| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Melee vs. Magic power comparisons have been discussed extensively. From a class building perspective, however, I've noticed a lot more benefits included with some classes. I tried to do a quantitative analysis of a few by comparing features common across each class - core game functionality. This gets wildly more complex the more features you try to quantify, but it's an informative start.
I assigned points to the following class functions: HP, Skill Pts, Weapon Pts, Weapon Prof+, Weapon Spec, Armor Pts, Armor Prof+, Save Pts, Save Shifts, Class/Spell DC
I started with three classes. Here are the results (google doc):
Fighter - 76
Bard - 62
Wizard - 41.5
I'll comment separately, but I'm wondering, "Is this fair?" Fighters don't get spells, so I can understand getting more core benefits, but are the spells worth it? If spells are such a big factor, why do Bards get 50% more core benefits than Wizards? Both are full casters with Legendary spell proficiency.
I just added Ranger, and interestingly it had almost complete parity with Fighter:
Fighter - 76
Ranger - 77
Bard - 62
Wizard - 41.5
Interesting. That wasn't the direction I was going to take mine, but a good comparison point to add on.
This is my analysis of class features. I plan to get around to comparing and assigning a point value to class features on a level to level basis, but hadn't planned to tackle the base proficiencies (aside from noting stuff like that casters get 1 less save and 1 less class feat at 1st level).
Feat count is pre-APG. That's another one I need to update; ideally before mid-next month when LO:AG grabs my attention back to Ancestries.
Edit: It is endlessing interesting to me how much they seem to value arcane casting as class power. The Witch, Sorcerer, and Wizard all seem to get it in the shorts compared to even other casters. The bard is the best of course, but the druid and oracle aren't far behind and in some ways better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Witch, Sorcerer and Wizard are definitely weaker for some reason. I admit I am super biased but I really think that Witch/Wizard/Sorcerer could have all started with light armor and 8 HP and been balanced still.
I don't think arcane spellcasting or 1 extra spell slot per level is really worth the decrease in HP/Armor from a power perspective. I still think they are fun but are VERY pushed towards being ranged casters.
I am actually thinking about switching to an Oracle or Druid because of this for my Gish level 4 PFS Sorcerer because the lack of armor/hp just hurts so much.
Wizards have a few things they bring to a table.
1 extra spell slot per level (super boring imo)
Spell Substition (in theory no one can match a Wizard's out of combat ability with this thesis, gets even crazier at high levels)
Spell Blending (At high levels it is great)
Staff Nexus (Lots of low level slots, personally I don't really get the point but it is unique)
I feel Wizards are great at higher levels but really don't bring much at low levels.
Sorcerer/Witch are much more flavorful and unique, I still wouldn't say they deserve the low HP/Proficiencies though. They are great at the stay back and cast role though. I am biased and love Sorcerer's in general!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm adding the rest of the classes as I have time today, but the differences are looking stark. Paizo must have implemented a similar class build and balance methodology. I imagine their point system must have put significant points into Spell Levels.
Consensus on spell casting is that it's been nerfed heavily since P1. I don't see that it's so effective that it warrants such a massive class chassis disparity as this. This is swaying me towards the "some spellcasters need house rule help" camp, and I haven't even touched the progression analysis. Martial proficiencies and core functions come online at a vastly accelerated rate over spellcasters. If that were to be factored into the points, wizards would be even further behind.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm adding the rest of the classes as I have time today, but the differences are looking stark. Paizo must have implemented a similar class build and balance methodology. I imagine their point system must have put significant points into Spell Levels.
Consensus on spell casting is that it's been nerfed heavily since P1. I don't see that it's so effective that it warrants such a massive class chassis disparity as this. This is swaying me towards the "some spellcasters need house rule help" camp, and I haven't even touched the progression analysis. Martial proficiencies and core functions come online at a vastly accelerated rate over spellcasters. If that were to be factored into the points, wizards would be even further behind.
I got to be honest your consensus is very skewed. Of course casters will have less numbers EVERY single stat you are stating is related to things martials should be good at. Your numbers are very skewed towards martials. The truth is you can't really compare the other features...
Like how does full spellcasting count? Shouldn't it be like 50+ points itself with Wizard/Sorcerer getting bonus points for them being better?
I am not sure if you are aware but the way armor proficiency works most classes are pretty much equal or close to equal depending on level discrepancies. Even heavy armor gains 1 AC for -5 speed of movement.
Most martials only win out at the level 19-20 mark while Champion/Monk are the exceptions for armor and oddly Fighter gets it earlier too.
So armor really shouldn't go into the equation much. Saves/HP really are the only thing that can be compared for the most part since a most casters could care less about all the other stats.
All your chart really does is show casters have less defense and weapon proficiency which seems obvious without a chart.
Now comparing casters to each other can be mildly helpful but really how do you compare Bard vs Wizard features they are so different.
Your results show Martials are better with weapons and better defense... well that is true of course. Casters mostly just care about defense your really argument should be... How much defense lost is full spellcasting worth? I think that would be nearly impossible to know though.
