New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 649
  1. - Top - End - #121
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    @Quertus
    while I don't have unearthed arcana handy; assuming it's the same as the "incantations" section listed in the SRD; it specifically does NOT include a number of standard spells like teleport; and it recommends you not make things like the standard teleport, in addition to being harder in general.
    http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/ma...cantations.htm
    it also notes they may be very hard to find and have risks.

    been a long time since I read 4th ed; but iirc the rituals there specifically included a lot more ordinary utility stuff and were meant to be more reliably available to everyone. the overall rules setup for it (iirc again) was quite different from those incantations in 3rd.
    A neat custom class for 3.5 system
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94616

    A good set of benchmarks for PF/3.5
    https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2...y-the-numbers/

    An alternate craft point system I made for 3.5
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...t-Point-system

  2. - Top - End - #122
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    My point is that Crake is setting up a false dichotomy. There's a finite amount of time, and problems only get solved one way. If the Wizard has abilities that let him solve problems and the Fighter doesn't, the Wizard is going to solve more problems and get more spotlight time than the Fighter.
    I don't know if you purposefully didn't understand my post, or if I wasn't clear enough with it. I was referring to narrative spotlight time, not mechanical spotlight time (which, as an aside, teleport doesn't give anyone spotlight time, it's not impressive after the first couple of times when the novelty wears off, so you're essentially just deleting that mechanical spotlight time from existence). Whether you get from A to B with a survival hunter or a teleporting wizard is irrelevant, because when you get to B, the whole party is there either way, and are all able to enact their narrative power.

    My example about the wizard stealing the spotlight was if the wizard teleported from A to B alone and went ahead and made negotiations with the rival nation or whatever, without the rest of the party, thus denying them any chance at narrative authority and stealing it all for himself. That is what I meant when I said the wizard could teleport off and steal the spotlight for himself.

    Part of my point is that 99% of "mechanical" power that people in the party obtain becomes something the whole party has access to, thus at an individual level, mechanical power becomes largely irrelevant, and what becomes more relevant is coming up with the idea, the plan, aka directing the narrative. The wizard having wall of stone and making a fortress at a mountain pass chokepoint to hold off an invading army is all great, but the narrative credit goes to the one who came up with the idea, and if the idea was the fighter's, then sure, the wizard progressed the narrative, but the fighter directed it.
    Last edited by Crake; 2019-02-10 at 08:14 PM.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Yeah, no. The Fighter doesn't have access to wall of stone. The Wizard does. You can tell, because it is a Wizard ability and not a Fighter ability. The Fighter saying "hey you could use your abilities to do X" is at best deciding how the Wizard uses his spotlight time (which is still not the Fighter's), and at worst an attempt to hijack someone else's character.

    If every problem gets solved by the Wizard using an ability it doesn't matter if sometimes it's the Rogue or the Fighter's player suggesting what ability to use. Their characters are still unimportant and do not get any spotlight time. Because they don't have abilities that put them in the spotlight.

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    Yeah, no. The Fighter doesn't have access to wall of stone. The Wizard does. You can tell, because it is a Wizard ability and not a Fighter ability. The Fighter saying "hey you could use your abilities to do X" is at best deciding how the Wizard uses his spotlight time (which is still not the Fighter's), and at worst an attempt to hijack someone else's character.

    If every problem gets solved by the Wizard using an ability it doesn't matter if sometimes it's the Rogue or the Fighter's player suggesting what ability to use. Their characters are still unimportant and do not get any spotlight time. Because they don't have abilities that put them in the spotlight.
    Then that the reason why this game is so unbalanced Tier 1 class trumps everything.

  5. - Top - End - #125
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    Yeah, no. The Fighter doesn't have access to wall of stone. The Wizard does. You can tell, because it is a Wizard ability and not a Fighter ability. The Fighter saying "hey you could use your abilities to do X" is at best deciding how the Wizard uses his spotlight time (which is still not the Fighter's), and at worst an attempt to hijack someone else's character.

    If every problem gets solved by the Wizard using an ability it doesn't matter if sometimes it's the Rogue or the Fighter's player suggesting what ability to use. Their characters are still unimportant and do not get any spotlight time. Because they don't have abilities that put them in the spotlight.
    The wizard gets mechanical spotlight time for making the fortress, but the narrative spotlight still goes to the one who came up with the idea, no matter how much you deny it. That's pretty much the point of this narrative power side discussion: anyone in the party can have narrative power regardless of mechanical power, and that mechanical power doesn't somehow give anyone any more narrative power, because the ability to direct the narrative is a player ability. If nobody had ever suggested to make a fortress at the mountain pass, then the wizard's ability to cast wall of stone is pretty irrelevant toward the narrative, isn't it.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  6. - Top - End - #126
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    I don't understand why you would want to make those distinctions, especially not the Warblade/Fighter one. There's justification for having NPC classes or monster progressions that are numerically appropriate for their level, but not full characters either in terms of tactical depth or story impact, but those aren't supposed to be equal to PCs at all, so it's sort of irrelevant.

