Poisadins. Paladoisons?

[N N 959]

Athaleon wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

What is balance in a game where the context has nearly infinite possibilities? What are we "balancing?" XP per hour? Gold per hour? Damage per attack? Average change to get hit?

Balance in a complex game is not simple, but it's real, and achievable. Possibilities are infinite, but some possibilities are far more possible than others. I think the best metric is the Same Game Test, which is essentially a measure of ability to handle a wide variety of challenges.

First off, thank you for the reply.

Second, let's step back and ask why are we talking about balance? Why is it even a talking point?
This may seem like a silly question, but I think it drives at the heart of the problem and the disfunction that surrounds the discussion. Player's don't have any mathematical concept of balance when it comes to Pathfinder classes. What we have are perceptions about game-play which are misguidedly associated with this general concept of "balance." What are players actually keying into?

How much mechanical impact does their character have in relationship to other characters?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the inherent problem with this. Players are going go overvalue certain aspects e.g. damage, incapacitation. This means that perceptions of balanced are based on each person's individual weighting and valuation of mechanical impact i.e. A +4 to damage may feel more powerful than a +5 to AC.

Let's look at your Same Game Test.

SGT wrote:

The information in the Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual states that a character of any given level should have, on average, a 50% chance to win an encounter against a creature with a CR equal to the character's level or a group of creatures in a single encounter whose EL equals the character's level.

Emphasis mine.

1) Right away, we can see a problem. The SGT is performance metric, not a balance test. Worse, the test is based on a single character's results. Last I checked, PF isn't played as a single character, the classes were not designed to adventure solo, the scenarios aren't designed to adventure solo (yes, I am aware that some people play this way). It should be exceedingly obvious that using the results of a character's solo ability as an indication of whether that class is balanced is fundamentally flawed. A wizard may not be able to get a single spell off in a 1v1 combat. But put a meat shield in front of her and we might see consistent pwnage to the point that meatshield's offensive capabilities are irrelevant.

How do we possibly run the SGT with an actual party? The variables are too numerous to even contemplate.

2) The SGT relies on statistical results: "a 50% chance win an encounter." How many times do you think you need to do the encounter before you can feel confident that the success ratio is representative? Let's just say 30 because that's a rule of thumb for statistics. Now, you've got to test the class against all the viable builds for that class, don't you?

Do we reset the character after each battle? Do we need to change the player for each battle? What about the GM? Does the player know what is coming before the battle?

The SGT doesn't' prove squat when it comes to "balance." In fact, it will most likely lead to misinformation as the results of a class as a soloist will be vastly different than that in a group. So a class that performs horribly as a soloist could be beefed up to do well, only to be completely overpowered when given support.

Finally, even if we could reduce "balance" into one metric, it's clear that what may feel balanced to one player is not going to feel balanced to another because we do not all put the same value on the various mechanics. i.e. If I prefer having high damage and you prefer high AC, we will not agree that any particular class is balanced simply because the thing we value is inadequate.

Why am I talking about this? Because we can't achieve any consensus on balance from the tools we're using to create the game or play the game, more to the point, we wouldn't know if a character was balanced, [i]in the context of how the game is actually played/[i], if it hit us in the face. So let's stop talking about balance and figure out what it is we are really complaining about when we say things are not balanced.

[Malk_Content]

The Raven Black wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

NN959 wrote:

Culture does not determine good or evil in Pathfinder.

No. But it pretty much does chaos or law.

No, it does not. In-game, chaos and law are universal constants. A tribe or group of people is either chaotic or lawful or neutral. But cultures in-game don't get to redefine those terms.

I realize that I was not clear in my words. My apologies.

What I meant is not that a given culture defines what Chaos and Law mean

I meant to say that how you respect your culture defines whether you are Chaotic or Lawful

Way I see it, the litmus test of Chaotic vs Lawful is how one reacts when being told what to do. Lawful tends to obey (and needs reasons to rebel) while Chaotic tends to rebel (and needs reasons to obey).

And one's culture is the foremost source of being told what to do.

I think Lawful will respect it because it is tradition, while Chaotic will respect it because it makes sense personally

But this obviously fails when we look at the other structures in place. Large macrostructures (Nations, Faiths, Cultures) also have an Alignment ascribed to them. Thus you could be part of a CN Nation. Does following its laws (they can have them) and being an exemplary citizen of what that nation holds as its virtues make you Lawful? If so why are Orcs from Belkzen considered Chaotic? Or if you throw away those Chaotic virtues, do you become Chaotic yourself because you have thrown away those Traditions? That seems weird that one of those Orcs can renounce their tribe and follow a path of rightousness, but can't become a Paladin because the renouncing of their chaotic traditions is a Chaotic act.

[Kudaku]

The Raven Black wrote:

Gorum talks about his worshipers surrendering.

Not just worshipers, the text deals with surrender and prisoners in general as well:

ISG, p. 64 wrote:

(...) [Gorumite worshipers] are not murderers, and they hunger only for victory through strength of arms; killing prisoners or surrendering foes is beneath them.

The Raven Black wrote:

Torag talks about his worshippers accepting surrender from their foes.

You may have misread my quote(?), I think the most interesting aspect of that quote is that Torag talks about his worshipers not accepting surrender from their foes:

ISG, p. 150 wrote:

Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

IE as far as Torag's concerned executing prisoners and/or refusing to accept the surrender of an "enemy to my people" is perfectly fine, even considered honorable.

The Raven Black wrote:

Definitely no the same

They seem similar to me, they're both dealing with the idea of how the two deities feel about accepting surrender and taking prisoners. Gorum says you should accept surrender (but you can freely strike down cowards and pacifists, which Gorum probably sees as one and the same). Torag says you should not accept surrender (or indeed show any mercy at all) if the foe is 'an enemy of your people'.

[Cyouni]

Norgorber and Lamashtu probably have things they consider honourable/dishonourable, but does that mean that they would care about the same code of honour that a paladin would be tied to?

[graystone]

Cyouni wrote:

Norgorber and Lamashtu probably have things they consider honourable/dishonourable, but does that mean that they would care about the same code of honour that a paladin would be tied to?

Sure, but what code of honor IS that? That's what the question has been: the class says it must be honorable but who's? There IS no listed paladin code of honor, hence the debate.

[Stone Dog]

I'm not going to get into this argument, but I did want to drop a possibility that might amuse/inspire some people from Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun.

Avern dueling.

An avern is an alien plant with a long stem (12-60") lined with sharp, dark leaves and topped with a geometrically precise flower.

The flower doesn't appear to do any damage, but the razor sharp leaves are lined with an extremely potent toxin that is instant death to humans and other similar metabolisms.

On any hit (maybe only on a critical in PF standards) they'll slice through normal clothing and slay the target. I'm pretty sure armor is not allowed. Furthermore, the leaves can be plucked and used as thrown weapons.

Even gathering an avern is tricky. It can disorient people and screw with their distance perception, so gathering a stem to duel with could kill you when you grab a leaf and not a stem before you even start fighting.

So you have set up for an honorable duel under fair conditions, but with clear and open poison use.

Could be fun for somebody!