So I've been talking with sparkletwist about the upcoming Haveneast game and in the process of creating/customizing her character she has brought up several issues with the rules that I really couldn't refuse houserules for. This has pushed me to think a bit more about customizing the Pathfinder system for the game without completely overhauling it, and also about how other people feel about the system's limitations in general. In response I have created this thread for input from the community; not specifically for input on the Pathfinder system (although those thoughts will be relevant to the game), but for systems in general and how to make them more fun.
What I want to talk about here are the little things that ultimately prevent people from picking one class, weapon, feat, etc. over another and how we might fix them. An example from the above situation include the limited effectiveness of crossbows (let's be honest, who has time to reload for that much damage?). We determined that anyone with a non-zero BAB gets Rapid Reload for free (correct me if I'm wrong sparkle, I lost the log) .
I want to note too that the discussion ought to stray away from huge changes; this is about the wee things that turn you away from an otherwise entertaining build. Also, when it comes to those who might end up playing in the campaign, any displeasures voiced will get a long look for inclusion. It's about having fun, anyway.
So, what would you play if?
I'd play more Druids if they could cast Animate Dead.
I'd use save-or-else type of magic much more often if it could target multiple people or had some kind of useful secondary effect that applies if the primary effect is resisted. Hold Person for example is a pretty bad choise of a spell, especially for an arcane spellcaster, because it requires spending your turn for a (what is usually a depressingly small)
chance to affect an opponent. Granted, the effect itself is very powerful, but it's hardly worth the gamble when there is a high probability that you'll totally fail to accomplish
anything for a round. The problem is worse in Vancian magic systems as they require limited resources (spell slots) to be spent to make the magic available, which very much discourages keeping these kind of unreliable spells as trump cards to be used in desperation - your spell slots are just too precious to be wasted on something you won't be using with some regularity.
Quote from: Hoers
An example from the above situation include the limited effectiveness of crossbows (let's be honest, who has time to reload for that much damage?). We determined that anyone with a non-zero BAB gets Rapid Reload for free
This is a pretty backwards way to fix the issue, IMO. Rather than focusing on the unique strengths of the weapon you've instead focused on it's weaknesses, erasing/lessening those and thus made the weapon more similar to other ranged weapons. Crossbows are supposed to be slow to reload, but they're also supposed to be accurate, easy to use and powerful shots. A better approach to balancing the weapon would be making it more effective by enhancing these qualities.
Quote from: Ghostman
I'd use save-or-else type of magic much more often if it could target multiple people or had some kind of useful secondary effect that applies if the primary effect is resisted. Hold Person for example is a pretty bad choise of a spell, especially for an arcane spellcaster, because it requires spending your turn for a (what is usually a depressingly small) chance to affect an opponent. Granted, the effect itself is very powerful, but it's hardly worth the gamble when there is a high probability that you'll totally fail to accomplish anything for a round. The problem is worse in Vancian magic systems as they require limited resources (spell slots) to be spent to make the magic available, which very much discourages keeping these kind of unreliable spells as trump cards to be used in desperation - your spell slots are just too precious to be wasted on something you won't be using with some regularity.
Quote from: Hoers
An example from the above situation include the limited effectiveness of crossbows (let's be honest, who has time to reload for that much damage?). We determined that anyone with a non-zero BAB gets Rapid Reload for free
This is a pretty backwards way to fix the issue, IMO. Rather than focusing on the unique strengths of the weapon you've instead focused on it's weaknesses, erasing/lessening those and thus made the weapon more similar to other ranged weapons. Crossbows are supposed to be slow to reload, but they're also supposed to be accurate, easy to use and powerful shots. A better approach to balancing the weapon would be making it more effective by enhancing these qualities.
You're right. I want to improve them more, personally. I'd like to make them have a higher critical and base damage.
I never really noticed that issue with Hold Person but that's brutal. I'll need to improve that as well...
The big one for me, that has always been a thorny issue in D&D 3 and its derivatives, is, of course:
I'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.I am optimistic that the Haveneast game could do something about this; it seems the setting tends to eschew huge amounts of immensely powerful magic. The game being confined to the lower levels also helps, as magic doesn't get quite as crazy at those levels. However, there is still the matter that most of the martial classes (with the exception of the Rogue with its enormous pile of skill points and other various tricks) tend to be able to contribute far less out of combat than, say, the versatility of a spellcaster who can pull out a
prestidigitation,
mage hand,
silent image,
grease, or one of those other spells good for a million different things.
Smaller issues that have come up, are, of course, playing someone who uses crossbows and making that not awful, and trying to get there without pulling in a bunch of fluff from the Ranger class that I don't really want to incorporate.
