[From a DnD Newb] Are the PF core classes balanced, within reason?

[Ir0npanda]

I am a big fan of the DnD universe and the whole notion of gaming systems built on modeling (in the statistical sense, not the warhammer sense lol).

However I have never actually played one and I am eager to begin. I have no interest in 4e as I consider many of the changes offensive to me from a total systems modeling standpoint and I am turned off from base 3.5 because of the terrible core class balance (the tier issue).

Pathfinder 3.5 caught my eye and seems to attempt, at least, to address this concern. Before investing considerable time and effort in finding a gaming group I would like some reassurance from the community in this, however.

Basically, does 3.5 PF do a decent or better job in toning down T1/T2 and buffing T4+ core classes from 3.5 base? Or is the core class balance still absolutely deranged?

If PF is not the system I am looking for, in your opinion, please mention any other 3.5 mods that solve the Tier problem so that I may look into them

Thank You!

[Juntao112]

The gave the car more bling, but the engine is still clogged with gunk.

[Mystral]

Pathfinder buffs the lower tier classes while buffing the higher tier classes somewhat less and fixing some of the most glaring problems, like polymorph (debatably).

So, yes or no, how do you define "within reason"?

It would be easier to answer your question on a class by class basis. Would that help you?

[Ir0npanda]

So, yes or no, how do you define "within reason"?

Do T1 classes still get to reshape entire realities while T4/T5 are stuck with more ways of swinging pointy sticks better

[Amnestic]

Sort of. They fixed some problems and made a whole lot more. Like...Sorcerers as a class in 3.5 were pretty damn lackluster outside of their spellcasting. d4 HD, 2+Int skills, low BAB, one good save and only Summon Familiar as a class feature?

Yeah, Sorcerers are a fair bit stronger in PF than their 3.5 counterparts in that regard. On the one hand, it means they generally won't PrC out anymore. On the other hand, it means all they wanted from PrCs they can generally get in their base class now, which I would consider a net buff.

And for every spell they 'fixed', they didn't 'fix' a whole bunch more. Also things like adding Dazing Spell metamagic. Because spellcasters didn't have enough save or sucks, we had to give them an option for more!

[Keneth]

Yes, the fundamental problems of D&D classes persist in PF. It's an "upgrade" to 3.5, not a remake. Try Legend or maybe 4th ed. if you want balanced classes.

[Urpriest]

Yes, the fundamental problems of D&D classes persist in PF. It's an "upgrade" to 3.5, not a remake. Try Legend or maybe 4th ed. if you want balanced classes.

Legend and 4e aren't simulationist, though...

I feel like it's borderline impossible to have a simulationist system that's also balanced. You can have a balanced narrativist system, no problem, and it's trivial with a gamist system. But as soon as you've got a world to mess with, ingenious solutions are going to beat straightforward solutions pretty much inevitably.

[Ir0npanda]

I cant stand 4e, as I already mentioned, and I will not get into my reasons for it here.

I am looking for a 3.5 based system that has addressed the problem of Linear Wizard Quadratic Warrior.

If it has solved it by making everybody linear, or everybody quadratic, thats good enough.

[Urpriest]

I cant stand 4e, as I already mentioned, and I will not get into my reasons for it here.

I am looking for a 3.5 based system that has addressed the problem of Linear Wizard Quadratic Warrior.

If it has solved it by making everybody linear, or everybody quadratic, thats good enough.

Actually, I take back my previous post. If that's all you want, Legend is the cure. (Though sticking with only the balanced material from 3.5 would also have worked).

[Ir0npanda]

Yes, I am a simulationist at heart but I am not necessarily holding out hope for some kind of perfect solution to my search (though it would be nice to find).

Can you tell me more about Legend?

[Ailowynn]

Do T1 classes still get to reshape entire realities while T4/T5 are stuck with more ways of swinging pointy sticks better

Yes. Tier 1 is still OP and Tier 5 still stinks. The Monk can be a bit less awful with archetypes, though, and the fighter can do almost as much damage as a barbarian (he just won't survive as well).

Basically, it's not a balanced system. At all, honestly. But it is better than 3.5 in that regard.

And keep in mind that it's still fun, especially of the casters actually focus on helping the group, not just fighting (in which case everyone else gets outshines, in my experience anyways). Plus it's supported and has a large player base. Or if you want something else, you may want to look at this (http://inkwellideas.com/misc/distinguishing-rpgs-chart/)

[Keneth]

Legend and 4e aren't simulationist, though...

I feel like it's borderline impossible to have a simulationist system that's also balanced.

True. There's no one system with the best of everything. That doesn't mean you can't use Legend and make it more like 3.5 in all the aspects that you find lacking, though.

[Eldariel]

3.5 compared to PF is much like 3.0 compared to 3.5.

They fixed some things:
- Polymorph-line, Glitterdust, a number of spells, really
- Tumble
- Defensive Casting/Concentration in general
- Favored Class
- Most races
- The Level Adjustment system is more sensible
- Combat Maneuver system is better
- Base classes generally get something all the way through
- Feats are gained at a more reasonable pace
- The skill system is largely fine now

They broke some things:
- Fly-skill ****s mundanes up something severe
- Pounce is way too hard to get nowadays
- Combat Maneuvers aren't generally worth it
- The Summoner obsoletes warriors even more obviously than the Druid does

They didn't fix some glaring flaws:
- Full attack system is fundamentally broken for melee
- 5' steps hardly serve their intended purpose
- A large number of spells are still broken
- Two-Weapon Fighting is still the unwanted bastard child of Two-Handed Fighting
- Party-wise Sword & Board is still the worst option defensively (it's much more tactically valuable to have a reach weapon and ability to stop opponents' movement than a slightly higher AC especially far as protecting allies goes)
- Multi-attribute dependency still remains for many classes


And then they made a ton of new feats and stuff most of which is completely worthless, and the system is very barren without 3.5 support. Melee also loses some of their best tricks without supplements (though melee styles are more balanced with each other at least) and they made some stupid traits (who thought it was a good idea to offer a part of Arcane Thesis as a trait again?).

Overall, it's better in some senses, but the balance problems still largely persist, and while they cut some of the clunkiness out they left few key problems (full attacks and 5' steps in particular).

[Coidzor]

They fixed some things:
- Tumble

Eh? :smallconfused: My understanding is that tumble went from being unopposed in its niche to being useless in its niche.

[navar100]

If you are a worshiper of the Tier System, Pathfinder will not convert you. Pathfinder is 3E with tweaks and does not apologize for it. All I can say is I'm in two Pathfinder gaming groups neither of which knows or cares about any Tier System and are having a blast.

Just yesterday at a game two players commented on liking the monk, one even fascinated (pun intended) by the bard. He's currently playing a fighter while his paladin is recovering from a Plot Wound, not bothered in the slightest there's a cleric and sorcerer in the party or even the cleric has cast Summon Monster III to take care of some orcs. The ranger in our party was quite pleased the sorcerer had cast Rainbow Pattern to occupy the orcs surrounding him so he can move to a safer place.

In my other group players acknowledge how powerful druids can be and discuss online various tactics to use against them to different degrees of success and cheesiness. Meanwhile, one plays a Mystic Theurge (horrors) who specialized Evocation in wizard (blasphemy) and another is playing a fighter (sucker) who multiclassed two levels in bard (idiot). The oracle in the party meanwhile gets to spam his spells and take advantage of the human favored class alternative of another spell known per level (overpower them all). The rogue likes to shoot arrows. (imbecile).

