how that's communicated, whether it's a line in the core rulebook saying "Monk Alignment: Any. Usually lawful, and in Golarion, must be lawful" or if it's a blurb in the Golarion setting book saying "Contrary to the core rules where Monks are merely usually lawful, in Golarion, they must be lawful". It adds up to the same thing on both ends: the Monk must be lawful in Golarion and players aren't beholden to that restriction outside of Golarion.
But in fairness, that has to go both ways. Paizo writes both Pathfinder and Golarion material, and presumably in Pathfinder 2.0, they still would be. Using generic core material for the Golarion setting is, of course, going to happen, but the reverse must be acknowledged as well: Pathfinder players will want to use material from the setting line outside of said setting and without the uphill battle to do so.
This need not even be acknowledged in the setting material itself. A line in the core rules to the effect of "Material from the Pathfinder Companion line (or whatever PF2.0 ended up calling it) will sometimes include roleplaying restrictions (such as the worship of a specific deity, or an alignment restriction, or hailing from a specific nation). These restrictions exist to illustrate aspects of the setting to players playing characters within the setting. They are inviolate rules there, but only there. Outside of Golarion, these are not considered to even exist. Your GM may, of course, add in any such roleplaying restrictions back in, or create different ones on his own." Because those restrictions exist in Golarion for the same reason as the Monk's lawful requirement. And if we're going to acknowledge that that doesn't extend beyond the setting, then why would PF2.0's Bladed Brush feat, regardless of what book it's in? Why would it matter which physical books the game elements we're talking about originate from, as long as the distinction between "the restriction exists in the setting" and "the restriction doesn't exist outside the setting" is maintained? Every single thing in the core rules can legitimately have only a certain number of ways it can be expressed in the setting, so it's only fair that there be some provision somewhere allowing for anything originating in the setting to be used outside the setting without the setting's assumptions. As long as that's somewhere, I see no need for the Pathfinder Companion material to get tied up in this at all.
Of course, I recall Mark Seifter saying either in this thread or the other one that the authors of some of the Pathfinder Companion material weren't necessarily the folks at Paizo and so didn't put everything under the same vetting process or create everything under the same assumptions, so that would have to change. Again, not how anything still manifests in Golarion or how it would be written in the setting books, but simply how it's to be handled outside. Does this or that deity worship prerequisite stand in as a balancing factor, and so needs something in its place when used outside Golarion, or is simply deleting it wholesale sufficient? Ssalarn had a point when he raised that issue.
Two things,
First, fluff influence on mechanics is strong enough to need a default setting baseline. This baseline setting is a setting, even if only the bare bones of one. That setting is the assumed state of things upon which everything within the rules are built. Having those alignment restrictions is thus reasonable when the designers see those as being aspects of the default setting.
The ability to make a different setting without those assumptions doesn't invalidate the above.
Further, there is no way to truly make the rules setting agnostic without reaching abstraction on par with chess is just not possible without heaping a vast amount of content creation work on the gm.
Far better to have a default setting that can be tweaked and altered than to have no setting.
Second, in the baseline setting, alignment has ,echanical affects, and therefore, alignment needs to be considered in balancing classes. Alignment restrictions play a part in that. Of course, how much impact that has depends a lot on how the gm interacts with and uses the alignment system. When it isn't used that deeply, and alignment mechanics aren't brought into play very often, it renders alignment restrictions pointless, but if the alignment mechanics are being brought up often, then the restrictions can have a significant impact.
Third,
...that whatever setting restrictions the core rules have stay in the game even outside that setting.
I only partially agree.
This happens when a gm isn't paying attention to such expectations, or just doesn't care to change them.
This is not confirmation bias, which is what I was saying "incorrect" to.
Confirmation bias is the tendancy to notice, and/or hold a perspective about, evidence that supports your existing belief and to overlook, ignore, or excuse evidence that suggests your existing belief is wrong.
Basically, if I tell you Bob is a mean person, and you see him not leave a tip at Starbucks, you are more likely to see that as confirmation that he is mean, and less likely to realize that he paid with a card and probably left the tip on that. And if you did see the receipt as you walked up to the counter as he left and noticed it had a big tip with "Thanks! XO" you'd be more likely to believe that it wasn't actually his receipt, but must've been from the person before him.
|
But in fairness, that has to go both ways. Paizo writes both Pathfinder and Golarion material, and presumably in Pathfinder 2.0, they still would be. Using generic core material for the Golarion setting is, of course, going to happen, but the reverse must be acknowledged as well: Pathfinder players will want to use material from the setting line outside of said setting and without the uphill battle to do so.