Quote from: GhostmanRather than focusing on the unique strengths of the weapon you've instead focused on it's weaknesses, erasing/lessening those and thus made the weapon more similar to other ranged weapons.
As the one who suggested the Rapid Reload fix, I can tell you that this was actually the intention. I looked at longbows and then at crossbows and wondered why crossbows had to be crap.... so I tried to fix that and that alone. You're correct that trying to make them more distinct by adding features instead of leveling the playing field would add more variety and flavor, but it would also be more work. It would require creating more mechanics and I didn't feel like doing that or bothering Hoers with it.
Quote from: GhostmanI'd use save-or-else type of magic much more often if it could target multiple people or had some kind of useful secondary effect that applies if the primary effect is resisted.
I agree that
hold person isn't good, but I think that's more a specific problem with it rather than a problem with "save-or-else" spells in general. At spell level 3 you could also be casting
stinking cloud or
slow which are excellent against a whole group of enemies. Or you could cast
ray of exhaustion against a single target, and it still leaves the target fatigued even if they make their save.
>>I'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.
Just play a ranger. The ranger in my current group, at levels 7 to 11, has done at least as much as, if not more damage, than spellcasters do.
On the subject of spellcasters, E7 should help a lot. At least in my experience the disparity between spellcasters and martial characters only becomes egregious in the high levels. Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Cavaliers are all pretty cool even when placed next to full-blown spellcasters for the first 5-10 levels or so.
Fighters are boring, though. Pathfinder makes them a wee bit better, but not that much.
Quote from: Light DragonJust play a ranger. The ranger in my current group, at levels 7 to 11, has done at least as much as, if not more damage, than spellcasters do.
As it happens, I actually am taking a one-level dip in Ranger. I'm going for a Cleric archer for the most part.
But anyway, I agree that martial types are great at dealing damage, and can often outdamage a spellcaster, particularly one not optimized for evocation. However, that's.. not really the problem. The problem is all the
other stuff that casters can do that leaves the non-casters in the dust. (Of course, if your game is heavily combat oriented, it won't be as big of a concern.)
Quote from: SteerpikeMonks... are... pretty cool
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. :P
(I'd go into detail, but I'd rather not derail this thread! To stay on topic, I'll just say "I'd play a monk if it was actually worth it," and leave it at that.)
sparkletwist! Don't you remember how I totally DESTROYED our first encounter in the previous Haveneast game with my fierce barbarian! RAWR!
Makes me wanna play barbarian again I loved it.
Any fix with crossbows is going to be arbitrary because PF isn't really capable of describing, mechanically, what actually made them different from bows. All you can do is really whatever you feel makes the gameplay the most interesting. It's true that free Rapid Reload makes crossbows much the same as longbows, but Rapid Reload does that anyway - making it free just makes it so you don't have to burn a feat for nothing. In any case, in e7 it only matters for full BAB classes, as anyone else won't be able to have the iterative attacks to make use of Rapid Reload anyway - or if you get Rapid Shot.
I guess one thing you could do that wouldn't require much invention, assuming you've barred the gunslinger, is to adopt the like-a-touch-attack-within-X-range-increments mechanic that PF guns use. You'd probably have to kill Rapid Reload as a consequence, otherwise that might get sort of ridiculous.
Anyway, I can't really address the central point of the thread - the only PF I've played is Haveneast and Fimbulvinter. I've played a fair amount of 3rd ed and there weren't really any classes I avoided for mechanical reasons. I'm really not that good at mechanics anyway and usually just played whatever class I found interesting. I asked for spears to be houseruled last time because they were dumb but that's all I can think of at the moment.
Quote from: SparkletwistI'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.
Oh, hey, that's my big thing right there. I've got a handful of problems with D&D3.X/Pathfinder, but really, this is the huge one-- it's
the issue that fantasy games of the "some people have magic and others do not" genre desperately need to grapple with, regardless of genre.
While we're on the subject of magic complicating everything,
I'd play more D&D-style games if spellcasters were allowed to innovate. You know, as opposed to selecting prefab spells from a list-- stuff other mages from previous generations have come up with. I want more games to be in the form of "I am an Adept of Incantations and a Neophyte at Fire Magic and a Master of Telepathy... what can I sling together out of those ingredients?"
Quote from: HoersI'd play more Druids if they could cast Animate Dead.
You want the Mystics from the Jade Stage, then.
Quote from: Lmns Crn
Quote from: SparkletwistI'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.
Oh, hey, that's my big thing right there. I've got a handful of problems with D&D3.X/Pathfinder, but really, this is the huge one-- it's the issue that fantasy games of the "some people have magic and others do not" genre desperately need to grapple with, regardless of genre.