[Mystral]

Maybe you should broaden your horizon a bit and take a look at other gaming systems unrelated to D&D 3.5. Like GURPS or TDE. There are many, many gaming systems. None of them is flawless. You just have to find the one that serves your needs the best.

[Eldariel]

Eh? :smallconfused: My understanding is that tumble went from being unopposed in its niche to being useless in its niche.

*shrug* It's not that useful against big things with obscene stats but by and large I've been able to Acrobatics when I've wanted to. Granted, the doubled speed is rarely worth it but by and large it works. Like, the CMD of a 5th level Fighter is ~20, probably a bit over, and by then a Rogue can have +6 Dex (start with 20, +2 item), 5 ranks and +3 Favored Class Bonus so you're looking at +14 which is probably already over 50% chances.

Some equal CR monsters include:
Very Young Brass Dragon (CMD 19)
Large Air Elemental (CMD 31)
Mummy (CMD 23)
Wraith (CMD 21)
Dandasuka Rakshasa (CMD 21)
Dire Lion (CMD 26)
Troll (CMD 22)

So while not autosuccess by any means, even just high Dex and maxed ranks with no specific Acrobatics bonuses you have chances over a coin toss to succeed against everything except for the really big martial monsters (like Large Elementals for this level).

With Skill Mastery it's an autosuccess against a decent bundle of equal CR enemies, and then there are Acrobatics boosting items (e.g. Ioun Stone that gives +5). It's not very useful against the massive martial monsters (Tarrasque CMD is 66, level 20 Rogue is looking at +23 ranks, +13 Dex, +5 item and a bit for maybe +45) but frankly, I don't think you should be able to Tumble against absolutely anything.

Tumble is still useful against equal CR humanoid warriors of most kinds as well as most Gish-type opponents (Outsiders and such), and since it's rolled into Acrobatics, it comes in a bundle of uses anyways.

[zlefin]

it's not ultimately THAT hard to make something based off of 3.5 that's balanced class-wise; there are problems tho; it requires cutting out a fair bit of stuff; there's the general problem that the more splats available, the stronger certain things get. One of the nice things about 3.5 is that there's so many books to work with, cutting all that out really takes some of the fun out of it; and some classes need to lose some toys in order to make them reasonable.

The other problem of course is just cause you can make a balanced thing based off 3.5 doesn't mean it'll have all the FUN 3.5 has.

[Gavinfoxx]

I would consider Pathfinder 3.55, Trailblazer 3.60, True20 3.65, Frank & K Tomes 3.65, Fantasycraft 3.70, using mutants and masterminds 2e as 'mutants and dungeons' at a rough 3.70, and Legend 3.75, as far as the 'number of things fixed' goes...

You'll probably have to go all the way up to 3.70+ to fix quadratic wizard linear warrior, and get everything on roughly the same Tier.

LEGEND STUFF:

http://www.ruleofcool.com/
http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/
https://s3.amazonaws.com/det_1/Legend.pdf <-- this is the actual link to it!
http://www.ruleofcool.com/donation-thresholds/ <-- some bonus content
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47651526/LCGb.html <-- an online character generator

The mutants and masterminds 2e to write up D&D-esque characters, a la:
http://greywulf.net/2011/06/03/mutants-and-dragons-third-edition/

Fantasycraft is found here:
http://www.crafty-games.com/node/348

Trailblazer is found here:
http://badaxegames.com/

The Frank & K tomes are here:
https://sites.google.com/site/middendorfproject/frankpdf

True20 is here:
http://true20.com/

[Hyde]

Mutants and Masterminds 2e is pretty fun. Haven't looked at 3e.

I would never return to base 3.5 from Pathfinder. However, there is still significant disparity between tiers. As you'll find out from any number of "Hey, what's this stuff about tiers" threads around here, the existence of tiers is frequently dismissed or relegated as a non-problem. Some groups never have problems with it at all (Usually because of uninformed casters or the rare benevolent player).

Blah blah blah the point is that you should go ahead and give it a shot and experience it for yourself. Pathfinder isn't Wizards and pretty much everything about their system is OGL- so you can try before you buy.

[Callin]

no suggestions of E6?

[Chaosvii7]

If All I can say is I'm in two Pathfinder gaming groups neither of which knows or cares about any Tier System and are having a blast.

That's the thing, those who bother to get as intently involved as you and I(that being a general statement for all of us) get their eyes opened to a completely different world that really tears you out of the sense of what the game is truly about.

I am also in a number of games(approaching 4 now) in which I am in fact the only person who uses these forums, and knows of the tier system. It's almost like...almost as if it's a religion, and the more you buy into it(the more you believe it) the more it becomes true to you. Those who are truly ignorant of things like this are not bad players and their games aren't bad, but it makes dealing with certain aspects of the game vastly different.

I have two DMs between the 4 games(2 and 2) - one is a module, so it follows Pathfinder rules more closely, and isn't independently structured, so I imagine that things will soon begin to favor the casters.

The other three games are all their own settings and worlds made by their respective DMs, in which things are totally different. One DM is a hardcore veteran, with an incredibly fleshed out world, but his games do kind of have more of a focus on combat, and blasters seem to really shine, making tiers really different to that game. Is it bad roleplaying? No. Does it follow the tier system? Not really, not until epic levels(which we get into in his campaigns A LOT).

The other game is a hatchling setting, in which things are both on and off at that point, but there's no wild disparity between tiers and it seems like we're all at a fairly relative power level(The MONK is the primary damage dealer and tank, believe it or not, because everybody just buffs him and launches him at the enemies, it works insanely well and really dispels the theories of the monk being insanely MAD to me).

tl;dr, the tier system and whether or not people know about it really makes a difference on what systems are appropriate, valid, and relevant, especially so in DMing. If your DM does not know about it, it is likely that there is a completely different balance that is relative to their style of DMing, which can help or hurt in certain situations.

[Akal Saris]

You could play Iron Heroes. It's simulationist d20 gaming for low magic Viking or Roman campaigns. Basically makes everybody a linear progression type class. Seems like most of the 3.5 designers had a hand in it.

[Fable Wright]

no suggestions of E6?

I was browsing through the thread seeing if someone beat me to the punch.

E6 doesn't solve all the problems of the tiers, though. You still have quadratic wizards and linear fighters. There's still a very pronounced difference between an E6 Wizard and Dread Necromancer, for example, throughout E6. The difference is, whacking people with sticks actually matters in E6. There's much less rockets tag. If mundanes tried, they could really screw up a Wizard's day; Ring of Silent Spellcasting, no contingencies existing in the setting, Anklets of Translocation to leave battlefield control spells -- simply put, Wizards can't defend themselves as well in E6, giving fighters a chance to shine. Make no mistake, the tier system is still there; it's just that there's no point where a tier choice takes away your ability to meaningfully contribute, unless you're sharing a role in the party with someone in a higher tier. I have to say, though, tier 3 and below E6 games are ridiculously fun. As a sidenote, full BAB actually becomes really powerful, just as the designers thought it should be; if you don't have it the entire way through the game, you get no iterative attacks.

