How important is balance?


General Discussion

151 to 175 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
I think we could have a 'standard options' list for selectable class abilities, to give newbies something to focus on, and 'unusual options' for abilities that are more niche, make the game more complicated, require a specific build, etc.

There’s a few options.

It pretty much has to be built in from the get go though. I’m not sure there’s support for the idea within Paizo, unfortunately.

This is frustrating to me - in PF1, because monsters were built using player rules, you had a mix of 'low hit, avg hit, med hit' monsters - some with high AC - some with low AC, etc.

Now you have all level 0 monsters have +6 to hit. That increases - lvl 2 +8, lvl 3 +9, lvl 4 +11 (where you get your +2 prof. to armor), lvl 7 +17, lvl 9 +19. So why can't the rules say 'if you are in melee you should aim to have at least a +6 armor at first level, and increase that by +1 every time you level up to keep up with monsters?

PF1 didn't need that - not wanting to spoil ourselves, we certainly were not prepared for that. Our experience with PF1, was that the guy with chain would have very good protection (AC 16 against +2 to hit goblins? Yeah!) - even at higher levels I had level 20 players that survived with lower than optimal AC. My point is the rules are now *hard coded* to want a melee fighter to keep AC up or get *slaughtered* (every point you fall behind at +1 per level *and* expertise is 5% more crit chance on you!) - why isn't this in the rules?

That's not a feat suggestion, that's not a Blue/Green/Orange/Red 'this could be good' - that's a flat out 'the system expects you to have this much Armor' - it's a hidden machine that any player paying attention will eventually pick up on (or cheat and read the bestiary entries to figure it out) that hardcore punishes someone for not knowing. So why keep it hidden? What 'fun' is there in finding out the game expects certain things? I don't get why people who seemed to understand this fact and...

If you're expected to have so much AC +/-1, why doesn't the system just give you so much AC +/-1?

The way tight math works, the rulebook might as well say: at level x you receive +1 full plate as a fighter class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

The best math is a sticking point for me. Many people can see that Option A is better than Option B and insist that only a fool would chose Option B. But my mathematical lens sees a little farther. Imagine that Option A actually is better than Option B, but only by 10%. And Option B opens more doors for future development, so in the long run, it is better. Nevertheless, I will still see people writing that only a fool would chose Option B.

People usually can't see how small the gap is.

The sneaky PF1 archer rogue pressured into Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot? Those feats are not necessary if he is not regularly shooting into melee. The alchemist bombing in crowded hallways? Precise Bombs makes good sense. Good teamwork usually trumps better damage.

I tried writing several examples for this post, even a spoiler-free one taken from this week's Doomsday Dawn game. But I realized that people won't be able to see how the non-obvious choice was better than the obvious choice. Even an explicit example requires a paragraph of detailed explanation.

My wife and I dominate the battlefield with unexpected builds: infusion-donating alchemist, high-mobility time oracle, melee bad-touch aberrant sorceress, battlefield-control gunslinger, and PF2 Raging Athlete barbarian. They work better than the well-known optimized builds, because the greater variety gives us characters that fit the team and create teamwork.

There's also the point that a lot of people simply don't care so long as the Feat in question fits what they want to do thematically.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:

If you're expected to have so much AC +/-1, why doesn't the system just give you so much AC +/-1?

The way tight math works, the rulebook might as well say: at level x you receive +1 full plate as a fighter class feature.

To me this is a very large frustration with the entire 'tight math' paradigm. The fact that monsters *uniformly* increase to hit numbers - and ac values - mean that there is only an 'illusion of choice' instead of real choice when it comes to your player character.

You can choose to have an AC value of at least 10-(even level monsters to hit) or you can expect to get crit more often, and on boss monsters that have that extra +4 (or more) to hit - if you aren't at the baseline you might as well say one hit you die.

So the guy who chooses to wear more nimble armor (looks cool/matches my mini/whatever) better have the dex to back it up, or know what his target is ahead of time or he's asking for a knock out. The story of the party that starts in a cell with no gear - no longer is a challenge - it's a slaughter against any enemy that attacks. Arrows are now 'caster slaughter' guns, as the to hit value is based on the fully armored fighter.

This to me feels like there is no choice in the matter. If you want to melee and hit more than 50% of the time - your build has to focus on hitting the same 'to hit' value as a fighter of the same level (so perhaps you rely on flank/conditions/etc. to hit that number - but you still need to know what that number is to be effective). With the numbers needed per level *so solid* now - that is - codified into the rules - why are they still hidden?