I understand these features are way to hard to compare but your chart is just super biased since every single stat is just a stat martials are better with except for class DC.
Here are the CRB chassis scores:
.
.
.
Ranger- 77
Fighter- 76
Rogue- 73.5
Barbarian- 71
Monk- 71
Champion- 67
Bard- 62
Cleric, Warpriest- 51
Druid- 48
Cleric, Cloistered- 47
Sorcerer- 44
Wizard- 41.5
Like how does full spellcasting count? Shouldn't it be like 50+ points itself with Wizard/Sorcerer getting bonus points for them being better?
I don't disagree with the overall thrust of your argument, but from an analysis perspective I still feel it is useful if in a limited sense. I would never advocate a build-a-class point system; even my build-an-ancestry point system I put up on the Homebrew thread is very obviously lacking in its ability to holistically evaluate an ancestry, and there's so many fewer moving parts for that. That said, looking at final classes, you can kind of get a ballpark sense of where a homebrewed class should be, relatively speaking.
For my own project, I am planning to use a feat-based system, where something that is the equivalent of a class-feat is worth 3 points, and other features are more or less valuable depending on their power relative to that point. So, for spell casting, a new spell level is worth approximately 4 points (1 point for access to the level and the 1st spell, as that is worth 1 class feat spread across 3 spell levels, and an additional 3 points for the additional spell of your highest spell level), with slightly different values for 10th level casting and cantrips. So a full 10 levels of spell casting are worth 72 points or thereabouts. Which seems high, so I'll probably reexamine that when I do the analysis for real, but that's the metric and logic I'm using.
Interesting chart. Another thing that might be interesting to factor in would be focus spells. Some classes start with those, and not only casters. and while the quality of the spells cant be assessed maybe some points for simply getting a spell and focus pool would be warranted? Might also raise Champion up to the other martials.
This one I can answer: focus spells are consistently valued at a single class feat each. That holds true across all classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You didn't include perception proficiency, which is also a large part of the chassis. That should weight things further towards skilled martials even more.
You also need to include spell slots above those you can acquire from multi-classing into this list in order to get a better picture of the chassis. That means more than 2 spells in lower spell slots and all of the top 2 level slots. The slots need to get weighted down based off having a lower than maximum proficiency, though. I'd weight lower level spells at 0.5 a piece, 1 for 2 levels under max, 2 for 1 level under max, and 3 for maximum level slots.
I'm not on board with all of your weighting; that's going to be highly subjective anyway. As with the above posters, I have a particular issue with armor type having much weight beyond heavy armor getting a few points since all the types are pretty much the same except for some minor flexibility problems in Dex requirements.
Taking all of that into account would still leave casters under, I think, but only by a few points.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
This "analysis" is meaningless.
Why does any particular feature grant the number of points it does? Why is there 20 potential points to pick up from weapon features, but only 15 total points to pick up among armor features, 57 from saving throw features and 12 from spellcasting features? Does that serve as any kind of meaningful comparison between disparate features?
Let me give you an example of a hypothetical class.
It has 8 HP per level, 20 starting skills, martial weapons proficiencies (that only go up to trained), heavy armor proficiency (that only goes up to trained). It's legendary in every save and bumps crit fails to fails for every save. It is only trained in its class DC and has no spellcasting.
Under your rating system, this class, which is good at saving throws and absolutely nothing else, gets a score of 8+10+5+1+1+5+1+21+12+1 = 65.
This class is essentially dead weight that would struggle to contribute. And yet under your rules it has more "Core Game Functionality" than the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, while seeing the total number of features is interesting, I don't think this says very much about balance. For instance, with your system, Warpriests are a few points higher than Cloistered Clerics, while it's generally agreed that CCs are mechanically superior.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone pushing back against the analysis: Thank you, these are all great points.
"What about x feature...?"
- Yes, agreed. Focus spells, reactions, feat at 1st or not... I drew a line where things varied across the classes and tried to stick to what is mostly common core functionality. This stuff gets wildly complex, so I didn't want to step too far into this.
"Missing Perception?"
- No, Perception is included in the Saving Throws section and is noted on the spreadsheet.
"Armor is meaningless, because it all comes out to the same."
- Eh, agreed partially, but I don't think it's that simple. Heavy armor eliminates the need for Dex which allows you to have other higher stats without sacrificing armor. That's a substantial option. Heavy armor also gives you an extra point for the most part. Also, I didn't weight this category very high. I disagree that it shouldn't be included though. What do folks think about its relative weight (less than HP)?
"This analysis is meaningless."
- Cellion, your hypothetical class is meaningless, amusing but meaningless. This isn't a point system for developing classes. It's an admittedly crude basis for comparing classes quantitatively. From that you may draw your own conclusions, but I find it interesting in analyzing what you have to work with on a particular class chassis compared to others.
Armor honestly shouldnt matter much if at all. There are 3 classes that have better armor Fighter (Kind of), Champion and Monk. All the rest are equal for the most parts with Wizard/Witch/Sorcerer having some weak levels.