[Acanous]

Rogues, actually, got a tremendous buff. They're easilly tier 3, possibly even tier 2 in Pathfinder. Ninja archetype is riding high on the T3. If you'r a Gnome you can break that T2 mark.
Very few things are immune to Sneak Attack. Rogue Tricks range from sad and useless, to swift-action save or (non mind Affecting, non magical) stun.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Eh? :smallconfused: My understanding is that tumble went from being unopposed in its niche to being useless in its niche.

Well, they "fixed" tumble in the sense that "fixed" is often used as a euphemism for "neutered." :smalltongue:

I wouldn't agree with a lot of the things Eldariel thinks Pathfinder fixed, though. Combat Maneuvers are arguably worse, since enemies' CMD will generally scale better than one's Combat Maneuver bonus will. There's also a greater feat tax on maneuvers, but I suppose that's essentially offset by one getting a lot more feats. I'm also of the opinion that the consolidated skill list and greater viability of cross-class skills actually hurt skill based classes, since it took away more of their niche.

[Keneth]

Rogues, actually, got a tremendous buff. They're easilly tier 3, possibly even tier 2 in Pathfinder. Ninja archetype is riding high on the T3. If you'r a Gnome you can break that T2 mark.
Very few things are immune to Sneak Attack. Rogue Tricks range from sad and useless, to swift-action save or (non mind Affecting, non magical) stun.

lol, no. :smallbiggrin:

Rogues are still T4 and ninjas are just slightly better. They got a decent power boost (which is largely irrelevant in the tier system) and the various talents, tricks, and archetypes make them somewhat more versatile, but they're a long way from being in T3, which has 6 levels of spellcasting, and light years away from T2.

[Gavinfoxx]

Rogues seem to get a buff in Pathfinder because the rogue class has more interesting and useful stuff in it... but if you delve deeper, there are a lot of stealth nerfs in the other, associated rules that Rogues would be interested in, as lots of their schticks are removed elsewhere in the system.

But if the DM doesn't know about these changes, or doesn't run them, they might seem buffed.

[avr]

... and by then a Rogue can have +6 Dex (start with 20, +2 item), 5 ranks and +3 Favored Class Bonus so you're looking at +14 which is probably already over 50% chances..
Favored class can give +1 skill rank per level, but those skill ranks can't break the level cap. A quick glance at the rogue class on d20pfsrd sees no option to get that +3 under Alternative Racial Favored Class Bonuses.

I guess you could spend a feat to get +3, but rogues are still pretty unlikely to have spare feats by level 5 - so 50% chance of success, failure gives the AoO and probably puts you in a dangerous position.

[Urpriest]

Favored class can give +1 skill rank per level, but those skill ranks can't break the level cap. A quick glance at the rogue class on d20pfsrd sees no option to get that +3 under Alternative Racial Favored Class Bonuses.

I guess you could spend a feat to get +3, but rogues are still pretty unlikely to have spare feats by level 5 - so 50% chance of success, failure gives the AoO and probably puts you in a dangerous position.

I'm assuming the +3 was from the skill being a class skill, not Favored Class bonus.

[avr]

Right, that makes sense. Confused by the typo.

[Spuddles]

Rogues, actually, got a tremendous buff. They're easilly tier 3, possibly even tier 2 in Pathfinder. Ninja archetype is riding high on the T3. If you'r a Gnome you can break that T2 mark.
Very few things are immune to Sneak Attack. Rogue Tricks range from sad and useless, to swift-action save or (non mind Affecting, non magical) stun.

Rogues aren't even close to t3. They are still "I stab it, rather poorly" or "I use a skill." they dont have anything very exceptional and everything they do is mundane and involves rolling dice. Typically, you can approximate how high a tier is by how little it can do a lot without rolling a d20.


Well, they "fixed" tumble in the sense that "fixed" is often used as a euphemism for "neutered." :smalltongue:

I wouldn't agree with a lot of the things Eldariel thinks Pathfinder fixed, though. Combat Maneuvers are arguably worse, since enemies' CMD will generally scale better than one's Combat Maneuver bonus will. There's also a greater feat tax on maneuvers, but I suppose that's essentially offset by one getting a lot more feats. I'm also of the opinion that the consolidated skill list and greater viability of cross-class skills actually hurt skill based classes, since it took away more of their niche.

Tumble was fixed in that now a dc15 doesn't auto-win vs anything without thicket of blades. 3.5 tumble is actually a huge nerf to fighters because past 10HD or so, reach approaches uselessness.

Eldarial also notes that the PF maneuver system is better designed with its core mechanic, but the methods of getting to use it via a bunch of wasted feats, is broke.

[Ir0npanda]

You could play Iron Heroes. It's simulationist d20 gaming for low magic Viking or Roman campaigns. Basically makes everybody a linear progression type class. Seems like most of the 3.5 designers had a hand in it.

Can anybody direct me to some more information about this?

[NinjaInTheRye]

The full caster classes are still far ahead, the Rogue is the bottom of the heap, the Monk and Fighter are slightly ahead of that (but not much).

Most of the other classes in the system are actually pretty well balanced against each other, IMO.

I like to house rule the addition of 3.5 ToB maneuvers/class features or Psionics in to the Fighter/Rogue/Monk, this creates basic balance with all the classes (excepting that full casters are still well ahead).

Generally if the full casters agree to not try to break the game, things are going to be fine.

[Gavinfoxx]

Iron Heroes is a 3rd party low magic game...

It's not a game if you want, you know... wizards in your game.

The other games I listed, are. Iron Heroes, or Codex Martialis, or Conan D20 are some cosehive d20 games that you choose if you want to ban basically anything Tier 3 and above in their entirety.

[Felandria]

Can we clarify simulationist?

Because from my general experience, 4e=Combat, 3.5/PF=Roleplaying.

I say this because I have never played in a 4e game without the DM feeling the need for figures and a map, whereas outside of 4e we have never used either.

I say give PF a chance, and check out 5e when you can.

[Eldariel]

I'm assuming the +3 was from the skill being a class skill, not Favored Class bonus.

Exactly. Sorry for being unclear; had something of a thought mistake.


Well, they "fixed" tumble in the sense that "fixed" is often used as a euphemism for "neutered." :smalltongue:

I wouldn't agree with a lot of the things Eldariel thinks Pathfinder fixed, though. Combat Maneuvers are arguably worse, since enemies' CMD will generally scale better than one's Combat Maneuver bonus will. There's also a greater feat tax on maneuvers, but I suppose that's essentially offset by one getting a lot more feats. I'm also of the opinion that the consolidated skill list and greater viability of cross-class skills actually hurt skill based classes, since it took away more of their niche.

Combat Maneuvers may be better or worse, I don't really care. I commented on the system; 3.5 system was pretty stupid (why is Trip a straight Strength-check while Grapple involves BAB, for instance?), while CMB/CMD actually works reasonably well and also gives you some easy numbers to run design by.

Now, whether the new feats are worth it is another question. I'm not sure they are. I also think there's too much of a feat tax for maneuvers to be usable in the first place. But that's beyond the scope of what I commented on there; I commented on the system itself, not its usability.


Tumble was neutered 'cause it was broken; anyone in a light armor could basically ignore AoOs from 99.5% of creatures by cross-classing Tumble, let alone class-skilling it. It may or may not have been hit too hard; in my books, it's just good.