    But the distinction you're making between the Warblade and the Fighter is that one of them is good and the other one is not. That's exactly the distinction you're supposed to make by having one character have more class levels than the other one. And if it's not and you can imagine how a Fighter could be balanced with an equal-level Warblade, your argument is baseless.

    Basically, you still haven't explained why we would want to be able to make equal-level characters at different power levels, just reiterated that you would in fact like to do that. How does simply having the "Fighter" be a Warblade of whatever level people aren't expected to be super human at not do everything you want while also allowing "level" and "CR" to be useful terms that convey meaningful information?
    To be honest, I consider the default Fighter to be an NPC class. It doesn't have enough going on to make it a good PC class, and so I use it as a distinction between characters who have been formally trained to fight (Fighter, often gestalted with other things) and those who have not and who picked up some small measure of skill through surviving their life (straight Warrior levels). So this distinction exists in my setting - there are, so to speak, swordmasters, sword users and sword swingers, who can all be about equally as tough and maybe even have similar out-of-combat skillsets or lack thereof, but the difference in raw combat skill still would be noticeable to an outside observer - this dude just attacks and defends well, this dude just smashes his club around, and this dude just did a triple somersault and beheaded someone with a single blow.

    As only one of the three is now considered a PC class on its' own, there are no conflicts about inter-PC balance. Warblade is better than Fighter, that's how it is. If you're a Fighter PC, you should have a Rogue or Ranger or Paladin gestalt to have other stuff that Warblade doesn't get, otherwise you're pretty redundant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    Yes, that is how a level system works. If you don't like that, you can play something that doesn't use a level system. And that's fine. Not everything wants or needs a level system. But D&D is going to use one, and that means it's going to have the knock-on effects of having one as well.
    Well, 3.5 gives me enough space to not do things like "every fighter of this style is a Fighter and they just differ by character level". If I wanted a single, somewhat consistent power level for all and every class in the game, I would play 5e or just homebrew a bunch of similarly powerful classes and ditch all the default ones. I can have characters of very different combat skill-levels be pretty similar to each other in raw vitality and proficiency in certains skills. Same with casting - you can have a Warmage and a Wizard at the same time, one is probably going to outshine the other, but the option is there.



    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Player > build > class. And character personality is greater than them all in determining how effective a character is. I've seen it numerous times, although, obviously, I prefer talking about one specific example.

    So, should I take your answer to be, "no, nerfing the Wizard class will not help balance in this type of case, where something higher on the food chain than 'build' is the primary determiner of character contribution"?
    Pretty much, yes. All the easily available and powerful options in the world don't matter if you choose not to take them. Thus, the player either needs to be guided to those options (if they don't like being constantly outshone and just don't realize how powerful their class can be), or they can be very well left alone if they're fine with what they have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    The wizard gets mechanical spotlight time for making the fortress, but the narrative spotlight still goes to the one who came up with the idea, no matter how much you deny it. That's pretty much the point of this narrative power side discussion: anyone in the party can have narrative power regardless of mechanical power, and that mechanical power doesn't somehow give anyone any more narrative power, because the ability to direct the narrative is a player ability. If nobody had ever suggested to make a fortress at the mountain pass, then the wizard's ability to cast wall of stone is pretty irrelevant toward the narrative, isn't it.
    Ah, but the wizard has the power to make his narrative idea a reality. The fighter doesn't. Isn't that narrative power? Being able to influence the narrative by yourself?
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).

  7. - Top - End - #127
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    The wizard gets mechanical spotlight time for making the fortress, but the narrative spotlight still goes to the one who came up with the idea, no matter how much you deny it. That's pretty much the point of this narrative power side discussion: anyone in the party can have narrative power regardless of mechanical power, and that mechanical power doesn't somehow give anyone any more narrative power, because the ability to direct the narrative is a player ability. If nobody had ever suggested to make a fortress at the mountain pass, then the wizard's ability to cast wall of stone is pretty irrelevant toward the narrative, isn't it.
    You're confusing player and character narrative power here. Any player can come up with an idea that the entire party implements at a strategic, tactical, diplomatic, or purely utilitarian level, this is not necessarily true of any character. In fact, due to the nature of D&D character statistics a properly built martial character is unlikely to come up with ideas useful to the party because they will not have the raw mental capacity or the necessary skills to do so, and if they do those abilities are in direct tension with the need to optimize their primary combat function.