Pretty much the only things that matter with every character are HP/Saves. For the most part Martials have higher stats in these departments because they lack spellcasting.
Weapon proficiencies really dont matter much either since casters are at expert and martials are at master.
PF2 has pretty clear balance goals with a few outliers. All classes are pretty much standardized.
Witch/Wizard/Sorcerer are super fragile though. Paizo obviously wanted them that way though.
I got to be honest your consensus is very skewed. Of course casters will have less numbers EVERY single stat you are stating is related to things martials should be good at. Your numbers are very skewed towards martials. The truth is you can't really compare the other features...
Thank you for all of your points, RPGnoremac. All good questions. On this one, every class has some of the same features or core mechanics and you can compare them. Is it meaningful to compare a martial's weapon and armor proficiencies to a spellcasters? I think so. I want to see the difference just like all the other folks who made great spreadsheets that show accuracy by class. This is just a simplified way to view it. There are trade offs for a caster to not have those. Do their spells make up the difference? I'm curious about that. This doesn't answer it outright, but it's a part of the equation.
Weapon and armors aside, absolutely every other factor on the list is 100% comparable, because it's a common core mechanic. Fort, Reflex, Will, Perception? This shows you how each class ranks in strength. Bonus mechanics that bump your results up? Comparable. Proficiency level in armor? Direct impact on AC. HP? Easy.
Like how does full spellcasting count? Shouldn't it be like 50+ points itself with Wizard/Sorcerer getting bonus points for them being better?
Totally! How does it count? I don't know. Personally, I'm thinking about it conceptually along the lines of, "How does it make up for the deficiencies in core class mechanics?" Does it? I don't think so. I don't know how many points it gets, but I'm guessing Paizo gave points per level by spell list. If that's the case, I don't think I agree with their weights compared to martial effectiveness, but this is wildly complex and something I avoided with the sheet.
Now comparing casters to each other can be mildly helpful but really how do you compare Bard vs Wizard features they are so different.
Great question. Comparing Bard and Wizard has been really eye opening for me. Bard has a ton of core advantages. How does Wizard make up for that? Can it? Fun and roleplay aside (which isn't fair I know), I don't think it does after this analysis.
I'm still open to criticism on all parts of this though. It's not complete. It's not advanced. It's not the whole story. I'm the first to say it, but it's interesting and helping to answer some of my questions on class building and comparing benefits.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo must have implemented a similar class build and balance methodology. I imagine their point system must have put significant points into Spell Levels.
The concept of this thread is already a ludicrous waste of time ("I assigned arbitrary points values and then it turns out they aren't balanced. Why Paizo?") but this bit really takes the cake. Design doesn't work this way. The whole is great than the parts, there are a dozen moving pieces to how a character is built, nevermind an entire class and trying to math out how to make balanced classes takes away from time Paizo employees are better off spending actually making the game.
Game Design isn't a maths problem.
You need to add a value for the classes which have a useful reaction built into the class like Attack of Opportunity for the fighters. Likewise Swashbucklers and Champions.
You also need to add a weighting for how often something is used. Class DC is pretty rarely used outside the casters. Martial's weapon prfoficiency all the time.
If Fighters aren't a clear winner your analysis is not right.
Rangers seem OK superficially but the action economy is a constant fight with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The concept of this thread is already a ludicrous waste of time ("I assigned arbitrary points values and then it turns out they aren't balanced. Why Paizo?") but this bit really takes the cake.
I agree.
trying to math out how to make balanced classes takes away from time Paizo employees are better off spending actually making the game.
Game Design isn't a maths problem.
I disagree.
Game design is very much a math problem - just one that Plane isn't equipped to solve. I bet Paizo has some kind of internal point system, it's just not as simplistic and arbitrary as Plane's.
Would you trade a fighter's Legendary weapon proficiency for Expert Spellcasting? Would you trade 2 skills to give your wizard light armor proficiency? Should these scales be linear (that is, are the first two skills worth the same as the third and fourth skills)?
That there are numbers is fine - the specific numbers in the spreadsheet are ridiculous.
If this is some kind of "first draft," I don't want to crap on it too much, but the less refined it is, the more odd to say, "I threw up a few random numbers in an afternoon and it seems like Paizo should really reconsider the thousands of person-hours of work they put into the whole system."
You need to add a value for the classes which have a useful reaction built into the class like Attack of Opportunity for the fighters. Likewise Swashbucklers and Champions.
Agreed. I didn't, because I tried to keep it ultra-basic. Once you start comparing features that aren't identical, the wild complexity introduces an even more subjective factor in. I didn't include level-achieved either or a level trend chart for this to show how the points fluctuate over the life of the classes. For example Fighter could gets Expert martial at 1, while the rest of martials get it at 5. That could be a ratio-based weighting factor. This is where I agree Fighters are #1... until you hit 19 or 20 when the Ranger has all their uber saves and with flurry, the damage calculator shows they finally out-damage Fighters.