While we're on the subject of magic complicating everything, I'd play more D&D-style games if spellcasters were allowed to innovate. You know, as opposed to selecting prefab spells from a list-- stuff other mages from previous generations have come up with. I want more games to be in the form of "I am an Adept of Incantations and a Neophyte at Fire Magic and a Master of Telepathy... what can I sling together out of those ingredients?"
Quote from: HoersI'd play more Druids if they could cast Animate Dead.
You want the Mystics from the Jade Stage, then.
I have been reading this in the background
I agree that both of these problems drive me a bit nutsy
Sparkletwist- well, gear can make certain rangers much more versatile... and possibly a dip into rogue for Use Magic Device...
An extremely demented build that just popped into my head makes me wish there were martial double weapons. It turns out that every single double weapon is exotic with the exception of the lowly quarterstaff (which is simple).
Quote from: sparkletwistI'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.
Quote from: Lmns CrnI'd play more D&D-style games if spellcasters were allowed to innovate.
I think that part of the overall problem is that fixes to each of these individual problems that are not well conceived can cause them to be in opposition. For example, D&D 4e closes the gap between martial characters and spellcasters, but it does so largely by confining spellcasters to a predefined list of tactical maneuvers that are basically just refluffed versions of the same tactical maneuvers martial characters get-- innovation is not really a thing. On the other hand, something like Mage tries to incorporate a really versatile "magic can do anything" sort of system, but the result is that a mage can
indeed do anything and mundanes instead get left in the dust.
FATE's general approach seems to work fairly well for me. I'd boil it down to three things:
- Both magical and mundane skills are rather broadly defined, allowing a lot of room for interpretation and ability to innovate
- Actions are abstracted, stating their result in terms of effect ("+2 bonus") rather than action performed ("grappling"), allowing players to fluff them as desired
- If it really doesn't seem like it's going to work, lay down a fate point and declare that it does
Due to the broadly defined skills, both magical
and mundane guys get to innovate, and the rather abstracted maneuvers mean crunch-wise they're doing basically the same things. On some level, that seems like 4e all over again, but I think the distinction in FATE is that the list that the maneuvers are being pulled off a list that is basically "every action that has mechanical weight in this system" rather than "a tight list of narrowly defined tactical combat moves." This gives them a lot more resonance in actual play.
Quote from: Light Dragongear can make certain rangers much more versatile... and possibly a dip into rogue for Use Magic Device...
Access to magical gear or just "sufficiently advanced technology" can close the gap too, of course, but at the peril of making the character sort of mechanically irrelevant because it's the
gear that is solving all of the problems. In the case of a D&D party where the Wizard makes the magical gear and the Fighter uses it, the Fighter needs the Wizard a whole lot more than the Wizard needs the Fighter.
Quote from: sparkletwist
FATE's general approach seems to work fairly well for me. I'd boil it down to three things:
- Both magical and mundane skills are rather broadly defined, allowing a lot of room for interpretation and ability to innovate
- Actions are abstracted, stating their result in terms of effect ("+2 bonus") rather than action performed ("grappling"), allowing players to fluff them as desired
- If it really doesn't seem like it's going to work, lay down a fate point and declare that it does
Due to the broadly defined skills, both magical and mundane guys get to innovate, and the rather abstracted maneuvers mean crunch-wise they're doing basically the same things. On some level, that seems like 4e all over again, but I think the distinction in FATE is that the list that the maneuvers are being pulled off a list that is basically "every action that has mechanical weight in this system" rather than "a tight list of narrowly defined tactical combat moves." This gives them a lot more resonance in actual play.
How well does this approach work when it comes to magics that can do things such as make stuff fall upwards, steal memories off someone's head, allow one to speak with animals and plants, conjure visions of places and events far across space and time, take flight on a carpet or a broomstick, or cover a field with a cloud of thick fog?
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: sparkletwistI'd play more martial characters if they didn't tend to look pathetic next to spellcasters.
Quote from: Lmns CrnI'd play more D&D-style games if spellcasters were allowed to innovate.
I think that part of the overall problem is that fixes to each of these individual problems that are not well conceived can cause them to be in opposition. For example, D&D 4e closes the gap between martial characters and spellcasters, but it does so largely by confining spellcasters to a predefined list of tactical maneuvers that are basically just refluffed versions of the same tactical maneuvers martial characters get-- innovation is not really a thing. On the other hand, something like Mage tries to incorporate a really versatile "magic can do anything" sort of system, but the result is that a mage can indeed do anything and mundanes instead get left in the dust.
Ya'll know I usually have a lot of positive stuff to say about D&D 4e.
