Author Topic: I just received an email titled "A Radical Proposal" from my DnD group...  (Read 9685 times)

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
You might want to use specific examples for buffing/nerfing classes.

A good option is to look at Reynolds' and Buhlman's Monk nerfs, like preventing Improved Natural Attack from applying to unarmed strikes.  Firearms having misfire chances (which are akin to critical fumbles with all the horror that entails).  Oh, Trapfinding is no more Rogue exclusive, it just gives a static bonus, so you don't need that class feature anymore for dedicated trapfinders.

Hide and Move Silently are now one skill (Stealth) which is good, but Invisibility now applies to Stealth in general which means that it actually helps you move more quietly depending on the reading.  It mentions that detection such as stepping in a puddle and the like can still be detected, but Stealth skill in general applies to avoiding detection, of all non-magical senses.

No more experience costs for spells and magic items; combine this with Fabricate and Permanency, as wealth is just so much easier to get than exp.

Barbarians and Bards now have to portion out their Rage/Music in rounds per day.  This can be a book-keeping headache for some folk.

A significant portion of the PF fanbase is genuinely afraid of overpowered martials, yet are okay with spellcasters doing the same "overpowered" things.  This includes some Paizo and third party designers.  The Lore Warden Fighter archetype, for example, had proposed nerfs because folks thought it was too powerful.

The Combat Maneuver system does not scale evenly.  Large monsters have size bonuses, Strength boost, and high hit dice for their Challenge Rating, meaning that even a min-maxed trip/disarm/etc PC will have a hard time performing their maneuvers against giants and the like.  A large portion of monsters can't even be tripped at all, and you can't trip targets two or more size categories larger than yourself.

Trap options still exist.  The most famous example is this SKR quote about water balloon-throwing Fighters.  Reynolds to his credit walked back on many of these views once he left Paizo, although he claims that such attitudes were reflective of multi-person decisions even if he didn't agree with them.

There's a YouTube interview video of this where he talks about this time at Paizo and game balance and how his views changed; if anyone's interested, I can try digging it up.

Edit: How does your GM/group feel about Tome of Battle and Dreamscarred Press?  Because the Path of War is a great band-aid on the seeping wound that is caster/noncaster imbalance.  It's still there, but the classes and maneuvers (which can be accessed via feats as well) make for a great and fun thing to add to one's games.  In one Pathfinder game I'm playing a drow Stalker who specializes in thrown weapons; I can easily crank up the damage to do cool stuff, and am not so bad in melee, either.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 07:47:06 PM by Libertad »

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
ToB is in the libraries, but covered in dust. I've never seen it used there. I am committed to playing with these folks, Pathfinder or not. I love them, knuckle heads that they are.

I like the specifics. Any specific argument is welcome. That YouTube video is very welcome!!

And... Thanks everyone. Sometimes having a hand on your shoulder, extended via forum, can have a consoling effect.
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Main thing to drill into their heads is that Pathfinder is not more balanced. Pathfinder does not fix fundamental disparities. It can make them worse, randomly crippled things, and make resource conservation suddenly a thing. But with the SRD, you do get a ridiculous amount of choice (baffling (in the 'why would I want this' sense) as it may be) due to archetype overflow, and listing all third party things people like overall. And all the feats in one place.

So it's basically every bit as broken, with token plastering and a lack of certain feats keeping things every bit as fucked up, as 3.5. Its good points aren't related to the game, but rather the distribution and licenses. XD

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
And... Thanks everyone. Sometimes having a hand on your shoulder, extended via forum, can have a consoling effect.

Found it.  The whole interviews' an hour and thirty minutes long.  Here are links to specific minutes and such:

Water balloon argument and suboptimal weapon styles.  He raises the point that at low levels the intention was to model some degree of reality, what a "normal" person would be capable of accomplishing, and how this ties into crossbows vs. longbows.

At the 23:15 mark he says that it sucks that crossbows require a multi-feat tax just to be as good as shortbows/longbows.

At the 1:48 mark, here he answers a question about the disparity about casting/noncasting classes in 3.X/PF.

Keep in mind this is coming from one of PF's game designers.  He addresses it with Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards.  Also, spells are more easily accessible than feats for prepared casters.

Quote from: Sean K Reynolds
"The advantage of spellcasters is that they can rebuild their character every single day."
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 09:22:23 PM by Libertad »

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
I'm watching. I don't like his "in combat healing sucks" counter-argument. He totally missed the point. No one ever said clerics should do massive damage instead. We say your resources are better spent on disabling enemies or buffing defenses to mitigate damage and healing is best and most affordable when done outside of combat. How could this be a thing for like 10+ years and he still not know the argument?

I also find his constant World of Warcraft comparisons bizarre.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 10:07:24 PM by muktidata »
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
That's a huge improvement, and it's sad that something so basic and obvious finally dawning on a former 3E and PF designer is even something to celebrate.

But, SKR's views are still woefully...limited.

Rebuilding a character each day is only part of the problem.  The ease of resting is only part of the problem.

Even if you give Fighters the ability to pick feats each day, feats fundamentally work differently from spells.  Spells are generally distinct items that don't rely upon each other.  Of course there's combos, and some spells get a boost if used with certain other spells, but in general this holds true.  Feats, on the other hand, have prerequisites.  Both requirements aside from sheer character level and more problematically...other feats.  Even if a Fighter can rebuild daily, the feat trees ensure he really can't.  And feat trees themselves aren't always evil.  A lot are, and have "punishment requirement" feats that suck, sure.  But, as feats are not like spells, many of them actually DO build upon each other and the tree is justified.  Just giving fighters retraining doesn't work, you would need to completely redefine how feats work and what they are.

Another thing is SKR thinks breadth is the only source of power.  While versatility is a source of power...the fact is IME casters don't *actually* change that much day to day.  That haste spell is godly any day of the week.  A wizard would be crazy to not prepare Glitterdust every day they adventure.  That save or die will instant win an encounter most days, too (you may change it to focus on a certain save, but usually you'll want SoD's that hit different saves simultaneously prepared anyway).  And martials don't have anything nearly as good as these options.  I guess as Xykon would say, "Power is power."

Also, the whole "fight all day" thing is a myth.  Without unlimited healing, a thing SKR and others at paizo dislike (see the Glorious Heat debacle), a Fighter will often ask to rest long before the casters at mid and high levels...if not low levels, too.  Because hp can evaporate so very fast, and the effects of completely running out of hp are a *bit* more harsh than having no spells left...just a bit.  :smirk  Also, casters can do the fight all day thing better anyway.  They get a ton of long duration godly buffs, many of them self-only, and in PF tend to get even limited use stuff like flight or greater invisibility with the option to split up the use as they see fit.  Weapon Focus has nothing on that.

Finally, even if resting were hard....and I say this from the perspective of a DM, not a player (as a player I actually push for as many encounters in a day as I can get, I like the rush and I want to help make sure the martials can shine and excessive spell use is actually punished...I act this way regardless of the class I play)
...I don't want to HAVE to have 4+ encounters every fucking day just to keep the classes balanced.  That's just goddamned impractical a lot of the time, and guarantees a ton of "filler" encounters only there to pad out the combat rounds in the day that aren't actually fun.  Plus, all those encounters each adventuring day means rapid leveling.  13.3 equal CR encounters is a level up.  If you're doing 4+ per day, the party's leveling up every four fucking in-game days!  That's stupid and un-fucking-sustainable!
And I'm swearing so much because this particular issue especially pisses me off and vexes me as a DM.  AND NO ONE EVER TALKS ABOUT IT (not from this perspective) !!!!

TL;DR: I think SKR is misguided and ultimately wrong.  Big shock.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 09:53:41 PM by StreamOfTheSky »

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Quote
Plus, all those encounters each adventuring day means rapid leveling.  13.3 equal CR encounters is a level up.  If you're doing 4+ per day, the party's leveling up every four fucking in-game days!  That's stupid and un-fucking-sustainable!

And this is precisely why I advocate a no-xp leveling system as a DM.  The players level whenever I damn well say they do.  And as for item creation xp costs and other assorted xp costs?  There's a thousand ways to eradicate those from the game in this instance, from not allowing them, to allowing a pool of xp to be spent on these things when they level, to still giving xp for encounters and just not having that contribute to leveling.  In fact, one thing that I like doing from time to time is just saying "no leveling.  At all, for this entire campaign".  You have characters made to be the best they can be for this campaign, which is not all that long so there's no staleness at play, and after the campaign they can bring the character back for the next one assuming it makes sense, and I'll try to have the campaigns go up in level slowly as things go.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
And this is precisely why I advocate a no-xp leveling system as a DM.  The players level whenever I damn well say they do.  And as for item creation xp costs and other assorted xp costs?  There's a thousand ways to eradicate those from the game in this instance, from not allowing them, to allowing a pool of xp to be spent on these things when they level, to still giving xp for encounters and just not having that contribute to leveling.

In this adventure path I'm writing for Pathfinder, I'm using an alternate "level up via story progression."  Imagine a tree: the main trunk contains Main Quest, the branches are all Side Quests.  At certain points in the adventure the party levels up, and future encounters from then on are tailored this way.  Also, there are times when a minimum number of completed Side Quests are necessary to further the plot, but these quests can be handled in almost any order once they're accessible.

It keeps a linear frame, but allows for some variety and freedom for the players by investigating adventure hooks which appeal to them.  As the adventure has sort of a "fantasy superhero" feel, it makes sense in a way because the PCs can take a break from the main plot to go on unrelated adventures and such.

Offline Kajhera

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
To the OP:

When I first read the thread title, I thought it might be a parody in the vein of "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift.

... admit I was hoping for this.

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
Quote
Yes, you sound very convinced. I've been baffled by the Pathfinder improved 3.5 argument since 2009 and am continuously so. A few critiques are:

1) It buffed casters significantly. And no, it did nothing to close the gap between Sorcerer and Wizard.

2) It nerfed mundane characters significantly.

3) It nerfed Rogues a little worse than the rest.

4) It nerfed Monks the hardest of all. The designers have specifically said that they don't like the idea of an unarmed, unarmed melee character. So they implemented their dislike.

5) It did nothing to solve complicated high level games. You can count the number of places where they've mitigated "broken" high level play with one hand. Polymorphing and uber-charging were specifically nerfed, but it's hard to name much else. Polymorph-type effects are still very strong in Pathfinder. But then you take something like their replacement of XP components of a spell with gold and high level play is even more hairy.

6) You mentioned the multi-class/prestige class thing, but it's hard to over-emphasize this.

7) There is a lot of broken stuff introduced by Pathfinder.

Alright, anyone interested in providing a few examples for each of these. I'm sure I'll be asked to detail them. I can, but the more examples the more to choose from/the better.
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline JohnnyMayHymn

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 762
  • Former Lord of the Kitchen Sink
    • View Profile
I'd try not to crush the debate too hard, the end goal is playing in a campaign with these people; and, either way, you have a system with overpowered casters.  Maybe just emphasize that you're giving them a heads up.  Worst case scenario, you switch to PF, and they begrudgingly realize, one by one, that you were right and tried to warn them.

Edit: Worst case is that the whole thing is blown out of proportion and it fragments the play group
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 11:36:08 PM by JohnnyMayHymn »
The Emperor
Can you find the Wumpus?

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
Right. I play with them this Wednesday so any abrasiveness in my emails can be smoothed out then in-person.

Quote
Again, I just want to emphasize that this is me giving you a heads-up. I'm not opposing the switch or anything. Either way, I get to play DnD with a bunch of great guys, eat mixed M&M's, knock over Scott's dioramas, and play in a system with busted casters.

This is how I started off my newest email.

Okay, for each thing I listed, what are some good points to highlight?
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
My personal bugbear is the CMB/CMD system.  Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of it.  It's the practice that really gets to me.  Really, the issue is that they scale extremely unevenly, especially in the monsters' favor.  So, you'll readily get to a situation that any combat maneuver is worthless for a PC to even bother attempting unless they've found a "trick" to make it work.

This is kind of a metaphor for a lot of my feelings on Pathfinder:  there's the nugget of a nice idea in there, but they lack the kind of fine-grained deep maths knowledge to make it actually work at the table.  Instead, you get something that sounds nice but is ultimately a disaster once you pick up the dice.

The other thing you might want to mention is that they nerfed non-gish warriors hard.  The notable exception is the Barbarian, who if you can take advantage of rage cycling, which everybody does, you can do some pretty neat stuff.  It's hard to explain exactly why this is the case b/c it's sort subtle, but the easiest way to say it is that they stopped them from getting the abilities they need to in order to be viable.  Look at it this way -- how often is making a mundane warrior in 3E D&D about cherrypicking the right abilities?  A lot.  Pathfinder has an avowed distaste and discourages that kind of dipping, so ...

I'll emphasize that you can have a lot of fun with Pathfinder.  Really, to me, the subtle stuff is the real problem, like the combat maneuver stuff above.  Well, that, and you absolutely don't want to go in there thinking that the Pathfinder Wizard = Pathfinder Fighter.  There are some things I affirmatively dislike -- they're approach to multiclassing, the bewildering array of options that each and every goddamn class has now become, the seeming hatred for people who do not have the fiery power of magic running through their veins.  But, there's a lot of fun stuff, there.  If people are really into it, and if they had some open eyes towards the subtle issues, I'd say go for it.

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Quote
Yes, you sound very convinced. I've been baffled by the Pathfinder improved 3.5 argument since 2009 and am continuously so. A few critiques are:

1) It buffed casters significantly. And no, it did nothing to close the gap between Sorcerer and Wizard.

2) It nerfed mundane characters significantly.

3) It nerfed Rogues a little worse than the rest.

4) It nerfed Monks the hardest of all. The designers have specifically said that they don't like the idea of an unarmed, unarmed melee character. So they implemented their dislike.

5) It did nothing to solve complicated high level games. You can count the number of places where they've mitigated "broken" high level play with one hand. Polymorphing and uber-charging were specifically nerfed, but it's hard to name much else. Polymorph-type effects are still very strong in Pathfinder. But then you take something like their replacement of XP components of a spell with gold and high level play is even more hairy.

6) You mentioned the multi-class/prestige class thing, but it's hard to over-emphasize this.

7) There is a lot of broken stuff introduced by Pathfinder.

Alright, anyone interested in providing a few examples for each of these. I'm sure I'll be asked to detail them. I can, but the more examples the more to choose from/the better.

1) There's no more Incantrix/IoT7FV/Cheater of Mystra/Planar Sheperd/Red Wizard of Thay. Gate no longer gets you epic creatures at 8th level. Wish can't be used for direct infinite loops anymore at 1st character level either, just as you can't get Hummingbird familiars/Abrupt Jaunt, druid animal companion also got nerfed along his wildshape.

2) Barbarians and fighters got better. Not a lot, but better.

3) Half the enemies are no longer immune to sneak attack by default in PF, nuff said.

4)Implying that 3.5 made an unarmed warrior viable at all unless you got a caster buffing the hell out of you.

5) 3.5 had Thought Bottles among one of many ways of ignoring Exp costs, plus  the game breaks completely right at level 1 by saying Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu. PF manages to last longer than that. Even with no splats in 3.5 just bind an efreeti and break everything before double digit levels.

6) Oh noes, PF doesn't have Incantrix/IoT7FV/Cheater of Mystra/Planar Sheperd/Red Wizard of Thay! The horror! Yeah, you're right about that, PF means you can actually remain "gasp" single classed and not be horribly underpowered compared to the guy who went fishing for borked prcs!

7) Nothing remotely as broken as what you could pull in 3.5 core, let alone 3.5 with splats. If anything PF may have more shinies, but the stuff in 3.5 would outright burn your retinas.

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10708
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
One of my favorite changes is in the skill points/class skills. It makes it a lot easier to build high level characters from scratch. I also like the archetypes more than prcs.
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
@Oscelamo

To say that, by dint of simply not including them, they got rid of a few of the most powerful, either TO or nearly TO tricks is not a huge change for most people's games, practically-speaking.

I have been on these boards for a long time.  And, to date I have never seen a Cheater of Mystra build at a table.  Not at a convention, not online, not in real life, not in a pickup game.  If that's all Pathfinder brings to the table, then it's ultimately not very much at all.  Certainly not worth the price of admission.  For the record, I think it does bring more to the table, I just think these arguments are poor ones. 

6) Oh noes, PF doesn't have Incantrix/IoT7FV/Cheater of Mystra/Planar Sheperd/Red Wizard of Thay! The horror! Yeah, you're right about that, PF means you can actually remain "gasp" single classed and not be horribly underpowered compared to the guy who went fishing for borked prcs!
I do like the idea of being able to play a single-classed character all the way through.  Although I don't recall D&D Druids or Archivists complaining too much.  Even Wizards and Clerics were fine, just boring. 

On the other hand, Pathfinder essentially forces you to play this way.  As a design decision that is flawed.  You trade what is a nigh infinite level of variety in character builds for a discrete set of options and have to wait for more archetypes, et al. to be published rather than the "mix and match" and "build your own" approach that 3E pioneered. 

Of course, in Pathfinder, a lot of this comes down to picking the right class, a weakness both systems share.  But, at the dubious value of cutting down the power level between a Conjurer and a Red Wizard of Thay, we've stopped creative players from hunting for class abilities to support a particular fighting style.

5) 3.5 had Thought Bottles among one of many ways of ignoring Exp costs, plus  the game breaks completely right at level 1 by saying Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu. PF manages to last longer than that. Even with no splats in 3.5 just bind an efreeti and break everything before double digit levels.
I'm just going to leave these right here
Pathfinder Efreet
Pathfinder Planar Binding

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2408
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • TwinSeraphim
Quote
Everything that is on the main SRD is allowed. You can find it at www.d20pfsrd.com.

That's not even the main SRD!?!?!?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ is.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Quote
Everything that is on the main SRD is allowed. You can find it at www.d20pfsrd.com.

That's not even the main SRD!?!?!?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ is.

It's a hell of a lot more navigable than Paizo's.

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
To say that, by dint of simply not including them, they got rid of a few of the most powerful, either TO or nearly TO tricks is not a huge change for most people's games, practically-speaking.

I have been on these boards for a long time.  And, to date I have never seen a Cheater of Mystra build at a table.  Not at a convention, not online, not in real life, not in a pickup game.  If that's all Pathfinder brings to the table, then it's ultimately not very much at all.  Certainly not worth the price of admission.  For the record, I think it does bring more to the table, I just think these arguments are poor ones. 
"Players will seek to abuse PF as much as possible, but ignore the even more broken crap in 3.5" is a much poorer argument.

Also, I searched for 5 seconds and found a Incantrix build for a campaign from one of the very posters on this thread right away!

You have eyes but you refuse to see.

5) 3.5 had Thought Bottles among one of many ways of ignoring Exp costs, plus  the game breaks completely right at level 1 by saying Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu. PF manages to last longer than that. Even with no splats in 3.5 just bind an efreeti and break everything before double digit levels.
I'm just going to leave these right here
Pathfinder Efreet
Pathfinder Planar Binding
Still refusing to see.

1) There's no more Incantrix/IoT7FV/Cheater of Mystra/Planar Sheperd/Red Wizard of Thay. Gate no longer gets you epic creatures at 8th level. Wish can't be used for direct infinite loops anymore at 1st character level either, just as you can't get Hummingbird familiars/Abrupt Jaunt, druid animal companion also got nerfed along his wildshape.


To be more precise, PF Wish can't create magic items. That's the big game changer. You can't chain a Wish into more Wishes in PF instantly by wishing for staves of wish. You can no longer wish for a Belt of magnificience +100 in PF either. Planar Binding an Efreeti no longer auto-breaks the game.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 02:06:02 PM by oslecamo »

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2408
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • TwinSeraphim
To be more precise, PF Wish can't create magic items. That's the big game changer. You can't chain a Wish into more Wishes in PF instantly by wishing for staves of wish. You can no longer wish for a Belt of magnificience +100 in PF either. Planar Binding an Efreeti no longer auto-breaks the game.

No magic item creation is not even a setback in chain wishing. Please try again.