    To use OOTS for illustrative purposes: Thog is moderately optimized as a barbarian, and his character is completely and totally unable to contribute to any scenario that does not involve dealing HP damage. Roy is massive and deliberately non-optimized as a Fighter (to the point of having cross-class skills in Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering), this allows him to function as a party face, leader, and tactician, but it means he only survives a fight with Thog (and various other entities like Durkula) via the deployment of some fairly powerful narrative fiat (for instance, in the most recent battle Roy somehow avoided getting dominated post-dispel, while Vaarsuvius and Hilgya did not, which implies he rolled a nat 20 multiple times given the disparity in Will saves).

    As a result, maximizing the mechanical power of a D&D Fighter, Barbarian, or Paladin means minimizing their narrative power at the same time (Rangers escape this to a large degree).

    Now, at a lot of tables GMs wisely allow characters to bypass the actual stats on their character sheet and play their characters exactly as smart as the player can think to be (this also happens with Clerics and other Divine casters, who tend to have blatantly average Int scores but high Wisdom). This is generally a good thing, but it is overriding the system design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iginmortis
    To be honest, I consider the default Fighter to be an NPC class. It doesn't have enough going on to make it a good PC class, and so I use it as a distinction between characters who have been formally trained to fight (Fighter, often gestalted with other things) and those who have not and who picked up some small measure of skill through surviving their life (straight Warrior levels). So this distinction exists in my setting - there are, so to speak, swordmasters, sword users and sword swingers, who can all be about equally as tough and maybe even have similar out-of-combat skillsets or lack thereof, but the difference in raw combat skill still would be noticeable to an outside observer - this dude just attacks and defends well, this dude just smashes his club around, and this dude just did a triple somersault and beheaded someone with a single blow.

    As only one of the three is now considered a PC class on its' own, there are no conflicts about inter-PC balance. Warblade is better than Fighter, that's how it is. If you're a Fighter PC, you should have a Rogue or Ranger or Paladin gestalt to have other stuff that Warblade doesn't get, otherwise you're pretty redundant.
    That's certainly an acceptable house rule option, the problem is that this is not what the game says on the tin.

    D&D is a level based game. The whole point of having a level-based system is that levels are a rough measure of functional power and characters, and there are repeated claims in the first party material that this is true. It is not. This is a falsehood, a deception that cuts to the center of the class-and-level structure of modern D&D. Note that in 2e AD&D each class has its own leveling table and levels were not considered to measure equality, total XP value was, and part of the problem with the 3e adjustment was that they failed to properly correct for this.

    The problem is compounded because 'fighter' is the most basic and common fantasy archetype available, and it seems like the logical class for a new player to take. They'll be able to contribute without having to mange complicated subsystems. This is untrue, because without complex management using a specialized build a fighter won't be able to effectively contribute and will in fact struggle to match the output of a Druid's Animal Companion. The actual class a newbie should play is the Warlock - because a player who just uses Eldritch Blast every round will be fine - but that class isn't in the 3.X core and isn't if PF at all.

    Ultimately the problem with the inherent imbalance in D&D isn't that it exists, lot's of games are imbalanced, many of them far worse (cough, Rifts, cough). The problem is that the designers, spread across two different companies, have claimed that is balanced when it's not.
    Last edited by Mechalich; 2019-02-10 at 10:13 PM.
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  8. - Top - End - #128
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    You're confusing player and character narrative power here. Any player can come up with an idea that the entire party implements at a strategic, tactical, diplomatic, or purely utilitarian level, this is not necessarily true of any character. In fact, due to the nature of D&D character statistics a properly built martial character is unlikely to come up with ideas useful to the party because they will not have the raw mental capacity or the necessary skills to do so, and if they do those abilities are in direct tension with the need to optimize their primary combat function.

    To use OOTS for illustrative purposes: Thog is moderately optimized as a barbarian, and his character is completely and totally unable to contribute to any scenario that does not involve dealing HP damage. Roy is massive and deliberately non-optimized as a Fighter (to the point of having cross-class skills in Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering), this allows him to function as a party face, leader, and tactician, but it means he only survives a fight with Thog (and various other entities like Durkula) via the deployment of some fairly powerful narrative fiat (for instance, in the most recent battle Roy somehow avoided getting dominated post-dispel, while Vaarsuvius and Hilgya did not, which implies he rolled a nat 20 multiple times given the disparity in Will saves).