Fighters (and similar) really won out, in the 3.X -> 4e transition. Playing a fighter in 4e is
fun as shit. Wizards and their ilk really lost, but then, I think that's probably what needed to happen, to some extent. Warrior-type characters needed an increase in the options they gave to players and their overall power, and casters needed a decrease in their overall power, but they got a pretty harsh decrease in their options as well. Playing casters in 4e (with the exception of clerics, because I really like the design of their powers as a support class) feels weird; it's like you're locked into a track. You can be a wizard with a vast spellbook, but your powers are still really constrained; you can be a druid with the ability to shapeshift into any animal
including animals which literally do not exist, but the only mechanical effect is a binary "are you in beast form y/n?" toggle which turns certain feats or powers on or off.
I dunno, I'm rambling slightly.
You bring up Mage, and so I want to say the thing that I think Mage does really well is that it quits trying to balance between magic-havers and magic-nonhavers, and since presumably every PC in the group is going to be a wizard, you don't
need to balance magic against other archetypes. I mean, maybe this is boring of me or maybe I'm sacrificing a big part of what others enjoy in D&D-style games (that party variety), but I honestly think I'd like to see more games go: "you know what?
everybody has crazy supernatural powers, that's part of the basic premise, now let's balance around
that."
Quote from: ghostmanHow well does this approach work when it comes to magics that can do things such as make stuff fall upwards, steal memories off someone's head, allow one to speak with animals and plants, conjure visions of places and events far across space and time, take flight on a carpet or a broomstick, or cover a field with a cloud of thick fog?
The problem with FATE is that you have a very defined palette of actions (Attack, Maneuver, Block, Defense) that are each fairly flexible, but need to be hammered into shape. (That is also the chiefest strength of FATE, btw.) I'm going to try to handle your examples from least tricky to most tricky, but bear in mind I am a bit out of practice with FATE:
Quotesteal memories off someone's head
Straightforward: a mental attack where the concession/T.O. result you're looking for is "give me your memories."
Quotecover a field with a cloud of thick fog
Probably a maneuver to place an Aspect on the scene. Alternately, possibly a personal Full Defense against Awareness, depending on what you wanted the fog for, but that makes a bit less sense to me.
The real issue with casters vs. non-casters in FATE is in maneuvers like this-- non-casters can also do stuff like place scene-long, scene-wide aspects, but they have to fight a lot harder to justify it in most cases.
Quoteallow one to speak with animals and plants
Aspect on yourself ("Can Talk To Plants") or aspect on a plant ("This Is A Talking Plant"). Or perhaps more interestingly, give the ability to a druid-type character as a stunt (which would mean that it's always on.)
Quotemake stuff fall upwards
Depends what you want it to accomplish.
Take somebody out of combat? Make it a physical attack, let them defend with Athletics, and let them be Taken Out by falling into the sky or Concede with "I'm too busy hanging onto the ground to continue opposing you."
Make a room hazardous? Maneuver to place a "Gravity Is Messed Up" aspect on the zone, and tag it whenever anybody's doing anything challenging therein.
Put an opponent's weapon/macguffin out of reach? Maneuver to place a "Stuck to the Ceiling" aspect on the object.
Access something high up? Maneuver to place a "Falling Up" aspect on yourself, or maybe just sub in your magic skill for Athletics to make that check.
Quoteconjure visions of places and events far across space and time
Dresden Files had a system for this, and I'm unable to remember how that was set up. I think it was just handled like a roll to look for anything (Investigation, only using your magic skill instead), with the assumption that you'd need to bring a lot of power to bear to overcome the high obstacle modifiers representing great distances and whatnot. Having a lock of hair or knowing someone's true name or whatever would count as aspects you could leverage to help overcome that difficulty.
Quotetake flight on a carpet or a broomstick
FATE is really weird about travel, distance, positioning, location, etc. Several different ways to handle this sort of thing depending on what kind of game you're working with. You could put a "Flying" aspect on yourself, but that seems a little oversimplistic to me. If you're doing the flying in combat, you might have to mess with extra vertical zones or some crap. Might be easiest to design a flying carpet or whatever as a special item that, for instance, lets you ignore certain types of barriers (that you could fly over) and use your magic skill instead of Athletics to dodge attacks or something-- at least, that's how I think the sample Spirit of the Century character with a jetpack is handled mechanically.
Quote from: GhostmanHow well does this approach work when it comes to magics that can do things such as make stuff fall upwards, steal memories off someone's head, allow one to speak with animals and plants, conjure visions of places and events far across space and time, take flight on a carpet or a broomstick, or cover a field with a cloud of thick fog?