If these numbers are built in and scale (which they do) then they should be up front targets. It isn't system mastery to know you need a +9 AC value to be 'average' against a level 9 monster. I mean - it is in a sense but I don't see how that's 'rewarding' for a player to learn - not when the alternative is death and pain. Why not be up front about it. "Here is the number you should be at to be viable : To hit level 1 +6, level 2 +7, level 4 +9, level 9 +16.

At least if the numbers are known someone can self evaluate if they are at least 'at the baseline' or know what tricks/strategies they have to employ to be there.

All of those are the 50% hit markers btw - so yeah - that's the baseline - and with the new crit system - if you can't hit those numbers you are going to feel like you should have stayed home - I repeat - this info should be clear to a new player - just knowing what is considered 'normal' goes a long way towards helping people get up to speed with what the game engine is expecting. Yes this was all mysterious and less important in past editions - the new engine here makes it *vital* and it's the disconnect that I'm finally keying on as to why our players are having issues (at my table anyway).

Another example (to illustrate the same point) - death - my entire table has complained about moving initiatives to 'before the attack' - no one understood it - no one liked it - we groan every time delay/ready is used because we *hate* moving the initiative order in our games - this auto move was bugging us. Then I read about how it was intended to give everyone a chance to react to a player going down - and save them possibly - vs. the chance that you go down and need to save vs death before anyone can have a chance to heal you - *knowing that* made everyone go 'oh - yeah that makes sense' - no one minded the rule after that - because the *reason was no longer hidden information*.

A bit of baseline info - sometimes makes or breaks a reaction to things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

If you're expected to have so much AC +/-1, why doesn't the system just give you so much AC +/-1?

The way tight math works, the rulebook might as well say: at level x you receive +1 full plate as a fighter class feature.

To me this is a very large frustration with the entire 'tight math' paradigm. The fact that monsters *uniformly* increase to hit numbers - and ac values - mean that there is only an 'illusion of choice' instead of real choice when it comes to your player character.

The crit rules really seem to be damaging this system and limiting builds to maxed out AC and to hit.

Starfinder (where they first tested these monster creation rules) at least gives you this nice pool of stamina points that are easy to get back, getting cover from allies and dropping prone are assumed viable combat tactics (the +4-8 AC is game changing) And crits on +10 over DC aren't a thing. Sure the 3/4 BAB classes have trouble hitting later on, but when built to hit over their other class features they can still keep up.

If a character is built with max or near max AC, they shouldn't be getting hit 50% of the time. At a gut feeling, they should be getting hit 30% of the time. A character with maxed to hit should be hitting 70%+ of the time. A character focused on spells should be affecting enemy creatures fully 70% of the time.

But no, crits on a +10 have to exist.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Speaking to balance: PF2e has attempted to maintain strict balance at the cost of character diversity, I think a lot of us agree with that

I'm not sure the "character diversity" question is well-defined. Since a lot of the complaints seem to be about how certain concepts or combat styles are restricted to classes- twfers are rangers or fighters, paladins and fighters in light armor need not apply, area control is only available to those classes with easy AoO access, Clerics of Erastil cannot get archery feats, etc.

So I don't know if the lack of "Archer Paladins" is *more* diversity (since it underlines how the Paladin is different from the ranger and fighter) or *less* because there's one kind of Paladin people played a lot in PF1 that is not currently available.

Like if PF2 were completely classless, and people could select feats from any class's list, would that be more character diversity or less?

I'd say it would depend on the kind of diversity one is looking for.

At an unoptimized level, this would allow for for all kinds of interesting characters, but certainly also make it easy to make a character that cant hold their own in combat. Still, the sheer number of combinations, is staggering, even if you rued out the worst 90%.

If we are talking about optimized characters though, I cant help but think there would be less diversity. to make the toughest character possible, grab the defensive feats that synergize the best. With classes (assuming good balance) you could make a barbarian built around HP and temp HP from rage, and a paladin decked out in heavy armor and self healing, and they could be tougher in different scenarios. I don't know if the current balance supports that, but it hopefully illustrates the point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazk wrote:


I'd say it would depend on the kind of diversity one is looking for.

At an unoptimized level, this would allow for for all kinds of interesting characters, but certainly also make it easy to make a character that cant hold their own in combat. Still, the sheer number of combinations, is staggering, even if you rued out the worst 90%.

This statement is basically PF1 in a nutshell. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you.


Cyouni wrote:
Kazk wrote:


I'd say it would depend on the kind of diversity one is looking for.