    As a result, maximizing the mechanical power of a D&D Fighter, Barbarian, or Paladin means minimizing their narrative power at the same time (Rangers escape this to a large degree).

    Now, at a lot of tables GMs wisely allow characters to bypass the actual stats on their character sheet and play their characters exactly as smart as the player can think to be (this also happens with Clerics and other Divine casters, who tend to have blatantly average Int scores but high Wisdom). This is generally a good thing, but it is overriding the system design.
    You don't need 30 intelligence to come up with an idea, and likewise, having 30 intelligence doesn't mean you're guaranteed to come up with a great idea. A fighter with 10 int is perfectly plausible in coming up with decent ideas, and yes, the point is that narrative power comes from player ability. There's literally no way for mechanics to actually provide narrative power, because that comes from creativity and decision making, something that the rules can't give you.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  9. - Top - End - #129
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    Ultimately the problem with the inherent imbalance in D&D isn't that it exists, lot's of games are imbalanced, many of them far worse (cough, Rifts, cough). The problem is that the designers, spread across two different companies, have claimed that is balanced when it's not.
    Ah, well, yes. That's why I said upthread that any new group needs someone with 3.5 experience, which is probably the worst part about it. If you've got an experienced player who can just tell everyone that Wizards are usually much better than Fighters, and Warblades (for players who don't mind some more complexity) or Barbarians (for players who just want to kill stuff and take its' things) are also pretty much better than Fighters, then it's also much easier to do things that will be fun for everyone involved.

    And as long as most of D&D's and by extension PF's sacred cows stay alive, the designers will continue to claim that it's balanced and it actually won't be. Neither 5e or PF 2e do enough stuff to actually fix the imbalances. But, well, I would again refer to Snowbluff's Axiom and agree with you, and say that 3.5 was wrong not in actual design, but in presentation.
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    There's literally no way for mechanics to actually provide narrative power, because that comes from creativity and decision making, something that the rules can't give you.
    I don't get that. So if you don't have a Wizard or anyone who can make a fortress quickly, then what good is that idea? How is daydreaming "man, it sure would be cool to have a fortress in this place" narrative power? How are you influencing the narrative by having the idea without having a way to execute that idea? You either have the means to do things you want to do, or you don't. That's narrative power. Ideas are nothing without a way to make them real, and if someone else has to make your ideas real, because you don't have the ability to do so yourself, then it's not your power. You are basically acting as the muse at best.
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).

  11. - Top - End - #131
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ignimortis View Post
    I don't get that. So if you don't have a Wizard or anyone who can make a fortress quickly, then what good is that idea? How is daydreaming "man, it sure would be cool to have a fortress in this place" narrative power? How are you influencing the narrative by having the idea without having a way to execute that idea? You either have the means to do things you want to do, or you don't. That's narrative power. Ideas are nothing without a way to make them real, and if someone else has to make your ideas real, because you don't have the ability to do so yourself, then it's not your power. You are basically acting as the muse at best.
    You work within the constraints of what you have available, obviously coming up with an idea you can't execute is pointless, but using the tools you have available to provide a direction for the narrative isn't something the rules can provide. Sure, maybe you don't have wall of stone, but maybe you have leadership and a whole garrison of workers, or maybe the king trusts you and you can get the local populace to construct the fortress, point is even lois lane can contribute to the narrative next to superman, regardless of the fact that she has no superpowers.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  12. - Top - End - #132
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    You don't need 30 intelligence to come up with an idea, and likewise, having 30 intelligence doesn't mean you're guaranteed to come up with a great idea. A fighter with 10 int is perfectly plausible in coming up with decent ideas, and yes, the point is that narrative power comes from player ability. There's literally no way for mechanics to actually provide narrative power, because that comes from creativity and decision making, something that the rules can't give you.
    The average Fighter with Int 10 has 0 ranks in any knowledge skills. That means they know only 'common knowledge.' They have no understanding of monster abilities they haven't personnaly experienced, they don't know how fortifications work, they do not understand advanced tactics, and because they don't have any ranks in Spot or Listen, they have any situational awareness worth a d*** either. A 3.5 fighter plausibly knows how to climb walls, maintain their weapons and armor, train a dog, look fearsome, making a running leap, ride a horse, and swim. That is the some total of things they know how to do. Everything else requires cross-class skills and if therefore implausible. Yes, this includes a wide range of concepts, such as: recognizing the traits of common non-human opponents (various knowledges), leading small squad combats (diplomacy and gather information), serving as a sentry (Spot and Listen), choosing which loot to carry off a corpse (appraise), launching a surprise attack (move silently), etc. that they don't have the skills to viably do, and don't have the skill points to support doing even if they did. You know who does have most of those skills? The Aristocrat NPC class. The aristocrat is far better at producing a viable quasi-medieval trained soldier than either the fighter or the warrior. Meanwhile a Wizard, or any other Int-based character, has a huge bonus to all Int based skill checks, and has the spare points to take a whole bunch of them. A Wizard with Int of 30 has a nice shiny +10 to any Int-based skill check, meaning they can put 1 rank into any Int-based skill and Take 10 for a 21, which is pretty nice, and there are a lot of Int-based skills.