You also need to add a weighting for how often something is used. Class DC is pretty rarely used outside the casters. Martial's weapon proficiency all the time.
Yeah, Class DC vs Spell DC isn't fair. I'm open to math suggestions here. Pure martials drop Class DC points and double weapon proficiency bonus? That would give Master martials a 12 (comparable to a Legendary caster) while Fighters with Legendary would get a 20. Is that sharper?
At the end of the day, the numbers are the beginning of the story, not the end or some kind of ranking or indictment on Paizo (though I do see this as revealing their bias which I now lean towards disagreeing with on casters). I'm using this analysis to give myself ideas about how to compare the classes. The points you're making, Gortle, are the fill-in-the-blanks to imagine on top of this, "Yeah, Rangers have 1 point more of core chassis functionality, but I know this isn't taking into account AoO or action economy or level at which things come online... or even flavor choices, animal companions which I may want, etc."
Wizards have more spell slots per level to compensate for the bards more martial features and compositions.
...Anyway, I think the Witch vs Bard compare much better since compositions and hexes work quite similarly so Witch gives up...
I think this shows what values the design team puts in their features. Good/decent 1 action cantrips are worth 1 slot/level. A class feature roughly equivalent to 3 class feats spread over several levels (Familiar + Enhanced Familiar + Incredible Familiar) equivalent to 2HP/level, light armor and M to L bump of a save.
Great points. I agree and think this hints at their own point system, the trade offs for what the class offers. Flavor-wise, I like Wizards and don't care for Bards, but that's Pre-P2 bias. When I compare the two classes, or even Witch which as you call out has similar cantrip functionality to Bard, I disagree that the extra spell slot per spell level is a fair trade off to Compositions or Hexes. Comparing their usability, a 5th level Wizard gets 3 extra spells per day. These can be used in 3 rounds. Meanwhile, the Bard can cast their 1-Action cantrips every round of every battle (plus in non-combat situations) and never worry about resource conservation and running out.
I think this sort of a trade off is a sound design approach, but I disagree that:
- Spells are so good, they make up for the massive core chassis disparity between casters and martials.
- Spells are so good, they're a fair trade off for solid, unlimited use cantrips.
- Arcane spells are so good, they're a fair trade off for massive core chassis disparity (Bard saves vs. Wizard? -wow)
Rangers, Fighters, Rogues, and Bards have saves and success shifts so high, they can become nearly immune to special effects. Barbarians, monks, and champions aren't far behind. Meanwhile, Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards are horrible, magnitudes worse. Do spells make up for that? Do spells make up for that AND make up for a lack of armor and weapons as well as proficiencies? AND low HP? I'm starting to think that's just too much weight on spells.
Don't monks and barbarians have 3 save shifts while bard only has 2? Monks have 3 path of perfections, each one gives a save shift, success to critical success for the 1st 2, critical failure to normal failure for the last one, and barbarians have juggernaut (fort success to critical success), greater juggernaut(fort critical failure to normal failure) and Indomitable Will (Will success to critical success), while bards only have Resolve(will success to critical success) and Greater Resolve(will critical failure to normal failure).
Yes, good catch. Interestingly, that brings all the martials but champion up to nearly the same score.
I skipped giving points to "1/2 damage on a failure," but that's a common mechanic, so I'll add that in as well. I gave Save Shifts 4 points. Should 1/2 dmg on fail be 4 points or less?
Yeah, while seeing the total number of features is interesting, I don't think this says very much about balance. For instance, with your system, Warpriests are a few points higher than Cloistered Clerics, while it's generally agreed that CCs are mechanically superior.
Yeah this was the key point reading through the thread that I decided to disregard the OP's analysis.
Not to be rude to you OP, but it was a clear sign that your analysis had no use.
In practical terms, almost everyone agrees that the Warpriest Cleric is much worse than the Cloistered Cleric, because the martial abilities it gets doesn't actually compensate for the loss of spell casting ability and the martial ability received doesn't make it competitive with other dedicated marital classes. Simply put, the splash of martial capability the warpriest gets fails to make it relevant in combat because it's simply not enough.
Most people would rather make a fighter multiclass into cleric for a splash of spell casting because it works to fulfill the niche they had in mind much better.
You do you, but to me your analysis has no value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be rude to you OP, but it was a clear sign that your analysis had no use.
No offense taken. Your points are valid. I'll say this about the exercise, and it's a saying we use at my analytics company, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."
Essentially it means partial data (and this exercise is up front about being a partial view) can be useful and help you make decisions. It doesn't prove war priests are better than cloistered clerics to take your example. It means they get a few more points of common core mechanic functions. That's it. You decide whether that's more impactful than all the other factors (included or not in the analysis), and you have.
I'm doing the same analysis you just did when I look at the list. What I like about it is how it let's you compare the common categories in one view without having to skim all the level progression pages of every class. I'm not fixated on the rankings. They're just interesting pieces of data to help form an opinion.
Might I suggest a two prong approach?
Having a value for the feature gained, and one for its effectiveness. This would allow you to judge how much stuff is gained, along with how valuable it actually is.