At an unoptimized level, this would allow for for all kinds of interesting characters, but certainly also make it easy to make a character that cant hold their own in combat. Still, the sheer number of combinations, is staggering, even if you rued out the worst 90%.

This statement is basically PF1 in a nutshell. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you.

I lean towards that style, as I like combining stuff to make unique characters and like use some system knowledge to be effective so I can still contribute while spending half my feats on flavor. When I dm, my players help each other out with making character and avoid overshadowing each other.

I am sympathetic to tables where that is a problem though, and would like to see 2e make the best design tradeoffs that end up with the most fun for everyone.

Whether I mean total fun or average fun, that is a philosophical question I haven't really answered :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Some of us are missing parts of the game in the playtest that we have in PF1e: 3.5 style multiclassing, background traits and racial traits with alternate racial traits. Jason has said that these elements were often the most problematic because they allowed players to cherry pick stuff and make their character more powerful as a result.

Presumably these elements have been removed from the playtest (alternate racial traits kind of exist but are quite anemic. Although I do expect Paizo to increase it to 2 feats at 1st level, it doesn't really address my point which is racial traits were less fat then racial feats are and so offered more customisation because you got more of them. Same with skill feats vs background traits).

I was wondering how imoortant balance is to people and whether they would prefer less balance with more PF1e elements or if they're happy with more balance with less options.

After building a dozen different PCs, I don't feel like there's less options in this base book than compared to PF1's base system. They're *different* options, for sure. Ancestry feats are alternate racial feats, multi-class archetypes is multi-classing, background traits are now backgrounds. Those particular options could be done differently.

But I don't see how deliberately unbalancing build options is going to make them better. Giving up balance for options is like giving up freedom for security. Indeed, imbalance is what makes many options traps and others 'must-haves', thereby effectively limiting the number of real choices. A thousand well-balanced options is preferable to a million un-balanced options IMO.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:


Giving up balance for options is like giving up freedom for security. Indeed, imbalance is what makes many options traps and others 'must-haves', thereby effectively limiting the number of real choices. A thousand well-balanced options is preferable to a million un-balanced options IMO.

I would say your analogy is exactly backwards, as having more options is more freedom, but having better balance is more security (less danger of making a poorly performing character).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

If you're expected to have so much AC +/-1, why doesn't the system just give you so much AC +/-1?

The way tight math works, the rulebook might as well say: at level x you receive +1 full plate as a fighter class feature.

To me this is a very large frustration with the entire 'tight math' paradigm. The fact that monsters *uniformly* increase to hit numbers - and ac values - mean that there is only an 'illusion of choice' instead of real choice when it comes to your player character.

You can choose to have an AC value of at least 10-(even level monsters to hit) or you can expect to get crit more often, and on boss monsters that have that extra +4 (or more) to hit - if you aren't at the baseline you might as well say one hit you die.

So the guy who chooses to wear more nimble armor (looks cool/matches my mini/whatever) better have the dex to back it up, or know what his target is ahead of time or he's asking for a knock out. The story of the party that starts in a cell with no gear - no longer is a challenge - it's a slaughter against any enemy that attacks. Arrows are now 'caster slaughter' guns, as the to hit value is based on the fully armored fighter.

This to me feels like there is no choice in the matter. If you want to melee and hit more than 50% of the time - your build has to focus on hitting the same 'to hit' value as a fighter of the same level (so perhaps you rely on flank/conditions/etc. to hit that number - but you still need to know what that number is to be effective). With the numbers needed per level *so solid* now - that is - codified into the rules - why are they still hidden?

If these numbers are built in and scale (which they do) then they should be up front targets. It isn't system mastery to know you need a +9 AC value to be 'average' against a level 9 monster. I mean - it is in a sense but I don't see how that's 'rewarding' for a player to learn - not when the alternative is death and pain. Why not be up front about it. "Here is...

Amen!

Our group largely gave up on the playtest after these hidden expections became obvious.

So, for the moment at least, we've decided to try out other rpg systems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:


Giving up balance for options is like giving up freedom for security. Indeed, imbalance is what makes many options traps and others 'must-haves', thereby effectively limiting the number of real choices. A thousand well-balanced options is preferable to a million un-balanced options IMO.
I would say your analogy is exactly backwards, as having more options is more freedom, but having better balance is more security (less danger of making a poorly performing character).

You're not familiar with the Benjamin Franklin quote, where those who trade freedom for security deserve neither?