I think the key here is to not think of things in terms of "what can this magic do" but "what
outcomes does this magic allow?" LC made a good explanation of how FATE would mechanically handle the various things you listed. I'll just add that once we've decided what
effect we want, there are a wide variety of ways to fluff how we get there. Someone without flashy sorcery or the ability to conjure things out of thin air need more good luck or fortuitous circumstances to make it work out for him, but he didn't pay refresh for any fancy magical ability, so he's usually going to have a few extra fate points to ensure he can get exactly that.
Quote from: Lmns Crn"you know what? everybody has crazy supernatural powers, that's part of the basic premise, now let's balance around that."
This was the approach I took for Asura. :grin:
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: Lmns Crn"you know what? everybody has crazy supernatural powers, that's part of the basic premise, now let's balance around that."
This was the approach I took for Asura. :grin:
I almost used Asura as an example, but I thought that something about one of
your previous examples made me question doing that for some reason, but now I've re-read the thread and can't find what threw me, so I dunno, senility, maybe?
Do people play totally mundane PCs in Asura-- people without Conduits or anything? Is there a consideration for balancing that against a party otherwise decked out with Prana?
ed: Lately, the word "prana" is making me think of prawns. Delicious, grilled prana with a twist of lemon. :yumm:
A few of my own...
I'd play more Fighters if military tactics and strategy (the command of troops, etc) were given greater weight. I always feel that where spellcaster's roles at higher levels should be to command increasing powerful (super)natural forces, Fighters and the like should command increasing powerful military and/or political forces. Things like domain managament, cohorts, and followers used to be baked into the game a little more, but recent editions have tended to neglect such aspects - or leave their mechanics totally dependent on DM fiat - in favour of giving fighters increasingly spectacular physical powers. Which, don't get me wrong, can be totally cool in and of itself in some games, but sometimes (especially in stuff like E7) I prefer things a little more mundane/gritty.
I'd play more Rangers if the abundance of magic and/or supernatural powers present in most parties didn't make things like woodsmanship, hunting, finding clean water, getting shelter, and survival skills superfluous after a few levels. When a bunch of party members can cast Create Water, Create Food and Water, Purify Food and Drink, Detect Poison, Heroes' Feast, Endure Elements, etc, things that should be really valuable skills, like foraging and tracking down game to feed the party, kind of feel useless. Also I'd play more Rangers if more games took place in the Wilderness for extended periods of time, not half a day's hike from the nearest town.
Quote from: SteerpikeI'd play more Fighters if military tactics and strategy (the command of troops, etc) were given greater weight. I always feel that where spellcaster's roles at higher levels should be to command increasing powerful (super)natural forces, Fighters and the like should command increasing powerful military and/or political forces. Things like domain managament, cohorts, and followers used to be baked into the game a little more, but recent editions have tended to neglect such aspects - or leave their mechanics totally dependent on DM fiat - in favour of giving fighters increasingly spectacular phyiscal powers. Which, don't get me wrong, can be totally cool in and of itself in some games, but sometimes (especially in stuff like E7) I prefer things a little more mundane/gritty.
This kind of progression sounds awesome. I love the aesthetic of gradually taking command of worldly/otherworldly powers.
Quote from: Lmns CrnDo people play totally mundane PCs in Asura-- people without Conduits or anything? Is there a consideration for balancing that against a party otherwise decked out with Prana?
There is a consideration for balancing mundane characters
against a party in the sense that I want Asuras to feel powerful but I also want a group of humans with sufficient numbers, technology, and tactics to still pose a threat. However, a normal human in a party of Asuras would likely be quite outclassed, and the system just basically accepts this.
Quote from: SteerpikeI always feel that where spellcaster's roles at higher levels should be to command increasing powerful (super)natural forces, Fighters and the like should command increasing powerful military and/or political forces.
I like this idea in theory, but I think mechanically it'd have to get over the problem that a lot of mid-to-high level challenges simply can't be overcome by
any number of purely mundane guys. For example, if flight is needed, the Wizard can just fly. The Fighter will either need a magic item or some sort of superhuman leaping ability based on his sheer physical strength. A bunch of guys who also can't fly won't do much.
I wonder if the main obstacle is the idea that you've got a party of character working toward the same goal.
I mean, if you've got a game where high-level warriors become generals and lead armies, what do you do when you've got two such characters in your group, always have two armies? Share the command? How do you work that out?
Quote from: Lmns Crn
I wonder if the main obstacle is the idea that you've got a party of character working toward the same goal.
I mean, if you've got a game where high-level warriors become generals and lead armies, what do you do when you've got two such characters in your group, always have two armies? Share the command? How do you work that out?