The composite score can then serve as the overall result.
The value of factors could introduce more dissonance due to disagreements in effectiveness (take the spellcasting effectiveness debates for example). I'm open to good ideas though. Do you have an example?
In practical terms, almost everyone agrees that the Warpriest Cleric is much worse than the Cloistered Cleric, because the martial abilities it gets doesn't actually compensate for the loss of spell casting ability and the martial ability received doesn't make it competitive with other dedicated marital classes.
I wouldn't say almost everyone, but a good enough number that your point stands. You're even more right if you consider only level 20.
I think weighting the defensive features of a class has merit since those are passively and consistently applied. This portion of your analysis seems about right, though I'd put medium and light proficiency at the same rank and Monk unarmored one rank above those 2 since it progresses at a faster rate.
As for skills, the 0.5 point per trained skill weight seems about right.
The offensive features of a chassis have to be considered within the framework of an optimized 3 action turn to have value. After all, if you don't have any actions to utilize the feature, then you aren't going to get any value out of it. This side of the equation is massively complicated, and I think the chassis analysis gets muddled by the inclusion of a simplistic version of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game Design isn't a maths problem.
I disagree.
Game design is very much a math problem - just one that Plane isn't equipped to solve. I bet Paizo has some kind of internal point system, it's just not as simplistic and arbitrary as Plane's.
I admit, I was a bit taken aback by someone claiming that what is commonly referred to as one of the TTRPGs with the tightest math had little math in its game design.
Especially since we actually know they do use a point system for at least some aspects of the game. Well, perhaps not a point system exactly, but something that serves the same thing. I still would not advocate a build-a-class system like we saw with races in the ARG, but they very clearly have a framework that they work off of and analysis like Plane's might be useful in figuring out what that framework might look like.
For analyzing if a class needs a power boost or nerf, I naturally prefer my own view, where I convert class features into an equivalent level class feat to see if the class is getting stuffed with enough fluff. As a for instance, there seems to be something off about the gunslinger.
I'm not ready to pronounce it unbalanced with playtesting, but there does not appear to be the correct number of class features in the chassis. A martial class should have at least 7; the gunslinger has 6, and 2 of them, the save boost on Stubborn and the range boost on Shootist Edge, are so minor and niche I hesitate to even count them (and didn't on the spreadsheet I linked). Not to mention the weird thing going on with Master Weapon proficiency (or, the lack thereof I should say).
That kind of analysis is useful to me. Giving arbitrary points for heavy armor proficiency is..less so. Not least because there are some downsides, so armor proficiency seems to be as much about defining a class's flavor as increasing a class's power.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are some big weaknesses in trying to weigh each feature in isolation.
You can't evaluate features as if they're independent from the rest of the class. How good is Light Armor proficiency? At level 1, a human cloistered cleric can spend a feat on it while a halfling can't, and this makes a 2 or more difference in AC, which is a lot. By level 15, both of them could be at 20 Dex and Expert in Unarmed, and the proficiency has lost its value. Likewise, an arcane bloodline sorcerer can nab Mage Armor but a divine bloodline sorcerer can't, so this proficiency isn't worth it to them. Does a Thief Rogue get better if you give them medium armor proficiency? Nope, doesn't add anything. Is a wizard thrilled about medium armor? Not really, it would allow him to take more Strength instead of Dex, like... why...
Some features get better when they go together How good is a good AC but poor Fortitude? Or good Fortitude but poor AC? Neither of those give you a good feeling about standing on the front row. Having the one makes the other more valuable. In general, most defensive features are more necessary the more you're on the front line, because even though some enemies try to be clever, the front row characters are still most often the ones getting attacked. So all these martials with better saves - they'd really suck at their job without them. While a wizard might like to be chunkier, he can still do his job with a so-so save.
Can't evaluate features without taking into account favored abilities Wizards get relatively few skills - until you factor in that they're a primary Intelligence class and that many of their favorite skills are Intelligence based. And a swashbucler isn't really that impressed by "heavy armor lets you dump Dex" since it's not like you can go to 18 Strength at character generation to make up for it. If you offered it to them for free they'd probably take the proficiency, but they're not willing to pay as much for it as champions are.
---
I really doubt that Paizo has a simple spreadsheet with point values like this. Because that simple model just can't cope with all these interdependencies. Rather, they had a spreadsheet like this five years ago, and then they did thousands of hours of playtesting, nudging this up, that down, and that other thing sideways, empirically figuring out which things should be pegged where.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Plane's analysis is insightful and worthwhile. Understanding how well various classes balance against one another is necessary to understand Pathfinder. I think we were all aware that wizards were nerfed and fighters buffed compared to 1E, but it's nice to know how heavily Paizo (may be) weighs spellcasting, and arcane spellcasting in particular, when designing a class.