    Oh, and an optimized Fighter doesn't have Int 10. Int is a Fighter dump stat, and you can very easily play a Fighter or Barbarian with Int 6, all you're losing is some skill points, and that's not much of a loss since you've got no good skills anyway. At Int 6, no, it isn't plausible to come up with good ideas.

    Mechanics absolutely can, and do provide narrative power. At the simplest level the mechanical power to brutally murder all other members of the party at your whim translates into the narrative power to make said party do whatever you want. This isn't very nice and is a gameplay no-no, but it absolutely is power. On the opposite side the power to completely ignore threats that could utterly slaughter other party members also provides narrative power, specifically the power to ignore those threats and move on without wasting time, which is a mechanical power that the GM is forced to adjust the narrative to accordingly or by cheating outright. This is a common issue in superhero games wherein one character often literally cannot be harmed by levels of damage that instantly kill other members of the party. In such a situation the GM is forced to cheat and have certain enemies only attack certain party members or accept that one player will be completely immune to damage for the entirety of the campaign, and if you actually read or watch comics you can see this sort of blatant cheating in action all the time.
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  13. - Top - End - #133
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    @Cosi - I, if not agree with you, at least find most if what you said reasonable and internally consistent. So, unless they come up later, rather than quibble over minor details, I'll just say, "sounds reasonable". But,

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    I don't understand why you would want to do that.

    I don't understand what that's supposed to mean.
    Dang, I lost the context. Back in a minute, senility willing.

    EDIT:

    "To make it easier to balance low-level and high-level players;" - because sometimes I'm in a group with little Timmy.

    "Top five those who enjoy optimization a lower baseline to work from;" - wow, autocorrect. Let me try again:

    "To give those who enjoy optimization a lower baseline to work from;" - some people enjoy the act of optimization. If they optimize a good (or "balanced") character, the result will be too strong for their table. Instead, you let them optimize a suboptimal concept / class / whatever up to the table's balance range, and everyone's happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by upho View Post
    Which was reflected in his prodigal number of starting skill points and a fittingly extremely high Int and Cha scores along with no low ability scores, as well as the unparalleled number of skill points he had amassed in numerous skills in wildly different areas by 7th level?

    So... Would that be maybe max ranks in several Knowledge skills, including more esoteric ones such as planes and arcana, along with max ranks in Spellcraft and I assume Diplomacy, Intimidate, Gather Information, Listen, Search and Spot, plus a few ranks in some basic physical stuff like Climb, Balance and Swim, all of them treated as class skills of course, and many of them further boosted by magic items?
    I would love to see the breakdown of what parts of my stories lead you to conclude each of these.

    Quote Originally Posted by upho View Post


    1. How many of those supposedly more experienced players would you say would've been capable of playing a PC of equivalent narrative power without mechanical support?
    Out of the 14 there? Maybe two, if they cared (neither ever showed any such interest, so I'm just guessing). Three, I imagine, if my brother had been there for that campaign.

    Quote Originally Posted by upho View Post
    2. So which one is correct:
    a) your GM had no grasp of the rules or of the most basic combat tactics,
    b) your GM was intentionally ignoring the actual mechanical power of the so called drow "high-priestess" in order to let Armus kill her,
    c) your GM decided she had a brain aneurysm at that precise moment so she could act impressively stupid in order to let Armus kill her,
    d) Armus was made vastly mechanically superior to any other 1st level PCs in the game,
    e) you're the world's greatest tactical genius when it comes to 3.5 combat (but you're not very good at any similar kind of tabletop combat),
    f) your group actually plays freeform D&D because you all love the settings but hate all the rules,
    g) your GM secretly plays freeform, while you and the other players believe your mechanical abilities and die rolls actually matter
    h) you just dreamed the whole thing and it never happened in an actual game
    False... Octotomy? So, the GM never really explained it, but, from what I've inferred, the closest was "c", except that it was supposed to be part of the plot.