Absolutely. I mean I do that myself, so as far as this goes, our opinions may probably differ only in if rules material bound to setting is more difficult to use for that matter. And to be fair, to me it would already suffice if those restrictions are introduced into the setting via the Paizo blog, so that anyone who doesn't care for this simply can ignore it.
The thing is, and that's why I have my problems with how this other thread started: Even in the Path of the Righteous companion, the authors of said book already acknowledge (in the introduction) that those restrictions may not be for everyone's taste and advise for a flexible approach with regards to players (maybe even lifting them wholesale). I guess that's also why they made the flavor restrictions so easy removable. So as I see it, if there's an uphill battle, then it probably is not because of the restriction lines in the book, but because of the GM who is not willing to take this more flexible approach.
So as said I wouldn't mind if they remove alignment (and other restrictions) from the Core rules. I just happen to think that this wouldn't help your case very much, because I very much doubt that there is a large number of GMs doing things only because they stand in the book and if they do, they do it because they actually agree with them. So again, you uphill battle, it's with the GMs, not with the rules.
And Pathfinder by design as by intent is and stays a very GM-centric system, so they basically would have to change that for a Pathfinder 2.0 to stop this uphill battle of yours.
|
|
1-4 is your gritty fantasy vietnam.
5-8 is your heroic legends of King Arthur or 3 Kingdoms
9-12 is lower-tier super heroic/wuxia
13-16 is demi-god
17-20 is god.
I generally don't mind this transition but for two reasons: First, level speed especially at the lower levels seems way to fast, so if you're only interested in, let's say the level 1-8 gameplay (as I am), you have to take some measures to ensure that this doesn't happen. Sure, it can be done, but it isn't the default of the game,which is irritating at least.
And second, the problem is with the way the official material is written. Official AP material is generally written for levels 1-17, and basically with book 3 you're entering super heroic/wuxia territory. I would love to have the same amount of AP material constrcting to the first two quintiles of your categorization and I actually think that thematically, it would not even be that big of a problem for most APs. As it stands, I have to do this work by myself, and that's a lot of work I (and I guess most other people) am not willing nor have the time to do. Which may be part of the reason why sales numbers for later entries in any AP seem to drop compared to the first two adventures.
Remember BECMI, where you had 14 levels before you left the Expert rules and 25 before leaving the Compaion rules region? I would really love to see them go back to this approach, as I remember us playing for years without having to worry about entering demi-god territory.
And then let them fix epic play and make it worthwhile for those players who actually like to play at this power level.
I mean, I can dream at least, right? ^^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how do the current classes fit in that progression? What abilities does a Fighter or a Rogue get that qualify them as low-tier superheroes/wuxia? Achilles was a literal demigod; presumably the aim should be for a Fighter of levels 13-16 to match Achilles, so what have they got to have for that to work in PF 2?
Haven't high-level fighters always been Achilles? On a battlefield, they can slaughter an army of low-level fighters.
The problem is that high-level casters resemble full gods who can turn enemies into animals, strike their foes down with lightning, fly up to the heavens, conjure up food and drink, and so on, while fighters tend to stay demigods, and since they always fight CR-appropriate enemies, they don't get to experience entire armies fleeing from them in terror.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that while Achilles was a literal demi-god apart from his unique fighting prowessand him being nearly invulnerable, he couldn't do any things that would seem out of reach for a normal human being. In that, he isn't really on par with Hercules, for example.
Apart from that, I agree with you that existing Martial-Caster disparity is problematic as far as this story-level categorization is concerned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was designing a D&D game, I'd make casters far more specialized. So you could have a fire caster who can set things on fire, protect you from fire, and so on - but couldn't cast Charm Person or Teleport. Or you could have a Teleportation themed caster whose magic revolved around moving things - causing weapons to jump out of enemy's hands, or arrows to phaze through you - but couldn't launch fireballs. Or you could have a Mind-Control caster who can charm enemies or buff the morale of allies, but who can't create anything physical.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alternatively, you could make high-level martials more mythic - so abilities like shattering a mountain or jumping a hundred feet or deafening an enemy by shouting are just natural martial capabilities.
Or you could create a Godling class who can do these things and add that to Pathfinder, and have the mundane-martial classes as an alternative for those who like that flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Achilles had divine blood, like Heracles, but even Heracles had to die to ascend to Olympus.
|
1-4 is your gritty fantasy vietnam.