It's true that the numeric values are arbitrary, they lead to odd conclusions (like Ranger being higher-rated than the Fighter), and important features aren't considered. But if Plane did assign a numeric value to Attack of Opportunity and the like, then it would be just an arbitrary, no? If Paizo has a similar internal document (and I'm doubt they do), then it too would be just as arbitrary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards get relatively few skills - until you factor in that they're a primary Intelligence class and that many of their favorite skills are Intelligence based.
[SPEAKING STRICTLY ABOUT THE WIZARD SKILL EXAMPLE] This is particularly atrocious argument. Even Witches get more skills than Wizards, and they operate under *exact* same paradigm. Investigators also get a *ton* of skills despite being Int-primary.
Should Rogues with Int as primary state get less skills as well?| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards get relatively few skills - until you factor in that they're a primary Intelligence class and that many of their favorite skills are Intelligence based.
I've resisted pointing this out, because I find it thematically infuriating. Wizard skill is such a painful hit to the "bookish" class. I know this is the argument that lead to their low skills, they get +4 skills from Int, but that's completely unfair. That nerfs Intelligence for no reason. The equivalent would be saying a Strength martial should only get to carry base 4 Bulk, because they get so much Strength enhancement to Bulk. No! Int gives you nothing else for core mechanics (admittedly it influences spell To Hit, Dmg, DC). Why strip Wizards of skills on top of it? Meanwhile, Strength gives you To Hit, Damage, Bulk, Armor capabilities.
Ok, rant over. Back to analytics.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards get relatively few skills - until you factor in that they're a primary Intelligence class and that many of their favorite skills are Intelligence based.[SPEAKING STRICTLY ABOUT THE WIZARD SKILL EXAMPLE] This is particularly atrocious argument. Even Witches get more skills than Wizards, and they operate under *exact* same paradigm. Investigators also get a *ton* of skills despite being Int-primary.
Should Rogues with Int as primary state get less skills as well?
Yeah, the Wizards baseline 2 + int skills makes them the odd-one out from other int based classes, for no obvious reason.
- Wizard: (3+) Arcana, 2 + Int
- Witch: (4+) [Tradition skill], 3 + Int
- Alchemist: (4+) Crafting, 3 + Int
- Inventor: (4+) Crafting, 3 + Int
- Investigator: (6+) Society, [Method Skill], 4 + Int
When we expand this out to other caster types
- Sorcerer: (4+) [Bloodline x2], 2 + Int
- Bard: (6+) Performance, Occult, 4 + Int
- Cleric: (4+) Religion, [Order], 2 + Int
- Druid: (4+) Nature, [Order], 2 + Int
- Oracle: (5+) Religion, [Mystery], 3 + Int
So yeah, just like with proficiencies, Wizards have poorer than expected number of skills - even among those who share their attributes and role profile.
It feels like Wizards were perhaps meant to get a skill from their Arcane school, but the idea was just dropped.
Seriously Paizo, why is the Wizard like this?
EDIT: While I'm at it, why on Golarian do they have so few Focus spells?
Quality aside for the moment, Wizards are tied for the least amount of focus spells of any class that gains them, only equalling the Warpriest, who specially gives up caster elements to be more martial. This is on top of Clerics having about 10 times the number of choices for those focus spells.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's a saying we use at my analytics company, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."
I like that saying, but I don't think you're using it correctly.
For starters, and I'll be blunt to make the point clearly, your analysis is not good. So, yes, don't let perfect be the enemy of good, but absolutely do let not-good be the enemy of good.
If you want a quantitative system, you need to start off by defining what 1 point is. You've seemed to define it as the power difference between Untrained and Trained in either weapon proficiency or armor proficiency or spell proficiency. So a martial that has both weapons and armor automatically scores twice as many points as a spellcaster with just spells. Baked into your very definitions is the assumption that martials are twice as good as spellcasters ... so don't be surprised when, at the end, fighters beat out wizards 70 to 40.
You want some constructive advice? Look at these base assumptions of yours.
1. Tie a point to an actual quantitative measure. For example, tie it to the average damage that a level 1 fighter does with a single strike of a longsword vs a CL-2 enemy with difficult AC from the GMG tables. That would be a quantitative measure. How much better is a greatsword than a longsword? 6.5/4.5, that's how much.
2. Now, you've got to convert other things into that unit. A greatsword is 6.5/4.5 better, but a longsword wielder can use a shield. So how much is that shield worth? Well, that's the hard part, but it has to use actual numbers. For example, you could define a "damage ratio" in which a theoretical monster attacks with a difficult modifier, and the damage exchanged over a set number of rounds becomes the new metric.
3. You'll need to do the above with some rough estimate of what the scenario is like. Is a skill worth 1 point? I argue no, but it's going to be campaign-dependent. In PFS scenarios, skills feature heavily into passing the skill challenges, which are increasingly tied to Treasure Bundles. As a matter of fact, for PFS, I wouldn't use damage at all for the unit measure - I'd use the probability of acquiring 1 Treasure Bundle as the unit measure. Combats are often avoidable and often not particularly challenging - the damage output only matters in the context of how many Treasure Bundles you'll earn, or how many mission objectives you clear. I'd express a longsword hit as 133.5 milli-TBs or something like that, and each trained skill would be worth a certain number of deci-TBs.