    The Drow were acting very... odd. Honestly, initially, I thought it was more "A", the GM was an idiot. But, the more I looked at it, the more there actually seemed method to it. For example, the Priestess who fled... I don't remember the GM's words, but, to paraphrase, acted like she was a dream, and Armus' actions (unfortunately) started to wake her up. Later, the GM gave several other clues as to what was going on, but afaict, nobody cared. No, not even Armus, who was too busy fighting "Hart's War" to spare time for that detail beyond noting it for future reference in case it was required (it was not).


    EDIT: definitely not "D", in fact the exact opposite (which was part of the point of the character, to be as mechanically weak as I could make him). And where did you get "but you're not very good at any similar kind of tabletop combat"?

    Quote Originally Posted by upho View Post
    OK. While I of course have no problems whatsoever distinguishing between the sources of power (player skill and PC abilities) I still don't see any meaningful difference between "directing the narrative" and "power power". Neither do I see why either source would be inherently more connected to either supposed type of result.

    Absolutely not. It's becoming abundantly clear that both you and Crake are having great difficulties clearly defining what you call "Narrative power" and "power power" and the differences between these concepts when it comes to their impact on the game. And I think I have a pretty good idea of why, because there simply is no functional or qualitative difference between the two in the way you claim. Instead, you're confusing what you at best describe as some kind of highly arbitrary relative amounts of power ("narrative" being greater than "power") with sources of power, and it appears you fail to understand that any kind of effect a PC has on the game, regardless of source, is per definition having an impact on the "narrative" (and therefore also has "narrative power" in this context).
    ... What? That sounds just about backwards from what I'm saying. Much like your conclusions previously sounded almost backwards from my understanding. This sounds fun!*

    So, Armus got a PC to hand over a treasured artifact. He utilized his amazing "paid attention when PCs talked about themselves" skills to utilize backstory details to seal the deal.

    To my understanding of the terms,

    * This was narrative power, because Armus shaped the course of events (artifact changed hands).

    * This was not "power" power, because what button did I push / what statistic on Armus' sheet did I use to choose and utilize this particular tactic?

    So, to try to turn that into definitions (not my strong suit, so this may take a few attempts),

    * Narrative power is the ability to shape the flow of events, through the actions and choices of the character.

    * "Power" power is the statistical attributes of the character.

    -----

    * I base this on my experience learning about databases (which I love), but my initial impression was that they talk backwards. Seriously, people have shirts, and shirts have buttons. But ask a database, and buttons have shirts, and shirts have people.

    Quote Originally Posted by upho View Post
    I mean, the source of the power (or lack thereof) being completely irrelevant for the power's actual effects on the game was kinda my point, yeah.

    Again, the only kind of power you have been discussing is just plain power, nothing more and nothing less, regardless of source and regardless of amount.

    Now this is not to say there's no such thing as qualitative differences between types of power, and simply by comparing say the spells teleportation and fireball tells us this is clearly the case. But that's a different discussion you're obviously not having.

    Really, what does this actually have to do with the balance of the game itself? You know, that thing which isn't tied to specific "player skill" or "subject to GM whim"?
    So, just to be clear, my sentient potted plant, who viewed "mobility" and "ability to push buttons" as super powers far beyond his ken, to your mind has "power power" when he remembers where we parked?

    And, when that's his important contribution to the party escaping, you would say that he is "more powerful than Thor", who did not remember where we parked, and thus did not contribute to that scene (beyond, of course, carrying my poor plant)?

    Are you really contending that the potted plant is more powerful than Thor by your definition of "power"?

    If so, please define "power".

    Quote Originally Posted by zlefin View Post
    @Quertus
    while I don't have unearthed arcana handy; assuming it's the same as the "incantations" section listed in the SRD; it specifically does NOT include a number of standard spells like teleport; and it recommends you not make things like the standard teleport, in addition to being harder in general.
    http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/ma...cantations.htm
    it also notes they may be very hard to find and have risks.

    been a long time since I read 4th ed; but iirc the rituals there specifically included a lot more ordinary utility stuff and were meant to be more reliably available to everyone. the overall rules setup for it (iirc again) was quite different from those incantations in 3rd.
    AFB. That's... probably the one? Although I thought Plane Shift was explicitly one of the example rituals (or whatever they were called).

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    Yeah, no. The Fighter doesn't have access to wall of stone. The Wizard does. You can tell, because it is a Wizard ability and not a Fighter ability. The Fighter saying "hey you could use your abilities to do X" is at best deciding how the Wizard uses his spotlight time (which is still not the Fighter's), and at worst an attempt to hijack someone else's character.

    If every problem gets solved by the Wizard using an ability it doesn't matter if sometimes it's the Rogue or the Fighter's player suggesting what ability to use. Their characters are still unimportant and do not get any spotlight time. Because they don't have abilities that put them in the spotlight.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    The wizard gets mechanical spotlight time for making the fortress, but the narrative spotlight still goes to the one who came up with the idea, no matter how much you deny it. That's pretty much the point of this narrative power side discussion: anyone in the party can have narrative power regardless of mechanical power, and that mechanical power doesn't somehow give anyone any more narrative power, because the ability to direct the narrative is a player ability. If nobody had ever suggested to make a fortress at the mountain pass, then the wizard's ability to cast wall of stone is pretty irrelevant toward the narrative, isn't it.
    So, I kinda agree with both of you, I guess?

    The Wizard's power makes "make a fortress" an option - or, at least, a viable one in a short timeframe. Enough stonemasons with enough time could do the same thing.

    The Wizard's power directs creativity towards utilizing that power, warping the narrative to favor certain solutions.

    The Fighter can absolutely have the spotlight during the planning phase, saying "this would be so much easier with battlements, say Wizard can your wall spell do that", and planning out the exact optimal defenses. Unless the Wizard is a ****, that's narrative power for the Fighter.

    When it comes time to implement this strategy, yes, the Wizard probably has (or maybe shares) the spotlight then. But that's probably not narrative power (unless, again, the Wizard is a ****).

    So, it depends a bit on what you see, what you care about, and where the focus the game is, as to who you think gets the spotlight here.

    It sounds like if Crake came up with the plans, and Cosi implemented them, then they'd both be happy in a game, feeling that they contributed.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2019-02-10 at 11:50 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #134
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    You work within the constraints of what you have available, obviously coming up with an idea you can't execute is pointless, but using the tools you have available to provide a direction for the narrative isn't something the rules can provide. Sure, maybe you don't have wall of stone, but maybe you have leadership and a whole garrison of workers, or maybe the king trusts you and you can get the local populace to construct the fortress, point is even lois lane can contribute to the narrative next to superman, regardless of the fact that she has no superpowers.
    But that's the point. Wizards only need to have a spell available. That's entirely under their control. Thus, their narrative power is high on their own, because it's easy to get a spell as a wizard, if your DM is not acting specifically against that, and even if he is, you can still build in a way that lets you have tons of spells. As a Fighter, you can't have those resources by yourself, and you not having them is not the DM acting against you having them, it's the DM not acting to give them to you.

    So in essence, a Wizard can be self-sufficient in regards to having influence on the plot. A Fighter has to rely on lots of external things that might or might not be there for him to use. So Fighter, as a class, has little to no narrative power. Any one single Fighter might have it, but not the class itself.
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).

  15. - Top - End - #135
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    upho's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    ----- example 1 -----

    The party sends a raven to the demon slayer, who teleports in to save the town.
    And why do you assume a raven would be able to fly the equivalent of a two week muggle traveling distance in time for the demon hunter to arrive in time to save the village? And why do you believe the demon hunter cleric has immediate access to teleport? Even if the party did have some means to alert the cleric within seconds, I'd say that last bit unfortunately still makes this plan highly unlikely to succeed, to say the least.

    Still won't work? The party walks for several months to the high level Wizard's home, explains the situation to him. He uses Teleport Through Time to arrive at the demon slayer's home in time to save the town. Let alone if the party builds a TARDIS themselves.
    They know a 17+ level Wizard now? Who's able and willing to cast teleport through time? OK. But if this had been the case, it seems unlikely the demon hunter cleric, not to mention the likely 10-ish level party itself, would be needed to deal with the demon.

    Or even "the party was smart and informed, knew that a demon was likely, and already had the demon hunter in the area beforehand".
    Sure. Except the party most likely weren't that smart considering their failure. Which means they'd likely need an ability to jump back in time after failing to stop the demon from appearing in the first place. And honestly, I don't think many parties able to teleport will assume a few crazy demon cultists are going to present much of a problem, at least not long before their failure actually stares them in the face. And even if we assume they actually were that smart, your suggestion also assumes they knew of the demon threat already at the time when they last met the demon hunter, which may very well have been months if not years ago. Honestly, this seems pretty far fetched to me.

    The narrative power here is the ability to convince the demon slayer moreso than one particular technique of getting him to town on time.
    Why do you think so? We are talking about a demon hunter cleric here, which I had hoped would convey the whole "holy champion fanatically dedicated to hunting down and ending demons" shtick. Meaning you likely don't need to do much convincing if you pop up at his temple covered in blood and gore and obviously horrified, stammering about a big badass demon about to eat a village and pleading for his help...

    Or even, "the party convinces the town that it is hopeless, they are lost, and convinces them to mass-suicide before the demon gets there." Bonus points if the party uses the mass suicide to fuel a ritual.