5-8 is your heroic legends of King Arthur or 3 Kingdoms
9-12 is lower-tier super heroic/wuxia
13-16 is demi-god
17-20 is god.
I generally don't mind this transition but for two reasons: First, level speed especially at the lower levels seems way to fast, so if you're only interested in, let's say the level 1-8 gameplay (as I am), you have to take some measures to ensure that this doesn't happen. Sure, it can be done, but it isn't the default of the game,which is irritating at least.
And second, the problem is with the way the official material is written. Official AP material is generally written for levels 1-17, and basically with book 3 you're entering super heroic/wuxia territory. I would love to have the same amount of AP material constrcting to the first two quintiles of your categorization and I actually think that thematically, it would not even be that big of a problem for most APs. As it stands, I have to do this work by myself, and that's a lot of work I (and I guess most other people) am not willing nor have the time to do. Which may be part of the reason why sales numbers for later entries in any AP seem to drop compared to the first two adventures.
Remember BECMI, where you had 14 levels before you left the Expert rules and 25 before leaving the Compaion rules region? I would really love to see them go back to this approach, as I remember us playing for years without having to worry about entering demi-god territory.
And then let them fix epic play and make it worthwhile for those players who actually like to play at this power level.
I mean, I can dream at least, right? ^^
I agree with a portion of this. I would like to stretch the gritty/heroic stage to about 10 levels. However, I don't need it to last a full 17. Though I think most of us can agree that making sure classes fit the transition stages equally would be a key design goal.
(Also, given how Greek stuff is statted up in PF, a high level barbarian - like Herakles - would more or less be able to do most of them - at least those quantified by the system, if I recall. I could be off on my myths, though. That happens sometimes.) :)
If I was designing a D&D game, I'd make casters far more specialized. So you could have a fire caster who can set things on fire, protect you from fire, and so on - but couldn't cast Charm Person or Teleport. Or you could have a Teleportation themed caster whose magic revolved around moving things - causing weapons to jump out of enemy's hands, or arrows to phaze through you - but couldn't launch fireballs. Or you could have a Mind-Control caster who can charm enemies or buff the morale of allies, but who can't create anything physical.
And then it would stop being D&D, and also I would never play that game.
EDIT:For better or worse, the way casters are now is a fundamental part of what makes D&D/Pathfinder be D&D/Pathfinder
If I was designing a D&D game, I'd make casters far more specialized. So you could have a fire caster who can set things on fire, protect you from fire, and so on - but couldn't cast Charm Person or Teleport. Or you could have a Teleportation themed caster whose magic revolved around moving things - causing weapons to jump out of enemy's hands, or arrows to phaze through you - but couldn't launch fireballs. Or you could have a Mind-Control caster who can charm enemies or buff the morale of allies, but who can't create anything physical.And then it would stop being D&D, and also I would never play that game.
EDIT:For better or worse, the way casters are now is a fundamental part of what makes D&D/Pathfinder be D&D/Pathfinder
Probably, but there are major downsides to the way things are now, and not just the difficulty of making martials useful when casters can do anything.
I didn't enjoy playing a sorcerer as much as I might have - I wanted to have a theme, but the standard toolset of generic spells was too useful. I felt like I was letting down the group if I didn't take Haste, Fly, Fireball, etc.
Finding clever ways to solve problems using only fire-based abilities seems more interesting to me than solving a problem by having the one spell that solves the problem immediately.
An alternative 'specialist caster' concept might be one with full BAB and a very limited set of themed magic powers - that could just be added to the base game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was designing a D&D game, I'd make casters far more specialized. So you could have a fire caster who can set things on fire, protect you from fire, and so on - but couldn't cast Charm Person or Teleport. Or you could have a Teleportation themed caster whose magic revolved around moving things - causing weapons to jump out of enemy's hands, or arrows to phaze through you - but couldn't launch fireballs. Or you could have a Mind-Control caster who can charm enemies or buff the morale of allies, but who can't create anything physical.And then it would stop being D&D, and also I would never play that game.
EDIT:For better or worse, the way casters are now is a fundamental part of what makes D&D/Pathfinder be D&D/Pathfinder
Probably, but there are major downsides to the way things are now, and not just the difficulty of making martials useful when casters can do anything.
I didn't enjoy playing a sorcerer as much as I might have - I wanted to have a theme, but the standard toolset of generic spells was too useful. I felt like I was letting down the group if I didn't take Haste, Fly, Fireball, etc.