4. Your quantitations can't be of entire classes. They have to be for specific builds. A greatsword fighter and a longsword fighter shouldn't have the same score. A fighter with no spellcasting and a fighter with a wizard dedication shouldn't have the same score. They also have to take into account the rest of the party - a rogue is going to score WAY higher with a second martial character who can flank, than in isolation.
If you want to put together a good, quantitative comparison, that's admirable. And if you do, I would definitely invoke "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" to anyone who wants to nitpick at a good analysis.
|
|
Wizards get relatively few skills - until you factor in that they're a primary Intelligence class and that many of their favorite skills are Intelligence based.[SPEAKING STRICTLY ABOUT THE WIZARD SKILL EXAMPLE] This is particularly atrocious argument. Even Witches get more skills than Wizards, and they operate under *exact* same paradigm. Investigators also get a *ton* of skills despite being Int-primary.
Should Rogues with Int as primary state get less skills as well?
By that Ascalphus' reasoning, shouldn't Clerics and Druids have lower Will proficiencies, since they're WIS-based?
I don't understand why Paizo designed wizards the way they did.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why Paizo designed wizards the way they did.
There are two possibilities, and they are not mutually exclusive.
(1) Paizo designed them poorly.
(2) We (the player base) are understanding poorly.
I don't know if (1) is true.
But from multiple threads, I see that (2) is true an awful lot. For starters, in every alchemist thread, there's complaining about how awful its combat capabilities are relative to spellcasters; then in threads like this, people complain that alchemists get more skills than spellcasters. I mean ... does nobody read both threads and put two and two together?
This highlights why comparison across classes is valuable, but also highlights how hard it is to do so. Would you rather have 2+Int skills with an INT-based attack, or would you rather have 3+Int with your primary combat modifier DEX-based? Given an INT of +4, how much more valuable is 7 skills than 6 skills? (It's probably not as big a difference as that between 3 skills and 2 skills!)
It's not an easy question to answer, and that's what's really lacking.
If you really want the answer of why Paizo designed things they way they did, you need to start off with quantitative data at least as good as Paizo has. And at least what's been posted so far in these forums suggests that the levels of analyses that the players are making are really, really basic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to comment: Honestly, in my opinion the value of more skills is actually very low.
Why? Because most classes only keep up with increasing 3 skills to maximum benefit. And many skills don't have much benefit to only being trained.
And beyond that there are ways to get trained (and even expert) in additional skills without having higher int.
Honestly, I think basically everybody has the same capability when it comes to skills (specific skill choices not withstanding) except the rogue/investigator who get 5 instead of 3.
In PFS, several skill challenges are set up such that everyone has to roll. There are usually 2-3 related skills, and the success of the group requires N/2 individual successes.
So to cross the fire pit, for example, one would need Athletics to jump or Nature to calculate the coolest spot, and it's -1/0/+1/+2 for CF/F/S/CS, with everyone taking damage if the team of 6 scores 3 or less.
You don't have to have every skill, but you'll need several, and you'll need to be good enough so that you're not consistently crit failing.
This means that being Trained in 3 skills is likely more valuable than being Expert in 1. And in PFS where your party changes every scenario, sometimes your 12 STR character is the party's strongest.
A bunch of my PFS characters have skills (such as Athletics) that they would justifiably skip with a stable group.
Just to comment: Honestly, in my opinion the value of more skills is actually very low.
Why? Because most classes only keep up with increasing 3 skills to maximum benefit. And many skills don't have much benefit to only being trained.
And beyond that there are ways to get trained (and even expert) in additional skills without having higher int.
Honestly, I think basically everybody has the same capability when it comes to skills (specific skill choices not withstanding) except the rogue/investigator who get 5 instead of 3.
From my experience getting to lvl 2 in pathfinder society games more skills are pretty valuable early on. I assume in the late game getting a +13 or whatever will be better than a +0 that if forced to roll can only crit fail or fail on a nat 20.
For homebrew number of skills can be more or less valuable depending on how many players, a classic 4 party will be fine if they don't overlap, 3 players will struggle and 5 or more can afford to have some stuff that multiple people can do.
For combat though Saves, AC and Attack bonus/Spell DC is 99% that matters
Well, just remember that most uses of skills can be attempted untrained, and at a level 1 the difference between a trained skill and untrained skill is only +3 (not accounting for ability score affect, which will be another +3/4 potentially).
Yes, good catch. Interestingly, that brings all the martials but champion up to nearly the same score.
I skipped giving points to "1/2 damage on a failure," but that's a common mechanic, so I'll add that in as well. I gave Save Shifts 4 points. Should 1/2 dmg on fail be 4 points or less?
Not that it really matters, because the system used borders on meaningless anyway, but Champions do get Greater Weapon Specialization.
|
|
Wizards get relatively few skills - until you factor in that they're a primary Intelligence class and that many of their favorite skills are Intelligence based.[SPEAKING STRICTLY ABOUT THE WIZARD SKILL EXAMPLE] This is particularly atrocious argument. Even Witches get more skills than Wizards, and they operate under *exact* same paradigm. Investigators also get a *ton* of skills despite being Int-primary.