My point is that being so urgent in getting one thing (options) that you sacrifice another thing (balance), you actually lose the thing you're trying to preserve (options are meaningless if they're so unbalanced that only a few of them are meaningful). Contrast that with the opposite, where you can strip every single option for differentation out of the game, and you can still have balance at that absurd extreme.

That's because options need balance to exist, and the opposite is not necessarily true.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
ryric wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:


Giving up balance for options is like giving up freedom for security. Indeed, imbalance is what makes many options traps and others 'must-haves', thereby effectively limiting the number of real choices. A thousand well-balanced options is preferable to a million un-balanced options IMO.
I would say your analogy is exactly backwards, as having more options is more freedom, but having better balance is more security (less danger of making a poorly performing character).

You're not familiar with the Benjamin Franklin quote, where those who trade freedom for security deserve neither?

...

I am pretty sure the majority of the people here have heard of that quote.

If I am not mistaken, ryric is saying you have it in reverse. We are giving up the freedom (options) that we had in PF1 for security (balance) in PF2.

I am not sure I agree with the sentiment, but I do think the exchange rate has gotten really bad with this new edition.

Frankly, I also doubt that the whole balance thing is going to work out in the long term with the system as it is. The new system is fragile, to the point where the design team has to keep a death grip on any modifiers that might boost numbers beyond that 50% system mandated sweet spot. Give it half a decade of splats by developers with a weak sense of balance under time crunch and I doubt that the system will stay this neat and tidy balance wise.


True Snowblind but also keep in mind some people will be happy about that too.


Snowblind wrote:
I am not sure I agree with the sentiment, but I do think the exchange rate has gotten really bad with this new edition.

Exchange rate, I like that, I too think the ratio is a bit off, I think balance is important, but I am hoping it will shift a bit away from such tight number balance (encounter threat range, number inflation), and homogeneity. Some feats and features seem micro, too incremental, I would like more robust, macro feature and feats.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
True Snowblind but also keep in mind some people will be happy about that too.

Here's the thing though. Pathfinder 1E also had severe balance issues, but it also had several design features that mitigated those issues. Skills could be ramped into the stratosphere, but skills did very little in combat so that wasn't a huge deal. In PF2 skills are much more combat relevant. Attack bonuses did nothing beyond improve chance to hit, so even slapping a +10 modifier onto your attacks wasn't going to do that much to a lot of classes - attacks tended to hit a lot more by default and there wasn't any of this +/-10 malarkey, so all it would be doing most of the time is increasing the reliability of iteratives. Something like a Barbarian is going to land most of them anyway, while 3/4 BAB characters don't get many of those so it isn't that big an issue. In contrast, giving a +10 boost to a PF2 character boosts their DPR to something like 340% of it's normal amount.

Spells have a similar issue - so long as they are carefully curated then they will probably be fine, but throw in a couple of badly balanced buffs/debuffs/battlefield control effects (easy to do since any numerical buffs/penalties matter) and casters will become the encounter ending monsters we have all come to know and love/hate, while still being fairly bad on fronts like "shape shift for more than a minute and have fun walking around town as a dinosaur". Y'know, the fun but harmless stuff.

Basically, instead of making a system that mitigates imbalance, they made a system that amplifies it and are relying on keeping extremely tight control over any sources of imbalance to mitigate this. It might work in the short term, but I don't think it will work in the long term after a few things slip through the cracks.


Hmm so they will probably have to keep a close eye on things and not be afraid to go back and revise mistakes that they make which they don't really have a great track record of doing. Of course my philosophy of life is everything has a good side and a bad side to it. You improve something one way it tends to suffer in another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Here's the thing though. Pathfinder 1E also had severe balance issues, but it also had several design features that mitigated those issues. Skills could be ramped into the stratosphere, but skills did very little in combat so that wasn't a huge deal. In PF2 skills are much more combat relevant. Attack bonuses did nothing beyond improve chance to hit, so even slapping a +10 modifier onto your attacks wasn't going to do that much to a lot of classes - attacks tended to hit a lot more by default and there wasn't any of this +/-10 malarkey, so all it would be doing most of the time is increasing the reliability of iteratives. Something like a Barbarian is going to land most of them anyway, while 3/4 BAB characters don't get many of those so it isn't that big an issue. In contrast, giving a +10 boost to a PF2 character boosts their DPR to something like 340% of it's normal amount.

I'm not a Monte Cook, nor have I played one on TV, but I can't imagine that 'skills and attack bonuses don't matter' was a conscious design choice for the 3ed/PF designers. As I recall it, people were very excited about all the options to use skills they couldn't in 2ed D&D. The Rogue 1/Monk X was touted as the only real choice for 3ed back in 2000, before gameplay proved otherwise.