Finding clever ways to solve problems using only fire-based abilities seems more interesting to me than solving a problem by having the one spell that solves the problem immediately.
An alternative 'specialist caster' concept might be one with full BAB and a very limited set of themed magic powers - that could just be added to the base game.
Maybe the Kineticist?
I don't know why it is necessary to limit casters in order to play a theme if you can that by yourself. You say that the general tool set of spells was to useful but I don´t see that as problem of the system, you can limit yourself as much as you want if you have the will.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then it would stop being D&D
So when my 3.5 game had a Dread Necromancer and a Beguiler in it it wasn't D&D anymore?
We had no idea.
And then it would stop being D&DSo when my 3.5 game had a Dread Necromancer and a Beguiler in it it wasn't D&D anymore?
We had no idea.
And the straw man is knock down
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was designing a D&D game, I'd make casters far more specialized. So you could have a fire caster who can set things on fire, protect you from fire, and so on - but couldn't cast Charm Person or Teleport. Or you could have a Teleportation themed caster whose magic revolved around moving things - causing weapons to jump out of enemy's hands, or arrows to phaze through you - but couldn't launch fireballs. Or you could have a Mind-Control caster who can charm enemies or buff the morale of allies, but who can't create anything physical.
Something closer to this would be my preference. Basically I would prefer that the default wizard starts off with all the cantrips and chooses a single school. At x levels, a wizard could choose new schools, but those schools would only advance x levels behind the original or earlier schools.
Doing this would basically nuke Schrodinger's wizard. A wizard could be great in one thing but would depend upon party members for other aspects. You would still need to substantially rebalance and reorganize the magic schools, since currently some schools are more powerful than others or have a larger variety of spells. But I think it would do a lot to bring wizards down in power level.
I would be fine if a sorcerer was only a 6th level caster, if they gave the class d8 HD, cleric BA, 4+int class skills, more class skills, and better/more bloodline powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then it would stop being D&DSo when my 3.5 game had a Dread Necromancer and a Beguiler in it it wasn't D&D anymore?
We had no idea.
Did you also remove all traditional can-do-anything casters, which is what I was suggesting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An alternative 'specialist caster' concept might be one with full BAB and a very limited set of themed magic powers - that could just be added to the base game.
That sound too much like Fairy Tail anime/manga to my taste but I can totally understand the appeal.
Things that I think may simulate that approach:
Words of Power with spontaneous casters
The Kineticist already mentioned
Spheres of Power
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, every single TTRPG I've ever run required considerable massaging/houseruling by the GM to make work, in my opinion.
But sometimes it's a whole lot of work, and sometimes it's much, much less because of how the foundation is set up. Insofar as people don't want GMs arbitrarily thwarting them (even though the GM is the arbiter) it helps if the chassis you're building your game doesn't need much in the way of that.
Take for example "I don't like how essential the progressive acquisition of magic items is to the game" which is a problem that could be solved in a variety of ways, but is tricky because "players have these bonuses at this level" is kind of baked into the math of the game. Something like ABP largely fixes this, but that's something that's much easier to build when you have direct access to the mathematical assumptions made by the game (which are in design documents most likely, but not actual printed books.)
Sometimes things actually end up in books because they have to be put together before deadlines, and we have to deal with their repurcussions on down the line. I mean, originally all "slashing grace" did was allow a swashbuckler to use a cutlass (or other slashing weapon) with its class features, but that was a terribly weak feat so they added dex to damage. Not only did this make rapiers (the iconic swashbuckler weapon) weaker than cutlasses etc. (which necessitated a second feat be printed in another book) but the developers were rightly afraid of "dex for everything" being too powerful so they added specific language to prevent TWF compatibility. But now, a full 2 years after the ACG we're still struggling with the specific wording of it ("Does Slashing Grace work with Bladed Brush? Come to the rules forum and argue about it!") and then they give us a feat that lets you get dex to damage with TWF anyway. How much simpler would it have been if they just built "dex to damage" into the swashbuckler class itself from the beginning, or just built the class around one-handed piercing or slashing weapons, not just piercing ones?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I think "spell in a can" is big problem I'd like to see go away. Spells are incredibly useful and being able to skirt easily choosing them makes casters even more off the chain. YMMV
I lot of the issues people have with spells replacing skills are, IMO, symptoms of easy scroll/wand availability. It was a lot less of an issue when the wizard had few precious spell slots in previous editions.