That is a basic idea in a class based game, that people have DIFFERENT areas of ability. The fact that one guy can fly and another guy has followers and connections is the point of a D&D/class based game.
And in this case, the idea would be to have rules where 2 guys synergize, if they are working towards the same goal, or neutralize, if they are not.
Quote from: sparkletwistI like this idea in theory, but I think mechanically it'd have to get over the problem that a lot of mid-to-high level challenges simply can't be overcome by any number of purely mundane guys.
It is definitely a problem based on the normal campaign model (increasingly deeper dungeons and nastier monsters). Along with an increase in actual mechanics for leading armies and creating a fiefdom or whatnot a greater emphasis on those sorts of things would be necessary. So in terms of traditional fantasy I'm thinking of something like the Battle of Five Armies or Helm's Deep - sure Gandalf plays a key role in those battles and flings around the occasional lightning bolt or flash of light, but the battle is ultimately won by armies and by the leadership and actions of their very Fighter-y leaders (Aragorn, Theoden, Bard, Dain, Thorin, etc). There's still room for spectacular feats of arms but tactics and strategy become increasingly important. The lack of a mass combat system, of course, exacerbates the neglect of military matters, I think.
EDIT: Incidentally, part of my motivation for starting Underdeep was to capture exactly the sort of experience I'm describing above...
Quote from: Lmns Crn"you know what? everybody has crazy supernatural powers, that's part of the basic premise, now let's balance around that."
I made this same example to Sparkletwist in chat, but maybe it's a worthwhile response in this thread, too.
In the game King of Dragon Pass, there is an event which can happen in which one of your dudes hurls a spear at an enemy, jumps on top of the spear he has just hurled,
rides said spear past the enemy, and decapitates him with a sword as he spear-surfs by.
This is, of course, awesome. But it's not necessarily the sort of thing that people want or expect from a "fighting class." My last character in Haveneast was a thoroughly mundane spear-using ranger, and I probably would have balked at being offered that kind of power or "maneuver," because it doesn't feel appropriate for the kind of character I wanted or the experience I wanted to have. I didn't
want my character to perceive himself as equal with, for instance, a sorceress who could spit acid (Sparkletwist's character); I wanted that to be weird and strange to him. If I can surf a spear into the sunset, suddenly those strange and scary wizards are just ordinary adventurers with somewhat re-flavored abilities.
This comes down, I think, to the original argument of "low magic" versus "high magic" - more supernatural powers and physics-breaking craziness is not necessarily better for all people. I'd rather play a game in which all characters were mundane non-casters than a game in which all non-casters had "crazy supernatural powers;" my reaction to casters being too strong is to reduce their physics-breaking ability, but I'd rather
remove it than give it to mundane combat classes.
I don't mean to suggest that PF mundane classes are "done right" and that everyone else should be brought to the level of the PF fighter, because we've had plenty of chat discussions ridiculing some of the choices Paizo made for fighters and feats. To me, however, the fundamental difference between non-magic and magic characters is that the former excels
within the laws of physics, while the latter does not excel but can occasionally
break said laws. I really do believe there can be a balance here; I don't think that the only way to make non-magic characters useful is to make all characters physical-law-breakers. But it may require careful thought to figure out how to let spellcasters break the laws of physics in a way that maintains parity with those who excel within them, without reducing spellcasters to the situation they were in back in the day when a 1st level wizard basically fired one magic missile and called it a day.
Quote from: Steerpike
I'd play more Rangers if the abundance of magic and/or supernatural powers present in most parties didn't make things like woodsmanship, hunting, finding clean water, getting shelter, and survival skills superfluous after a few levels. When a bunch of party members can cast Create Water, Create Food and Water, Purify Food and Drink, Detect Poison, Heroes' Feast, Endure Elements, etc, things that should be really valuable skills, like foraging and tracking down game to feed the party, kind of feel useless. Also I'd play more Rangers if more games took place in the Wilderness for extended periods of time, not half a day's hike from the nearest town.
All of this - I've always felt that survival can, done well, be just as interesting and tense as combat and this is where the Ranger (and to a lesser extent, Druid) should excel.
Quote from: HippopotamusDundee
Quote from: Steerpike
I'd play more Rangers if the abundance of magic and/or supernatural powers present in most parties didn't make things like woodsmanship, hunting, finding clean water, getting shelter, and survival skills superfluous after a few levels. When a bunch of party members can cast Create Water, Create Food and Water, Purify Food and Drink, Detect Poison, Heroes' Feast, Endure Elements, etc, things that should be really valuable skills, like foraging and tracking down game to feed the party, kind of feel useless. Also I'd play more Rangers if more games took place in the Wilderness for extended periods of time, not half a day's hike from the nearest town.