Should Rogues with Int as primary state get less skills as well?Yeah, the Wizards baseline 2 + int skills makes them the odd-one out from other int based classes, for no obvious reason.
- Wizard: (3+) Arcana, 2 + Int
- Witch: (4+) [Tradition skill], 3 + Int
- Alchemist: (4+) Crafting, 3 + Int
- Inventor: (4+) Crafting, 3 + Int
- Investigator: (6+) Society, [Method Skill], 4 + IntWhen we expand this out to other caster types
- Sorcerer: (4+) [Bloodline x2], 2 + Int
- Bard: (6+) Performance, Occult, 4 + Int
- Cleric: (4+) Religion, [Order], 2 + Int
- Druid: (4+) Nature, [Order], 2 + Int
- Oracle: (5+) Religion, [Mystery], 3 + Int
Let's instead look at the number of skills with Intelligence included. For all those other caster types I'm assuming an Int of 10, because they're all in need of Dex, Con, Wis and Cha. Also, all of the classes also get one more skill from Backgrounds.
Wizard: 8
Witch: 9
Alchemist: 9
Inventor: 9 (or less, the class also wants physical stats because it's a weapon-user).
Investigator: 11
Sorcerer: 6
Bard: 7
Cleric: 5
Druid: 5
Oracle: 6
Now, of course these other casters could pick up some more skills. But it's somewhere in the lower tiers of priorities for them. Meanwhile, wizards are pretty much guaranteed to take that Int 18.
Witches get a little more (but people constantly complain about witches being weak), alchemists might focus later ability boosts and apex item at Dex instead, inventors are still very much in playtest. Investigators stick out, but investigators are supposed to excel as a skill monkey class. Even so, the difference between 8 and 11 isn't really as big as the difference between 3+ and 6+ made it look.
I've resisted pointing this out, because I find it thematically infuriating. Wizard skill is such a painful hit to the "bookish" class. I know this is the argument that lead to their low skills, they get +4 skills from Int, but that's completely unfair. That nerfs Intelligence for no reason. The equivalent would be saying a Strength martial should only get to carry base 4 Bulk, because they get so much Strength enhancement to Bulk.
Have you looked at the weight of armor?
Light armor: mostly bulk L, one at 1
Medium: bulk 2
Heavy: bulk 3, 4, 4
There's some left over, sure. But high intelligence also gives you more languages, and there are more Intelligence-based skills than Strength-based skills.
|
|
Just to comment: Honestly, in my opinion the value of more skills is actually very low.
Why? Because most classes only keep up with increasing 3 skills to maximum benefit. And many skills don't have much benefit to only being trained.
And beyond that there are ways to get trained (and even expert) in additional skills without having higher int.
Honestly, I think basically everybody has the same capability when it comes to skills (specific skill choices not withstanding) except the rogue/investigator who get 5 instead of 3.
Looking at the expected number of skills I showed in the above post -
I think the design idea was that a typical 4-person party should be able to cover each skill roughly twice, and that in the long run there's just enough skill increases available for the PCs to cover about 15 our of 16 skills all the way to Legendary. It's built-in niche protection, if two people are competing for the same skill it means some other skill will go undeveloped. (Assuming of course all skills are valuable, which is another discussion..)
I do think Trained skills are a bit better in practice than you give them credit for. At least in PFS. Over there you can't count on a steady party, so you need more redundancy in critical skills like Medicine. Also, in these "everyone must roll" skill challenges, at level 5+, Trained/Untrained starts making the difference between "more likely to fail than succeed" and "usually critically fails".
I do think Trained skills are a bit better in practice than you give them credit for. At least in PFS. Over there you can't count on a steady party, so you need more redundancy in critical skills like Medicine. Also, in these "everyone must roll" skill challenges, at level 5+, Trained/Untrained starts making the difference between "more likely to fail than succeed" and "usually critically fails".
Free trained skills are free of course, however isn't this what Untrained Improvisation is for in a cling together, swing together environment? Having said so and having finished the first 2 volumes of AoA I can't remember that many shared low intensity skill challenges but very many specialist skill challenges.
Even so, the difference between 8 and 11 isn't really as big as the difference between 3+ and 6+ made it look.
The difference is exactly the same, but you miss the point by a few hundred kilometres.
It's not about the who needs it more, it's about having yet another area in which Wizards are explicitly set to be inferior.
Not to mention that it means that Bards and other casters can easily equal Wizards in skills by having a few upgrades to Int for some reason.
Have you looked at the weight of armor?
Light armor: mostly bulk L, one at 1
Medium: bulk 2
Heavy: bulk 3, 4, 4There's some left over, sure. But high intelligence also gives you more languages, and there are more Intelligence-based skills than Strength-based skills.
Aaaand you miss the point of the Str on Fighter example, too.