Consolidated skill system actually means that the same amount of skill points buys you more so skill monkeys can do more with the same amount of skill points. Skill monkey classes also tend to have class features that improve their skill checks so they're still better at their key stuff than others, and they're better at more stuff than others.

The biggest difference is that now that 12 Int Human Rogue actually has enough skill points to mostly cover the skills you'd need on the streets. You don't have to be an 18 Int supergenius Rogue just for the basics. 3.5 skill system just had too many skills and while my preferred solution was to give more skill points to everybody, PF solution works to address that problem too.

3.5 cross-class skills were broken; you eventually just fell too far behind outside skills with fixed DCs (such as Tumble) for it to truly be useful. In PF, you can remain relevant throughout the levels regardless of whether a skill is class skill or cross-class (you're a bit behind cross-class, sure, but a smart Barbarian can actually have e.g. decent Knowledges in spite of not having them in-class).

[Man on Fire]

I cant stand 4e, as I already mentioned, and I will not get into my reasons for it here.

I am looking for a 3.5 based system that has addressed the problem of Linear Wizard Quadratic Warrior.

If it has solved it by making everybody linear, or everybody quadratic, thats good enough.

Try Earthdawn - everybody can learn anything in Earthdawn, but specific disciplines can be better at some thing. So that means your fighter-equivalent can learn to do what wizard does, through he won't be as strong at wizard at it. Sure, magic guys still have some versality, but it's less visible, because everybody have some access to magic. Through Earthdawn is very complicated when it comes to building characters, forbids multiclassing outside what they consider climatic options and at higher levels they all become quite powerful (my friends generally avoid going too high level because at one points their meele guys can murder 20 people in one round nd that's too much rolling for them.).

[Larkas]

I had some doubts about the Tumble in PF as well, but the kind people in this discussion (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pgcr?Acrobatics-denial-of-AoO-against-Reflex) helped me put my mind at ease. Specifically, look at this ECL 20 tumbler put together by Aratrok:


Dex +12 (+4 base, +6 level bumps, +9 Dex item, +12 inherent), Acrobatics +23 (Skillpoints), Skill Focus +6, Wondrous Item +10, Masterwork Tool +2 = +53

Getting inherent bonuses to stats is pretty expensive through standard means, though. You could throw that out and still have a +50 bonus. That's a 90% chance to tumble past said dragon. 100% with the inherent bonuses.

All that said and done though, let's look at what you had to pay to get that bonus.

20 skillpoints - This kinda hurts. Acrobatics doesn't do a ton for you besides tumbling unless you're constantly making incredible jumps. The +50% bump to fighting defensively/total defense is pretty nice, but that only took 3 points to get.
1 feat - Skill focus, for a +6 stackable-with-everything bonus. You could toss this out if you really wanted to, but you wouldn't have as many auto-succeed situations.
10,050 gp - 50 gp for the tool is a drop in the bucket at almost any level, and at higher levels so is 10,000 gp for a +10 competence bonus wondrous item.

Pretty low-cost for the success rate you can expect.

[Psyren]

That's the thing, those who bother to get as intently involved as you and I(that being a general statement for all of us) get their eyes opened to a completely different world that really tears you out of the sense of what the game is truly about.

I am also in a number of games(approaching 4 now) in which I am in fact the only person who uses these forums, and knows of the tier system. It's almost like...almost as if it's a religion, and the more you buy into it(the more you believe it) the more it becomes true to you. Those who are truly ignorant of things like this are not bad players and their games aren't bad, but it makes dealing with certain aspects of the game vastly different.

I have two DMs between the 4 games(2 and 2) - one is a module, so it follows Pathfinder rules more closely, and isn't independently structured, so I imagine that things will soon begin to favor the casters.

The other three games are all their own settings and worlds made by their respective DMs, in which things are totally different. One DM is a hardcore veteran, with an incredibly fleshed out world, but his games do kind of have more of a focus on combat, and blasters seem to really shine, making tiers really different to that game. Is it bad roleplaying? No. Does it follow the tier system? Not really, not until epic levels(which we get into in his campaigns A LOT).

The other game is a hatchling setting, in which things are both on and off at that point, but there's no wild disparity between tiers and it seems like we're all at a fairly relative power level(The MONK is the primary damage dealer and tank, believe it or not, because everybody just buffs him and launches him at the enemies, it works insanely well and really dispels the theories of the monk being insanely MAD to me).

tl;dr, the tier system and whether or not people know about it really makes a difference on what systems are appropriate, valid, and relevant, especially so in DMing. If your DM does not know about it, it is likely that there is a completely different balance that is relative to their style of DMing, which can help or hurt in certain situations.

I think being aware of the tier system can never be a bad thing. Many times players, especially at high levels, will find themselves getting dissatisfied as it seems their mundane characters are capable of less and less with regards to their casting peers, and the tier system does a good job of explaining why. It also helps DMs understand the kinds of challenges that high-level players should be able to overcome regardless of party composition (e.g. every high-level party should have ways of dealing with ability damage) and thus, making sure that their PCs have access to methods of doing so.

Having said that, I think buying into it too much and overstating its importance - particularly where "game balance" is concerned - is all too easy to do. In practice, good gaming groups bypass these difficulties without noticing them - spellcasters are content buffing the melee, melee are content defending the spellcasters, and everyone is fine with houserules to rein in the worst offenders in the system. Too often forums treat "houserule" as a dirty word, offensive to the ears of the Moste Holy RAW, but the reality is that RAW is really only useful as a starting point and some of the best fixes for 3.P are also the easiest to implement.


I had some doubts about the Tumble in PF as well, but the kind people in this discussion (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pgcr?Acrobatics-denial-of-AoO-against-Reflex) helped me put my mind at ease. Specifically, look at this ECL 20 tumbler put together by Aratrok:

That math seems off to me. A +9 Dex item? Isn't +6 the best you can get in PF, pre-epic? And how is he getting a +12 inherent, yet subtracting the inherent bonus only takes it from +53 to +50?

[Eldariel]

I think being aware of the tier system can never be a bad thing. Many times players, especially at high levels, will find themselves getting dissatisfied as it seems their mundane characters are capable of less and less with regards to their casting peers, and the tier system does a good job of explaining why. It also helps DMs understand the kinds of challenges that high-level players should be able to overcome regardless of party composition (e.g. every high-level party should have ways of dealing with ability damage) and thus, making sure that their PCs have access to methods of doing so.

Having said that, I think buying into it too much and overstating its importance - particularly where "game balance" is concerned - is all too easy to do. In practice, good gaming groups bypass these difficulties without noticing them - spellcasters are content buffing the melee, melee are content defending the spellcasters, and everyone is fine with houserules to rein in the worst offenders in the system. Too often forums treat "houserule" as a dirty word, offensive to the ears of the Moste Holy RAW, but the reality is that RAW is really only useful as a starting point and some of the best fixes for 3.P are also the easiest to implement.

Usually people who say "Tier system doesn't apply" or whatever simply don't play high level games. At least that's my experience. In high levels it becomes painfully clear that warriors don't have quadratic scaling. But yeah, most groups also play with houserules which of course helps.


That math seems off to me. A +9 Dex item? Isn't +6 the best you can get in PF, pre-epic? And how is he getting a +12 inherent, yet subtracting the inherent bonus only takes it from +53 to +50?

It seemed odd to me too at first, but he's actually counting the increase in the Dex modifier. So the "+9 dex item" means "Dex modifier raises from +6 to +9 with the 36000 +6 Dex item" and "+12 inherent" means "Dex modifier raises from +9 to +12 with the inherent bonuses"; practically, 23 > 29 with item and 29 > 34 with inherent bonuses.

[Blyte]

Do T1 classes still get to reshape entire realities while T4/T5 are stuck with more ways of swinging pointy sticks better

it sounds like you want to play in an E6 game, where you stunt the casters before their spells turn too mind blowing.

any 3.X/PF game with casters, will turn into super wiz and the primates, when it gets to the upper levels.

.. I would like to play in a PF6 kingmaker campaign that goes to perpetual kingdom building/war.. without the content above ~CR11

[Amnestic]

Now, whether the new feats are worth it is another question. I'm not sure they are. I also think there's too much of a feat tax for maneuvers to be usable in the first place. But that's beyond the scope of what I commented on there; I commented on the system itself, not its usability.



It confused me greatly as to why they thought it necessary to split Improved Trip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip) into Improved Trip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-trip-combat---final) and Greater Trip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-trip-combat---final) for Pathfinder.

Yes, PF gives players more feats to play with than base 3.5 does but...I still don't get it. It implies - to me - that the designers thought Improved Trip (3.5) was overpowered for the cost of one feat, and thus needed its bonuses split over two feats which...seems odd.

[Eldariel]

It confused me greatly as to why they thought it necessary to split Improved Trip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip) into Improved Trip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-trip-combat---final) and Greater Trip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-trip-combat---final) for Pathfinder.

Yes, PF gives players more feats to play with than base 3.5 does but...I still don't get it. It implies - to me - that the designers thought Improved Trip (3.5) was overpowered for the cost of one feat, and thus needed its bonuses split over two feats which...seems odd.

A very good question, one I've wondered about myself. One guess I have is the change was made to further enable specialization in a single combat maneuver above and beyond a single feat (and yes, I realize 3.5 already had such options in play).

Another possibility is that it's to make superlowlevel trippers less dominant with the CMB system (later on often inconsequential, but on low levels lacking the roll vs. Touch AC increases the chance of success greatly); liminting it to 6 BAB removes any chances of stomping level 1 games with very-likely-successful trips followed by attacks.


It's understandable though probably not very necessary. Honestly, I think the "default" (featless) maneuvers are too weak and deserve a buff; removing the Improved stage and only leaving the Greater feat for those who want to specialize instead of just using the maneuver opportunistically would be my idea of "optimal".

But I lack the infinite wisdom of the Paizo designers; I mean, I would've have made Tarrasque (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/tarrasque.html#_tarrasque) whose only redeeming factor is being unkillable permanently (but a pushover in combat), a CR 20 encounter at best (probably far less) but luckily I'm not calling the shots; clearly many a TPK have been avoided.

[Suddo]

It confused me greatly as to why they thought it necessary to split Improved Trip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip) into Improved Trip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-trip-combat---final) and Greater Trip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-trip-combat---final) for Pathfinder.

Yes, PF gives players more feats to play with than base 3.5 does but...I still don't get it. It implies - to me - that the designers thought Improved Trip (3.5) was overpowered for the cost of one feat, and thus needed its bonuses split over two feats which...seems odd.

Especially since it comes with its own feat tax, combat expertise.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Rogues aren't even close to t3. They are still "I stab it, rather poorly" or "I use a skill." they dont have anything very exceptional and everything they do is mundane and involves rolling dice. Typically, you can approximate how high a tier is by how little it can do a lot without rolling a d20.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of other classes can take over the latter role even more completely; a wizard with a decent dexterity score can basically serve as the party's rogue for the purpose of "I use a skill," without using any spells besides cantrips. Sure, the rogue can take tricks that give him higher bonuses to the relevant skills, but at the end of the day, the fact that a wizard can be ever-so-slightly worse at the rogue's entire schtick without even cracking his spellbook is a problem. I'm not counting "sneak attack" as the rogue's schtick because, at least in my experience, rogues are hard pressed to get into flank, let alone actually hit something.


Tumble was fixed in that now a dc15 doesn't auto-win vs anything without thicket of blades. 3.5 tumble is actually a huge nerf to fighters because past 10HD or so, reach approaches uselessness.
I wouldn't say "fixed" so much as "broken differently," but I'll agree that the 3.5 version was no better, really. I preferred the 3.5 rules as a DM, since it was easier to just have enemies not use tumble unless that's their schtick than it is to houserule something so that rogues can get into flanking without paying a pretty hefty opportunity cost or knowing how to optimize their tumble results.


Eldarial also notes that the PF maneuver system is better designed with its core mechanic, but the methods of getting to use it via a bunch of wasted feats, is broke.
I also think the implementation of that mechanic is another largely-to-entirely unnecessary nerf to mundanes. Combined with some of the rules that came along with the change and, as you said, the heavy feat tax required, and maneuvers are, if anything, more broken.

[NinjaInTheRye]

I believe that maneuvers are easier to pull off in PF, size bonuses to CMD are less than the bonuses being Large or greater provided in 3.5. Adding the enhancement bonus of your weapon to CMB is also a boon.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

In my experience, CMD has tended to scale a lot faster than CMB.

[Draz74]

some kind of perfect solution to my search (though it would be nice to find).
I'm working on it! :smallcool: (I hope! :smallredface:) With E6-like limitations being one of the main ways to preserve balance.


Can you tell me more about Legend?

Well, let's see. First of all, it's a d20 system that goes up to Level 20, so it definitely works by making everybody quadratic rather than making everybody linear.

Each character gets four "tracks" of abilities that give them at least one "feature" ability at each level. (If you want a decent array of magical items, that uses up one of your four tracks; this is the default assumption, in fact.) The multiclassing rules make it pretty easy to assemble almost any combination of tracks you want your character to have, although possibly at the cost of a feat or a suboptimal combination of needed ability scores.

For example, a default Monk (no multiclassing), which is the simplest class, has

one track that lets them do a lot of tripping/grapping/etc without weakening their normal damage output (in fact, it also grants a little bit of bonus damage), as well as making their unarmed strikes and any other weapons they choose to use more awesome than anyone else's weapons,
one track that makes them super-speedy, including AC boosts and Spring Attack-like mobility (only better), plus mystical abilities at high levels like 1/day long-distance teleportation and 1/day self-resurrection
and one defensive track, which makes them extraordinarily resistant to mental effects or spells that deal magic or energy damage, as well as lesser features like Evasion.


Out of 30 or more Tracks that give you overtly magical abilities, only 2 of them are "spellcasting"; these work basically on the Sorcerer model from 3e (spontaneous Vancian casting of a limited number of Spells Known, selected from a menu). So "full casters" only have to spend one of their four tracks on spellcasting. This is balanced because spells really aren't any more powerful than what other tracks give you at the same level. The Monk gets teleportation at about the same level that the Tactician (Legend's version of the Wizard) does. Spellcasting is no longer supposed to be "more powerful, but balanced by having a limited number of uses." Instead, it's "a wider variety of equally-powerful options, but balanced by having a limited number of uses."

Another way that spellcasters don't take over is that anyone can access pretty powerful effects through Feats or Magic Items. For example, anyone with the right Skills can get the feat Create Teleportation Circle at Level 9 (which is before the Tactician even gets long-distance teleportation as a spell). This lets you create permanent teleportation circles to known, un-defended locations, as often as you have an hour of free time to spend on creating them.

No one is really very MAD or SAD; with the exception of some strange multiclass builds (which are really sub-optimal, but can be fixed pretty quickly by the Multiclass Flexibility feat), every character mostly just cares about two ability scores, their Key Offensive Modifier and Key Defensive Modifier. (They'll need to keep a third score, and maybe even a fourth, reasonably high if they want great Saves. But the KOM and KDM are definitely the priorities.) For example, everyone's HP aren't based on Constitution anymore; each class specifies which stat determines its HP (and also its AC bonus, which used to be Dexterity for everyone). Compared to 3e, ability scores scale much better automatically with level, but boosting them via magic items is much more limited.

Tracks are used to represent monsters' abilities, which makes the system reasonably friendly to monstrous PCs, without any clunky LA rules.

Re-fluffing is highly encouraged in Legend. For example, my build for Thor (from The Avengers) is, mechanically, a Dragon. Now, I don't remember Thor in the movie being reptilian or quadripedal or having wings. But the mechanical effects work for him.

Legend is very gamist. HP are as unrealistic as ever. Mounts are invulnerable, because figuring out balanced rules for attacking them would be annoying. Battles are two-dimensional; instead of a z-axis, there is merely a series of conditions defining height ("Burrowing," normal, ground-level-but-able-to-fly-over-difficult-terrain, "Flying," and the rarely-seen "High Altitude"). There are no rules whatsoever for money or similar limitations on mundane equipment. Skills are either "trained" or "not trained," rather than the granular ranks approach of 3.x.

Legend is still technically in Beta Edition. The devs have been saying the 1.0 release is "very close" since the beginning of December, but (as someone who occasionally drops in on the devs' IRChat channel and proofreads their 1.0-update rules documents) I'm finally starting to believe them, i.e. I'll be surprised if 1.0 isn't released in the next two weeks, and possibly sooner.

[NinjaInTheRye]

In my experience, CMD has tended to scale a lot faster than CMB.

At the base from monsters, probably, but since you can add in all bonuses to your attack to a combat maneuver you can probably keep yourself around a 50/50 chance if that's what you're building for.

Then there are things like Strength Surge for a Barbarian, or a monk with QSLA: Truestrike who can basically auto succeed on a combat maneuver.

I freely admit, however, that I'm not much of a number cruncher, so this is just my impression from games I've played in/run.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I think the real problem is that the mechanics assume one will have a great deal more bonuses going to attack/CMB than, at least in my experience, players tend to have. In other words, CMB is fine if the party's casters just sit around casting stacking bonuses to strength and/or attack rolls for the first several rounds of combat, which hasn't been the case in my experience.

[Scow2]

I had some doubts about the Tumble in PF as well, but the kind people in this discussion (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pgcr?Acrobatics-denial-of-AoO-against-Reflex) helped me put my mind at ease. Specifically, look at this ECL 20 tumbler put together by Aratrok:

But it only pays off at high levels - CMD seems to scale linearly in Pathfinder, while bonuses, attributes, and skills scale quadratically - and stay far behind the curve until level 10 or so. And if you 'maximize' your tumbling ability (Skill focus in a class as feat-starved as a rogue? Seriously?), you lose out on actually being able to do anything with it.

From what I've seen of Pathfinder... although the classes have all gotten a buff (Except spellcasting, which got a mild nerf in a lot of places), the assumed level of optimization is much higher when looking at monster CRs - at least from what I've seen.

[Snowbluff]

As another alternative, I would suggest putting restrictions on or sticking to the tier system. There is much less disparity between a Beguiler and a Warblade than Wizard and Fighter. Tome of Battle is the only appreciable step in fixing the Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizard I've seen.

[Gavinfoxx]

If you want to stay ~ Tier 3, look at the various expanded lists of Tier 3 classes:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8740

[Psyren]

Optimizing Acrobatics isn't too bad a tactic though. Tumbling will almost always come up in combat, and Acrobatics includes Jump and Balance too. It's true that it takes more resources to be good at tumbling in PF than it did in 3.5, but at the same time you have more resources to spare.

[John Campbell]

My take on Pathfinder combat maneuvers is: the new mechanic makes full BAB more valuable, makes combat maneuvers a more practical option for a primary melee non-specialist, and makes specializing more expensive (though everyone's got more feats to spend) and not an auto-win against non-specialist primary melee characters. I consider all of these to be good things.

More generally... Pathfinder buffed most of the weak classes. But it buffed most of the strong classes, too. The gap may have closed a bit, but it's still there. The main thing Pathfinder did was give everyone more interesting options, both build and play, throughout their career. Basically, regardless of who you are: You get more feats. You get more class features. You get choices of class features. You get choices of racial features. Your skill points get you more, and your options of how to spend them open up.

[Hyde]

I can probably answer the "Why Greater Trip Question".

The Pathfinder design philosophy had two major points- Design Symmetry and Keywording the bejeezus out of everything- essentially what wizards did with 4e out of the gate, just not taken as far.

What this means for PF is that every combat maneuver has two associated feats, whether they really need it or not, and the first of those feats has a typically lousy prereq- often Combat Expertise or Improves Unarmed Strike. Taken further, this means every purely martial class has something like bonus feats to fill out its progression (Rogue/Ninja Tricks, Rage Powers, etc).

It makes balance easier, at least within the broadest strokes of the word, at the cost of significantly limiting your design space. I think they did a pretty okay job, overall, even if certain effects seem less... impressive? (The potential brokenness of polymorph/wildshape aside, The new versions of these abilities are kinda boring, if arguably easier to implement. Turning into, say, a dire lion was interesting. Turning into "generic large-sized monster with scent, pounce, and four natural attacks" isnt.)

Well, No one really wants a discussion on abstract design philosophy.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Really, my main complaint about Pathfinder is that its changes made a great deal of things a lot more boring without managing to appreciably level the playing field. I would rather wildshape and polymorph be interesting abilities that can be abused than dull abilities that cannot be.

[Hyde]

I agree, for the most part. Maybe a "familiarity with the creature" clause to let GM have some easy input on toning down some of the more cheesy cheese.

[Urpriest]

I agree, for the most part. Maybe a "familiarity with the creature" clause to let GM have some easy input on toning down some of the more cheesy cheese.

Familiarity is precisely the problem that still afflicts things like Planar Binding, where all PF did was offer some suggestions about why Wish-granting outsiders might refuse their services. Making abuse dependent on story events just means that you can break the game sometimes rather than all the time, it doesn't change the fact that you can break the game.

The real fix to polymorph is the same as the real fix to planar binding et al: either heavily restrict monsters and access to them (like 4e), or make monsters on the same ruleset as PCs (like Legend). I have no idea why PF didn't do the latter, it was a big part of how 3.5 design was going anyway, and one of the main reasons people preferred it to 4e.

[Hyde]

I'm not familiar enough with Legend to know exactly what you mean by making monsters on the same ruleset as the PCs.

[Gavinfoxx]

Well, you build monsters like via classes and stuff, with the same sets of classes as PCs can access. So everything is built using one mechanism. The character creation rules are the monster creation rules, and yes they are versatile enough for both.

[Animastryfe]

Gavinfoxx, you should tell them about Legend's philosophy on magic items and its ease in character creation.

[Gnaeus]

Really, my main complaint about Pathfinder is that its changes made a great deal of things a lot more boring without managing to appreciably level the playing field. I would rather wildshape and polymorph be interesting abilities that can be abused than dull abilities that cannot be.

I think Polymorph nerf in some ways made balance worse. 3.5, Polymorph on the fighter (or sometimes rogue) was a powerful combat option that at the same time helped low tiers function in a high tier party.

PF polymorph line powers are mostly self only. Polymorph itself is a level higher and does not include combat forms the fighter wants (like Giant Shape). So the wizard will no longer be turning the fighter into a troll, he will replace the spell with a non-buff, because there are no buffs in that level range of comparable power.

[ngilop]

I cant stand 4e, as I already mentioned, and I will not get into my reasons for it here.

I am looking for a 3.5 based system that has addressed the problem of Linear Wizard Quadratic Warrior.

If it has solved it by making everybody linear, or everybody quadratic, thats good enough.

I know it gets a lot of hate for some weird reason.

but look at at the Everquest d20 stuff, from what i can tell its almost eliminated the QW LW issue.

[Blyte]

OP - balance is really a rediculous goal. once you have balanced everything, everyone is the same, and the various classes lose their identity. the only thing left to draw any distinction is flavor text, and then someone might get flavor text envy at the table.

a better way to look at it is.. do the various classes who fill certain roles have the ability to fill them effectively within a close margin? it's rediculous to want to change a system because the fighter gets fireball/teleport envy.

[Eldariel]

OP - balance is really a rediculous goal. once you have balanced everything, everyone is the same, and the various classes lose their identity.

That's not necessarily true for most definitions of balance. That only happens if you literally expect the same output and input from all classes. All previous D&D systems have had better "balance" than 3.X, and not because of spells alone (certainly some spells were buffed unduly in 3.5, such as Shapechange, Gate or Time Stop) but also because of the underlying structures.

Perfect balance is not necessary but "balance" where each class is good at what they advertise to be good at and each archetype fulfilling a valuable function in a party, those are desirable things, as well as balance within a class (TWF Fighter and THF Fighter should ideally have different strengths but be largely balanced with each other, as well as Conjurer Wizard and Necromancer Wizard). Balance doesn't mean similarity, but rather similar capability within their chosen niche with advantages and disadvantages that don't make either a clearly better choice in the vacuum.

[Draz74]

OP - balance is really a rediculous goal. once you have balanced everything, everyone is the same, and the various classes lose their identity. the only thing left to draw any distinction is flavor text, and then someone might get flavor text envy at the table.

You know, I thought that StarCraft would have eternally killed off this theory, that "different but balanced" was impossible.

[georgie_leech]

You know, I thought that StarCraft would have eternally killed off this theory, that "different but balanced" was impossible.

But then people have to admit that WOTC just dropped the ball on 4th ed instead of it being an inherently bad idea!

[Snowbluff]

You know, I thought that StarCraft would have eternally killed off this theory, that "different but balanced" was impossible.

Yeah, I agree. 3.5 isn't balanced as a whole, but SCII supports a reasonable range.

I still like T3 play, though.

[Draz74]

Yeah, I agree. 3.5 isn't balanced as a whole, but SCII supports a reasonable range.

Last I checked (which ... was a while ago), SC2 hadn't yet attained the impeccable degree of Balance that SC1 has had since 2001. There are still pro SC1 players using a wide variety of strategies with all three races. (Terrans do have a slight edge in the highest circles of play, but it's a neglible advantage for non-pro competitive players.)

[Amnestic]

Last I checked (which ... was a while ago), SC2 hadn't yet attained the impeccable degree of Balance that SC1 has had since 2001.

Heart of the Swarm having come out very recently has changed the balance somewhat and Blizzard are still waiting for the metagame to settle before making any changes. As a layman, at the moment, it looks like Terran are the strongest race due to just how potent Hellbat drops are, while Zerg are arguably weakest due to lacking decent anti-air (Hydralisks too squishy, Corrupters not strong enough, Mutalisks too squishy) making them weak to Skytoss. At least, that's how it currently appears to be. Even with these factors though, you still see each race getting its fair share of wins.

But again, that's just from a layman. I'm no where near a pro player. I just consume casts. SC2 just had an expansion though and Legacy of the Void is yet to come. Until the last expansion hits I doubt SC2 will begin to attain that same amazing balance that Broodwar ended up with after years of careful revisions.

[Snowbluff]

Heart of the Swarm having come out very recently has changed the balance somewhat and Blizzard are still waiting for the metagame to settle before making any changes. As a layman, at the moment, it looks like Terran are the strongest race due to just how potent Hellbat drops are, while Zerg are arguably weakest due to lacking decent anti-air (Hydralisks too squishy, Corrupters not strong enough, Mutalisks too squishy) making them weak to Skytoss. At least, that's how it currently appears to be. Even with these factors though, you still see each race getting its fair share of wins.

But again, that's just from a layman. I'm no where near a pro player. I just consume casts. SC2 just had an expansion though and Legacy of the Void is yet to come. Until the last expansion hits I doubt SC2 will begin to attain that same amazing balance that Broodwar ended up with after years of careful revisions.From what I understand, skytoss is rather strong, but regular toss armies are mostly unchanged. Hellbats are a little crazy right now.

Was BW really that balanced? If I recall correctly, certain strategies and units were used an overwhelming amount of the time. I don't remember walking through a minefield 100 mines deep and going "Wow, this is so balanced!" I think the bad pathing damaged balance as well, if not between races but during specific situations. :smalltongue:

SC2 WoL has had some balanced win ratios for between races, with certain races winning out by slim percentages last time I checked. It's been a while, though.

[Eldariel]

Was BW really that balanced? If I recall correctly, certain strategies and units were used an overwhelming amount of the time. I don't remember walking through a minefield 100 mines deep and going "Wow, this is so balanced!" I think the bad pathing damaged balance as well, if not between races but during specific situations. :smalltongue:

Brood War, on the highest competitive level, was so impeccably balanced that the winrates for all MUs were almost 50/50 and every MU had many very varied viable strategies entirely (of course map dependent) not to mention all the tactical options and all-in plays. Oh, and every unit was used on tiptop competitive level.

Like, TvP had macro mech as the main option but even there, you had "Deep Six" Barracks build, builds that incorporate varying amounts of air (especially Vessels), and various anti-carrier builds (even Ghosts and Wraiths were used for this purpose on occasion).

TvZ had both, mass bio play and mass mech play as viable options, and even air terran focusing on Wraiths or even BCs. Then there was Bio+Vessel "SK Terran" and artistic levels of micro involvement regardless.

TvT had mech play and air play with heavy drop focus, occasional nukes and heavy role for Battlecruisers.


All Terran units saw use (Ghost was really the only rare unit and even it was deployed heavily in TvT and occasionally in TvP though mostly as a trophy unit in TvZ) and the strategies were immensely varied. And with the established map pool, most maps were very close where "favored" was like 53% win rate (and most maps didn't have that large discrepancies and Jaedong/Flash/Bisu/etc. were winning regardless of the map). Of course, that's only exploring one race (for brevity's sake).

But yes, BW balancing took about 8 years and many lessons about builds, unit functions and especially map design, but they eventually got there. Brood War is really the perfect epitome of "different but balanced".

Now, it's important to realize that "balanced vs. each other" doesn't mean all the components are of equal value. But the value varies. In TvZ Marines are way more powerful than in TvP or TvT (due to the lack of reliable accurate long range AOE in Zerg arsenal; Lurkers can be dealt with through Tanks, Vessels and micro), which makes Marine-core armies viable non-niche in TvZ (they have their job in TvP and TvT but forming the bulk of your lategame army isn't one of them). Vultures are on the other hand relatively worse vs. Zerg since Zerg can clear mines at relatively small cost and Mutalisks present a massive threat that's best countered with Marines.

On the other hand, in TvP Vulture and Tank are the core units since they match up well vs. Zealot and Dragoon, and the range offers a counter to Reaver and Templar that Marines are weak to, and Protoss air is relatively weak early and Carriers are best dealt with through Goliaths anyways (though Marine counter to Carriers exists too; it basically wipes out all the Interceptors). This leads to different unit mix but the match-up is still perfectly balanced; it just has different timings and unit focuses due to the different values of the different units vs. any given adversary.


You could draw a lot of parallels to D&D here and find some wisdom for solving some of the problems but I find this post is already sufficiently long so I'm going to cut it here.

TL;DR: Yeah, modern (or late era) BW is pretty much the definition of "perfectly balanced".

[Spuddles]

I love seeing the BW discussion here.

[Blyte]

You know, I thought that StarCraft would have eternally killed off this story, that "different but balanced" was impossible.

They are teams being balnced as a whole. This thread is akin to someone on a SC board complaining that the templar's thunder cracking mojo makes his marine feel not so special.

@Eldarial - your point you try to make touches on the 2nd part of my post, which you truncated off in your quote.

[Evard]

4e shows that gamers will never be happy, WoTC fixed the most glaring problems with their product and suddenly "it is to video gamey" and "you can't role play".

Funny I remember hearing the same trash talk coming out when 3.0 was made... The exact same arguments against 4.0 were used against 3.0.

Funny isn't it.

OP: Pathfinder really changed nothing from 3.5, they streamlined a few things and gimped non casters a bit more while "nerfing" full casters.

Look at it this way, outside of one specific build (barbarian w/ sunder spell effect or whatever it is called) only casters have ways of countering casters once 4th level spells come online. However casters can completely shut down mundane types.

The biggest problem isn't that you have a Wizard being awesome and the Fighter sucking, it is that the enemies get the same type of abilities that Wizards get so you really are screwed unless you have magical abilities.

But I always discourage Pathfinder only because Paizo was such jagoffs to people (banning people who politely talked about the lack of balance) and the fact that they put so little effort into making "their" system.

Sure they have a few decent ideas but it isn't enough to make me want to play in organized play or a PF only character.

[Urpriest]

They are teams being balnced as a whole. This thread is akin to someone on a SC board complaining that the templar's thunder cracking mojo makes his marine feel not so special.


You read the first post, but not the ones following. The amazing thing about Starcraft isn't that Zerg vs. Protoss vs. Terran is balanced, but that there is more than one strategy that works well enough to be used in competitive play, including for each side.

The problem with D&D 3.5 is that each strategy doesn't work. If your team needs a melee guy, what do you pick? If you pick Cleric, your team will do better than if you pick Fighter. That's not a balance of strategies, that's one strategy being better than the others.

[Blyte]

I am not concerned with the star craft devolution the thread turned into. Nor do I feel that your assessment of 3.5 is relavent in addressing "PF core classes"

I am stating that the scope of "balance" should fall within roles and not across all classes. If you "balance" a wizard and a fighter throughout the life of their careers in a game system, it is no game system I would like to play. I feel it is folley to try and "balance" "all the core classes."

[Eldariel]

I am not concerned with the star craft devolution the thread turned into. Nor do I feel that your assessment of 3.5 is relavent in addressing "PF core classes"

I am stating that the scope of "balance" should fall within roles and not across all classes. If you "balance" a wizard and a fighter throughout the life of their careers in a game system, it is no game system I would like to play. I feel it is folley to try and "balance" "all the core classes."

But it is relevant. You can create game "balance" where both, Cleric and Fighter serve a valuable role in a party without one being better at everything than the other. The fact that Cleric is more or less a better warrior than Fighter is a "bug" in the system, consequence of certain spells and feats.

The fact that Wizard does not really benefit of anyone except the monsters he can produce himself would be another "bug"; a party with level 20 Wizard with 2xWBL is approximately as powerful as a party with level 20 Fighter and level 20 Wizard (and this only if the Fighter gave all his stuff to the Wizard; otherwise the solo Wizard would be more powerful of the two).


In other words, such balance is possible without typifying everything as the same; hence the Starcraft comparison. Starcraft has 3 different races ("classes") that are extremely different (like Wizard, Fighter and Rogue for instance) but perfectly balanced with each other.

They all have an about 50/50 chance of beating each other and there's internal variety in all of them that enables multiple different Terran, Zerg and Protoss strategies (different Fighter, Wizard and Rogue builds) that all have different pros and cons but all are viable, while shining in different scenarios.

Starcraft: Brood War is basically what good D&D should be like; a number of different archetypes that all cover a variety of more detailed options that are all balanced with each other to the point that they all do something others don't do and they can all function together with their unique options. It's also a showcase that such balance is achievable.

[Komatik]

Last I checked (which ... was a while ago), SC2 hadn't yet attained the impeccable degree of Balance that SC1 has had since 2001. There are still pro SC1 players using a wide variety of strategies with all three races. (Terrans do have a slight edge in the highest circles of play, but it's a neglible advantage for non-pro competitive players.)

SC2 has multiple foundational problems, like the way the economy scales, the lack of proper terrain mechanics, and retarded faction design that breaks the fundamental rules of how RTSes work. The faction design problems help exaggerate issues in the overall system. Plus it suffers from clueless developers.

A big part of why Brood War is still viable are healthier foundations - the economy works better, terrain mechanics exist, and no faction is built on fundamentally abusive principles like Warpgates/Forcefield. On top of that years and years of Korean pros spending inordinate amounts of hours training and professionally-made maps combined with a lack of constant kneejerk patching kind of help. In BW you can also just out-execute someone because the game is slower and less explosive than SC2, so control is rewarded more.

People often say Blizzard is good at balancing. It's a myth. They suck at it. BW was a hell of a lot of professional third-party work and a happy coincidence, the rest of the track record is... well, last I heard some Undead players in WarCraft 3 counterpick Orc with Orc.



SC2 WoL has had some balanced win ratios for between races, with certain races winning out by slim percentages last time I checked. It's been a while, though.

The last half a year or so of the game's life consisted of zerg domination in super boring turtlefests because someone at Blizzard got the brilliant idea to up Queen range as an added insult to all the Terran earlygame nerfs. Was good. Not. You couldn't even tell great players apart from the merely good ones anymore.