All of this - I've always felt that survival can, done well, be just as interesting and tense as combat and this is where the Ranger (and to a lesser extent, Druid) should excel.
Quote from: PCThis comes down, I think, to the original argument of "low magic" versus "high magic" - more supernatural powers and physics-breaking craziness is not necessarily better for all people. I'd rather play a game in which all characters were mundane non-casters than a game in which all non-casters had "crazy supernatural powers;" my reaction to casters being too strong is to reduce their physics-breaking ability, but I'd rather remove it than give it to mundane combat classes.
Quote from: Steerpike
I always feel that where spellcaster's roles at higher levels should be to command increasing powerful (super)natural forces, Fighters and the like should command increasing powerful military and/or political forces.
Without being too pedantic and boring, it does go back to the basic idea of matching game style and setting with system. Pathfinder is a class based (read ensemble and niche protection), level-based, combat-balanced system with powerful magic use built for high-Magi/high power games with a small skill system to add some simulationist flavor. Skills such as Steerpike mentions for the Ranger are not supposed to be equivalent to magic, so very quickly, the skills are overshadowed in a system like this. Normally, a skill based system is used to put all skills, diplomacy and stealth and Damage bonus and necromancy, on a more level playing field.
I am now going to take a better look at Underdeep, BTW.
Quote from: Polycarp
Quote from: Lmns Crn"you know what? everybody has crazy supernatural powers, that's part of the basic premise, now let's balance around that."
...
This comes down, I think, to the original argument of "low magic" versus "high magic" - more supernatural powers and physics-breaking craziness is not necessarily better for all people. I'd rather play a game in which all characters were mundane non-casters than a game in which all non-casters had "crazy supernatural powers;" my reaction to casters being too strong is to reduce their physics-breaking ability, but I'd rather remove it than give it to mundane combat classes.
...
Yeah, don't get me wrong-- I should clarify what I mean. (And none of this stuff I'm saying is specifically about PF, because I don't know PF.)
I think a central part of the problem is the mixed-party format (some caster PCs and some non-caster PCs), and the way it combines with caster progression.
I'm not advocating spear-surfing, scimitar-slicing samurai (though in a
certain style of game that might be fun for a bit) when I talk about a game where "everybody has crazy supernatural powers, that's part of the basic premise", I'm saying we should stop pretending casters and non-casters can ever really be balanced while casters are crazy earthshattering mofos. If your game premise includes playable WyzzardLords who can reshape continents, bend time into a mobius strip, and whip the very powers of Life and Death into a light and fluffy soufflé, then maybe all the players should play WyzzardLords, and let
that be the scope of the game.
That way your balance questions are "how do I balance a WyzzardLord with the Mobius Timeline powerset against a WyzzardLord with the Feng Shui Continent Rearranger powerset," and not "how do I balance a WyzzardLord against a schmuck with a sword so that they both feel interesting and important?"
Alternately,
The other model that I think has potential is if you keep the diverse party model that includes casters and non-casters, but you
seriously clamp down on the scope and scale of casters' power. So in your group that has a warrior, a rogue, and a caster, that caster is perhaps "the herbalist who lives in the woods outside of town" or "the Queen's farseer" or "the pyromancer who didn't quite finish his apprenticeship", etc. That way, even if they eventually become the best herbalist/farseer/pyromancer in the world, their powerset is constrained enough that they're on par with their adventuring companions, the best fencer/general/dragonslayer and infiltrator/assassin/con-artist in the world. If you're going to have a mixed group, you've got to deal with the issue that a high-enough caster who feels like it can be better than someone else at the only thing they do, which is the standard D&D 3.X (and PF too, I assume) model.
Quote from: Lord VreegI am now going to take a better look at Underdeep, BTW.
It had to end far sooner than I'd have liked, but it was a blast while it lasted.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonIf your game premise includes playable WyzzardLords who can reshape continents, bend time into a mobius strip, and whip the very powers of Life and Death into a light and fluffy soufflé, then maybe all the players should play WyzzardLords, and let that be the scope of the game.
Yeah, I can get behind this idea. I think there are some ways that a "badass normal" can still contribute while rubbing shoulders with WyzzardLords, but it's challenging to implement them.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonThe other model that I think has potential is if you keep the diverse party model that includes casters and non-casters, but you seriously clamp down on the scope and scale of casters' power.
This is generally my preferred solution for grittier, low fantasy type games.
With Pathfinder I think the easiest way to create this feel without rewriting all the spell-lists and spellcasting classes is to:
(1) Use a Low or Standard Fantasy point buy so that ability scores remain low - so if a spellcaster wants to dish it out and cast lots of bonus spells they're going to be even more weak/fragile/clumsy/absent-minded than normal.
(2) Implement something like E7 to prevent access to everything over 4th level and keep spells/day reasonable.
(3) Keep magic rare enough that mundanes are suspicious or scared of it and may even try to harm casters in some places, because supernatural things are Evil. Even Clerics can be like this - most clergymen would be Experts and Clerics in the world are like Joan of Arc or whatnot and get mistaken for Witches as often as not.
SteerPike, I actually love doing the 'magic is rare and unknown' thing. In Celtricia, especially in the Collegium game, it is the opposite, but one of the things I loved doing with the Accis game is making magic of all sorts much more rare and mythic. Casters are rare, and 95% of priests cannot work miracles.
QuoteKeep magic rare enough that mundanes are suspicious or scared of it and may even try to harm casters in some places, because supernatural things are Evil.
I've certainly seen that approach mentioned before, but I'm not sure I've been in a game where it was well implemented. It requires behavior by the GM and the players that is not necessarily easy to sustain. NPCs have to be willing to spurn the aid of an adventuring party that is too "supernatural," the GM has to be willing to threaten and enforce real penalties for supernatural flamboyance (as in, there is actually a credible threat of character death by witch hunt), and players need to have their characters spurn or at least be uncomfortable with magic users in their own party in a way that's not just token dismay at 1st level followed by acceptance. Players in particular will find this difficult because it's sub-optimal behavior; they are encouraged by the nature of the game to cooperate and accept the help of the PC wizard rather than screaming bloody murder over a magic missile or abstaining from magic that will demonstrably increase their effectiveness, mechanically speaking. There's an incredible disincentive to have your fighter turn down offers of magical aid from the party wizard through a substantial part of the campaign, and even committed roleplayers are going to be pressed towards "character growth" that undermines the magic-averse theme of the setting.
Well, I think it's certainly possible for the *party* to be OK with supernatural powers while the rest of the world is not - perhaps they believe that the party's mage/wizard is being unfairly persecuted.
i once used the deryni population/ideal in a d20 came...some wonderful periods of persecution and cycles of control
Quote from: SteerpikeWell, I think it's certainly possible for the *party* to be OK with supernatural powers while the rest of the world is not - perhaps they believe that the party's mage/wizard is being unfairly persecuted.
Sure, that's possible, though less plausible in the usual "you all meet in a tavern" sort of blind start. I have no problem with the party being tolerant, that's not really the issue - the issue is that the players will often be
pushed into tolerance, most typically after a token personal crisis that lasts no longer than the first adventure, because they have powerful OOC reasons to not rock the boat. It is, in my experience, a pointless exercise, as it's
either a farce (moments of hesitation before acceptance for the good of the game)
or it results in party civil war. It's a bit like putting a LG paladin and a CE demonologist in the same party. It tends to play out in either of two ways: either the players will OOC agree to get along and skate over the obvious IC issue, or they will roleplay to the hilt and kill each other.
Party civil war is obviously a problem. The farcical OOC truce is not necessarily a problem, though it sort of flies in the face of setting verisimilitude if the party that just met each other last week is now practically the realms' foremost Magicians' Rights Organization in a land where mage-burning is right up there with stick-and-hoop as a national pastime.
It's possible your roleplaying experiences have just been with much, much better roleplayers than mine have been. I'm speaking here, by the way, about pre-CBG games; I haven't played a game here on the CBG where magic animosity was really played up like that. I'd like to try some day, as we have a lot of very creative people here and it could conceivably be done well, but my main point here is that it's difficult to
actually pull off in such a way that it meaningfully changes game balance. It takes committed players to make it seem not either farcical or suicidal, and it takes a committed GM to make caster players feel genuinely persecuted and in constant danger. That is the kind of thing that defines a campaign, much like it would if your party included a wanted criminal (or several!). But if all it amounts to is that you're not allowed to cast spells when neutral NPCs are around, well, that's not really oppression, just mild inconvenience. The pretense that magic animosity will actually be a limitation on the power of casting classes necessitates that you go further than that; in many campaigns, encounters happen largely in remote locations inhabited only by enemies, and a prohibition on casting in town won't do anything to actually affect game balance in much of the campaign.
Quote from: PolycarpThe pretense that magic animosity will actually be a limitation on the power of casting classes necessitates that you go further than that; in many campaigns, encounters happen largely in remote locations inhabited only by enemies, and a prohibition on casting in town won't do anything to actually affect game balance in much of the campaign.
This is very true - it's more of an inconvenience, and it can obviously play more of a role in town/city adventures.