This feels like what I was talking about: imbalance making options not matter. That some people would still choose it, and the campaign doesn't implode, is only the best case scenario of imbalance.

Quote:
Basically, instead of making a system that mitigates imbalance, they made a system that amplifies it and are relying on keeping extremely tight control over any sources of imbalance to mitigate this. It might work in the short term, but I don't think it will work in the long term after a few things slip through the cracks.

From my experience with 3ed, I think you've got it backward. GMing for 3ed was always about holding the reins tightly of a horse constantly bucking me. Having GMed for a few different low-level groups, I've found PF2 parties far more manageable.


They are referring to Paizo keeping tight reigns on it, not GMs. On the GM side you can rely on never being surprised by what your players can do, for better or for worse.


What ErichAD said. I think it will in fact be easier for DMs.


ErichAD wrote:
On the GM side you can rely on never being surprised by what your players can do, for better or for worse.

Clearly, you've never met my players. Even in playtest sessions they've surprised me.

That said - I'd rather have players surprise me with their clever in game actions than by fielding "clever" character builds copied off a guide online.

That's what I reward as a GM - in game ingenuity - and that's where I clash with the playtest. I don't mind the more balanced character generation process but I do mind things like Exploration Mode not letting a Bard watch for trouble while performing. The action ecomony is fantastic in direct combat but, in my opinion, it's too rigid outside of direct combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
On the GM side you can rely on never being surprised by what your players can do, for better or for worse.
Clearly, you've never met my players. Even in playtest sessions they've surprised me.

Yeah, I was thinking: is that not what players do, and should?


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
On the GM side you can rely on never being surprised by what your players can do, for better or for worse.

Clearly, you've never met my players. Even in playtest sessions they've surprised me.

That said - I'd rather have players surprise me with their clever in game actions than by fielding "clever" character builds copied off a guide online.

That's what I reward as a GM - in game ingenuity - and that's where I clash with the playtest. I don't mind the more balanced character generation process but I do mind things like Exploration Mode not letting a Bard watch for trouble while performing. The action ecomony is fantastic in direct combat but, in my opinion, it's too rigid outside of direct combat.

I guess my players just aren't feeling inspired. It's been a slog of pretty generic strategy and tactics with occasional surprise on their part when something doesn't behave how they'd expect. Maybe I shouldn't have dragged them into playtesting.

I'm not sure I can get behind the idea that only creative play in game, rather than building for it out of game, should be rewarded. I'd probably feel differently if people were bringing in outside builds though.

As an aside, I've found most online builds to be either over generous rules interpretations, really very weak, or only able to function within a very narrow set of situations.


ErichAD wrote:
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
On the GM side you can rely on never being surprised by what your players can do, for better or for worse.

Clearly, you've never met my players. Even in playtest sessions they've surprised me.

That said - I'd rather have players surprise me with their clever in game actions than by fielding "clever" character builds copied off a guide online.

That's what I reward as a GM - in game ingenuity - and that's where I clash with the playtest. I don't mind the more balanced character generation process but I do mind things like Exploration Mode not letting a Bard watch for trouble while performing. The action ecomony is fantastic in direct combat but, in my opinion, it's too rigid outside of direct combat.

I guess my players just aren't feeling inspired. It's been a slog of pretty generic strategy and tactics with occasional surprise on their part when something doesn't behave how they'd expect. Maybe I shouldn't have dragged them into playtesting.

Ah, so are you saying the game that is PF2, so far, is not inspiring/engaging/motivating?


I can't blame it all on the game. We tend to run home games that run for years. A series of couple hour long quests just isn't how we've ever played, and seeing abilities that seem designed to be intentionally ephemeral and unreliable in nature runs contrary to the need for lasting impact on a game world. The best comparison would be to a board game, but the rules are too complicated for that.

I'd say its more a bad fit than an uninspiring game.


ErichAD wrote:

I can't blame it all on the game. We tend to run home games that run for years. A series of couple hour long quests just isn't how we've ever played, and seeing abilities that seem designed to be intentionally ephemeral and unreliable in nature runs contrary to the need for lasting impact on a game world. The best comparison would be to a board game, but the rules are too complicated for that.

I'd say its more a bad fit than an uninspiring game.

I totally understand, I was not trying to corner you, or anything. It's just that I feel the same way, in parts, definitely not enough pizazz.

151 to 175 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / How important is balance? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion