Pathfinder 1E Power and Pathfinder Classes - Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[Roman]

That, sir, was a beautiful post.

Well thanks!

Here is the part I most want to comment upon:

More "magic" for nonmagic classes seems to be a 4e issue as well among detractors (among fans it seems to be a total nonissue). As pathfinder is marketed to detractors, I agree with you here.

Gamist versus Simulationist...I think they're being vey careful here. VERY, VERY careful. I'd be surprised if they messed this up, given what I've learned from lurking on their boards.

I agree that based on the BETA these do not appear to pose much of a danger - at least not to the exent that it becomes difficult to house-rule it out. We don't know what will make it to the final version, but it seems that Paizo is being careful in this regard.

My expectation is that CODzillas will no longer be the UBER. Sorcerors, bards, rangers, wizards, fighters, and barbarians will be more interesting, and inspiring.

Let's hope you are right!

 

[Roman]

Boosting hit points is one of the best, most direct ways to improve the game:

• It does not increase the offensive power of the PCs, only their staying power.
  
• It allows combat to be more swingy (good) without being deadly (bad). More hit points allows for much more granular results.
  
• It allows you to throw more opponents at the PCs at one time-- in effect, boosting the power of the fighting classes substantially, whose offense is not dependent on any resource other than hit points, vis a vis the spellcasters, who are still limited by their spell slots despite the increase in staying power. More creatures in one fight not only makes for a more enjoyable game, it makes for a more balanced game.

Heh, I disagree completely. I would say boosting hit points is a particularly bad way of increasing power-level. This is especially the case, since the biggest hit point boosts, both in absolute terms and even more so in relative terms accrue to the previously low-hit point classes... wizards, sorcerors et al.

[*]It increases the PCs' and NPCs' staying power thus prolonging fights.
[*]It is a way to boost power without adding any flavor (and it could be argued with actually removing some by moving the game ever further away from any notion of verisimilitude)
[*]The increases accrue most to the previously most powerful classes - spellcasters. Clerics and Druids are not directly affected by the hit dice increases (thankfully!), but Wizards and Sorcerers get a hit dice boost, whereas the previously weaker classes Fighters, et al do not.

As to balance, well homogenization (as is happening with hit points of classes, though homogenization is a strong word - they merely become more similar, but I am not a native English speaker and cannot think of a better word to use that would capture the essence of what I want to say) promotes balance as long as all features are being homogenized. In this case, it is the hit points - the strong point of martial classes - that are being homogenized (upwards...) not the other features...

Besides, even if we had general homogenization on a large scale (which thankfully Pathfinder has avoided thus far)... well that obviously would promote balance, because the most balanced classes would be classes that are exactly the same... but that is something that I would not like to see at all - the costs in terms of such an approach being fundamentally boring in my mind would be too great.

Note that when I am referring to the Pathfinder RPG, I am speaking about the BETA - we obviously don't know how this is handled in the final version.

 

[Roman]

Hi there all,

Many of the concerns in the OP were brought up numerous times during the lengthy playtest and we have taken numerous steps to address them or, at the very least, to ensure that they are balanced.

I am afraid I cannot yet go into all the details, but there will be previews that look at some of the issues... starting soon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

((Yes, I know its not the most satisfying answer and saying "trust me" is not really going to fly, but I am afraid that I just cannot let the cat out of the bag yet))

Hello Jason,

Actually, your answer is going to fly with me. I know that many of the issues have been raised during the playtest (after all, I was often raising them, he, he). I guess the other thread just reminded me of the issues while waiting for the final version and prompted me to comment on the matter and to ask if these problems are being dealt with in the final version. I certainly did not expect revelations as to how they were dealt with at this stage (though if you change your mind and are willing to give us some hints, I will be all ears ) - I just wanted to hear whether steps have been taken to address these issues. I am glad to hear that something has been done - even if I don't know what it is at this stage.

That's one of the things that kind of makes backwards-compatibility not possible.

The fact is, most of the base classes WOTC released actually are weaker than the classes in the original PHB.

I agree. I too have argued that power level is a significant backward-compatibility issue.

 

[dm4hire]

I think the increase in hit dice is appropriate and doesn't over balance the game indirectly. I've always thought the wizard having only a d4 was awkward considering that the average damage dice is a d8 if you look at the full spectrum of dice damage per weapon/spell. I understand the justification that was intended in the past by using the die. Wizards, who eventually would be the heavy damage dealers later in the leveling, resemble the portrayal of powerful but weak. Still that really should only work for NPC wizards as the PC should be above par in the damage they can take. As it stands a wizard using a d4 will die from half damage at first level from just about every weapon used in one hit. It was pointed out that a d6 average is 3.5 so at max hit points a wizard would take almost one hit from a d6 weapon and be a point from death if still up, assuming only a 12 constitution. That's not even going against a 2d4, d8, d10, 2d6, d12 weapons and not counting crits. The wizard was in fact a player played minion if you think about it, doing fair damage at first level but taking only one or at most two hits while everyone else in the party tends to take at least two hits before falling. Bumping the hit dice definitely prolongs that slip into subconsciousness/death.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

[*]It increases the PCs' and NPCs' staying power thus prolonging fights.

You've said this twice now with explaining it, so forgive me in advance if I have misunderstood you.

When you say that increasing PC hit points prolongs fights-- this factor alone, without any other changes-- it doesn't make any sense.

Because the contrary position is that you currently prefer for fights to end sooner, via the PCs falling unconscious sooner.

And I really don't understand how that makes for a better game.

How does having the PCs lose sooner make combats better?

[*]The increases accrue most to the previously most powerful classes - spellcasters. Clerics and Druids are not directly affected by the hit dice increases (thankfully!), but Wizards and Sorcerers get a hit dice boost, whereas the previously weaker classes Fighters, et al do not.

No, but all classes should get a hit point boost at 1st level, when hit points are most important. A hit point boost (through whatever means) of 10 hit points at 1st level may double or triple the typical starting character's hit points, but by 10th level and beyond those 10 hit points will represent a relatively smaller increase.

And wizards and sorcerers get nothing from increased hit points other than survivability. Their increased survivability in combat, in the best case scenario for the player, simply means more opportunities to expend spell slot resources. This is not the case for the fighting classes (and to some extent clerics and druids) because they have good, zero-cost offensive choices.

As to balance, well homogenization (as is happening with hit points of classes, though homogenization is a strong word - they merely become more similar, but I am not a native English speaker and cannot think of a better word to use that would capture the essence of what I want to say) promotes balance as long as all features are being homogenized. In this case, it is the hit points - the strong point of martial classes - that are being homogenized (upwards...) not the other features...

I agree with you on this, but I think you place too much emphasis on hit points being a key differentiator between the classes. Hit points make for a very bland "flavor" differentiation and really work best when they work behind the scenes, as an essential but nearly invisible mechanic. The best, most flavorful differentiators between the classes are all external and observable-- things that an NPC "inside the game" could distinguish.

If all the PCs in a combat had identical hit points-- 100, 100, 100, 100-- and I told you nothing else about them, you would have no way of telling one role from another.

However if I described these four PCs in terms of armor and weaponry, spell selection, their tactical movement and positioning, fighting styles, etc. you would have a very easy time defining their classes and roles.

FYI-- your English is fine.

 

[Papa-DRB]

Please...share how they did this...that would finaly be a selling point in my mind...

The "big" issue for CoDzilla in my mind was the "polymorph problem". Here is the text from the beta document. I won't list all the spells, but if you have the free Beta rules you can look them up.

Designer Notes: Polymorph Problems
Of all the spells in the 3.5 rules set, none has caused more
arguments or been more abused than polymorph. Such
problems stem from two sources. First, the spell has never
been the most clearly worded. What abilities you gain and
lose are always subject to question. For example, do you lose
your human bonus feat when you take on another form?
Second, the spell relies upon the balance of monster abilities to
function. When you consider the fact that there are thousands
of monsters to choose from, and some are more powerful than
others of an equal Hit Dice, this problem becomes apparent.
To alleviate this problem, we have broken the spell down
into a host of other spells that allow you to take on the form
of creatures of a specific type. The spells themselves grant
you bonuses to your ability scores and special abilities. This
means that we can balance the spells against each other,
rather than against all of the monsters ever printed. So while
your abilities won’t exactly match those of the form you take,
you will look like the creature and be able to do a number of
the things the creature can do. Give these spells a try and let
us know what you think.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

That's one of the things that kind of makes backwards-compatibility not possible.

The fact is, most of the base classes WOTC released actually are weaker than the classes in the original PHB.

<SNIP>

Pathfinder really isn't increasing the power of wizard, clerics, and sorcerers, because in 3.5, they got their spells + whatever special abilities they got from their chosen PrCs.

This is one of the things that I think are play specific. In my group, prestige classess were always allowed. I don't think I saw a single character that stayed base class, as it just didn't make sense to do so.

I agree that the base Pathfinder classes seem to be more powerful (based upon the beta, I don't have the final version) than the WotC base classes.

But since no game I ever played in used the base classes, my experience won't change with Pathfinder in this regard. I think it will feel much different to people who used base classes on a regular basis.

But I will say, regarding "backwards compatible" that play was just fine for our group with the fairly powerful prestige classes chosen. If the new base classes are balanced against those, well then, I'd say that aspect of Pathfinder being backwards compatible is not a concern.

i.e. The game worked with overpowered characters before (compared to base), so having powerful bases shouldn't make it stop working. It may be a concern that changes the experience somewhat for those of you who did use mostly base classes.

Please...share how they did this...that would finaly be a selling point in my mind...

Well, part of CODzillas being the UBER is that the other classes couldn't measure up. Why play a wizard who has to learn spells or a sorceror who has a limited number? Druids and Clerics got every spell in the game. (plus better hp, armor, and other stuff). Fighters? Bah, just buff up and start meleeing as a Druid or Cleric.

What I meant was that by balancing the other classs UP, the CODzillas would be comparatively weaker.


Now, beyond that, I'd be surprised if they hadn't limited CODzillas in other ways. This thread has several voices crying out for limitations on them:
paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Races & Classes / CODzilla Concerns

My guess would be that the most sensible and easiest way to nerf CODzillas (but retain their power and role) would be to attack the "every spell in the game" issue and give them MORE powers to compensate (well the cleric, not sure the Druid needs it, what with its abilities).

If it were up to me, I might do something like this:

Druids: Giving them either spontaneous casting like a favored soul/sorceror or going with the (I think it was) shaman....where you are a spontaneous caster, but you pick your "spells known" anew each day.

Clerics: Divide spells into spheres like in second edition. Clerics start with a certain number and can pick a new sphere at certain levels. Each sphere has applicable gods and god types (like Torm, Tyr, honor, justice). That way, new spells could be added along with expanding the god's style, but it would still be a limited amount for any actual character.

That is what I would do, but I'm not the designer. I expect, given the generally acknowledged UBERness of the CODzilla, that they have addressed it. I don't know how exactly, and I don't know if it will meet your standards, but I'd be shocked if we don't see at least a substantial change in that as a particular gaming issue.

 

[Remathilis]

Here is where I get back to my concern: how backwards compatible IS it going to be?

I love Goodman modules, for example. Is Pathfinder beefing up PCs so much that these modules will no longer work as promised? Will I have to go through and convert all the monsters (including new ones) to make them "proper" challenges again?

Similarly; what happens when a player of mine wants to play a favored soul or an artificer? What if he wants unconverted PrC X from Complete Somethingorother? Or he wants to take spells from Spell Compendium far more powerful than the "nerfed" spells in PFRPG?

Once 3.5 came out, I rarely used my "unconverted" 3.0 books. I fear Pathfinder would aggravate the problem by making most of my 3.5 books backshelf for "Pathdfinderized" versions.

 

[Samurai]

Here is where I get back to my concern: how backwards compatible IS it going to be?

I love Goodman modules, for example. Is Pathfinder beefing up PCs so much that these modules will no longer work as promised? Will I have to go through and convert all the monsters (including new ones) to make them "proper" challenges again?

Similarly; what happens when a player of mine wants to play a favored soul or an artificer? What if he wants unconverted PrC X from Complete Somethingorother? Or he wants to take spells from Spell Compendium far more powerful than the "nerfed" spells in PFRPG?

Once 3.5 came out, I rarely used my "unconverted" 3.0 books. I fear Pathfinder would aggravate the problem by making most of my 3.5 books backshelf for "Pathdfinderized" versions.

Most of that shouldn't be a problem. If the PCs are a bit tougher now, just take them through a module 1 level higher than their stated PF level. (So you could run level 1 Pathfinder characters through a 2nd level module). The change is certainly no greater than that, and in fact, if your characters were previously entering PrC levels, there should be pretty much no difference in power level. Monsters don't really need any changes, though you can look at the PF Bestiary coming soon if you like.

Other classes should work fine, they usually received more abilities as they leveled up than the base classes. At worst, they'll just want to enter a PrC as everyone used to, rather than stay base class.

The only minor area of inconvenient difference IMO is some spells. While most should be unaffected, some things like the polymorph spells were substantially changed. If an expansion book offers another form of polymorph or shapechanging spell, that may need to be changed or tossed. But 99% of the expansion book spells should be fine.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Will I have to go through and convert all the monsters (including new ones) to make them "proper" challenges again?

Here's my conversion notes, should any changes prove necessary:

In encounters with one monster, multiply its hit points by the number of PCs present.

In encounters with two monsters, double their hit points.

In encounters with groups of monsters, use half again as many of the weakest monsters (ie, the minions).


Now having said all that, my experience with 3pp adventures for 3e was primarily Necromancer and Goodman Games-- where the encounters were pretty darn tough to begin with. And I understand the same can be said of Paizo's typical offerings.

So I am not particularly worried about my "back catalog" of adventures.