    Because, of course, this is D&D, and nobody ever flees.
    If I ever find myself in a similar situation as a PC again, this is gonna be my suggestion. What? Shift to Evil alignment you say? Of course, that would be whole intent I say. Because EVILTM is simply far more METAL, and fantasy and metal is obviously a thing... A thing one can expect any half-way decent GM would reward you for having achieved purely through the highest quality of realistic and dramatic RP-driven in-game character growth.

    Spoiler: How It Actually Happened
    Show
    This did actually happen in a real game about 15 years ago, and it's a rather embarrassing memory and the cause of quite a few internal jokes/sayings still used by the people who were in that group. The greatest reason for this is of course that our party failed to stop the cultist from calling the demon in the first place, and they did so purely because they were uncharacteristically sloppy and high on their own awesomeness from their latest major victory, while also vastly underestimating the many potential difficulties of the whole thing.

    So the GM as well as the players were already pretty convinced a major disaster was unavoidable, when our cleric sadly concludes that we're now gonna need the help of someone like his veteran demon hunter colleague to stop the demon, and that it'll likely take weeks for him simply to get here. But then the sorcerer and rogue (me) realize we probably have a scroll of teleport somehow forgotten for something like 7 levels, and the sorcerer still has a single 5th-level slot left. So after some frantic digging around in our bags of holding (the GM watching in disbelief as the players go through year-old notes)... Bingo!

    In short, the whole thing was pretty much pure fluke. But without those two teleports, I can't see how we would've been able to save many villagers from having bodies and souls horribly tortured and literally eaten.

    So kids, don't even think about going out the door without a party "fail-pop" once you're past 9th level!


    ----- example 2 -----

    ----- note -----

    Note that, in both examples, I've called you out on your in media res epimethian parties, with examples of "here's stuff the party could have done before now to have affected the narrative at this point".
    This is frankly pure BS. Yes, I realize I left out quite a bit of important info in my description of especially this second example (I'll bring it back if/when I have the time to add to it) as I foolishly didn't foresee this kind of analysis, which I apologize for. But seriously, you really need to stop jumping to conclusions!

    Note that I never said that saving the royal family was ever being presented as any kind of real possible means to affect the narrative, let alone a goal the party would somehow be expected to achieve, nor that the party starts inside the keep. Likewise, I never said that stopping the demon from munching villagers was ever being presented or considered as any kind of actually realistic goal. Because my point was simply that poofaporting enables you to do stuff far outside the earlier level boundaries of the game, and thus also typically gives creative players/PCs a major boost of narrative power. So yes, it's pretty much impossible to achieve a positive impact even remotely close to those described if the party cannot poofaport, and that is precisely the very reason why the spell is so powerful.

    And of course, had any of these examples actually been presented in a real game as realistic goals, then you would've been correct, or at least less wrong, to call the GM an incompetent fool.

    Narrative power is primarily player choices, and player skill.
    And the power of the PC's mechanical abilities. Saying otherwise is simply saying all those abilities don't mean jack and don't matter more than the color of your d20.

    There are, however, things that a GM can do to remove narrative power, like demanding that no solution but the McGuffin will possibly work. I've played under several GMs like that, one of whom nearly ruined one of my favorite characters (a character who I don't talk about much, in part because he's not D&D).
    This is just sad. I just cannot understand how some people simply cannot keep their (hopefully) worst sides from dictating their games and ruining the fun for those involved. In my world, TTRPGs are first and foremost played together with friends, or at least people you have good reason to believe will become your friends.

    And this makes it significantly easier for me to understand your reactions to my examples. You have my sympathy.

    Makes me wonder how many characters who didn't have his stable background of good times under other GMs I may have considered "unfun" simply because of the GM.
    Well, as you already know you're unfortunately far from alone. I've read so many posts on this forum alone where people have problems I most likely thankfully won't ever encounter. And yeah, more or less terrible GMs are perhaps the most common complaint. And I've realized I've been - and still am - extremely spoiled when it comes to both players and GMs.

    I'm all about this. Only, the player shouldn't have to be told. That's a lack of player skill right there. I made my "tactically inept more powerful than the gods" character, who is slightly underwhelming, and my "well-trained Commoner (with items)", who is a bit OP at times, without being told that I need to balance narrative power. I didn't need to be told not to make a "more powerful than the gods tactical genius", or a "tactically inept Commoner"
    Agreed. But then I hope you also realize that it's both unfair and frankly mean to demand players to counter balance issues by playing brilliant or inept characters, especially in a game like 3.5 where simply realizing whether you ought to do one or the other requires quite a bit of system mastery.

    (although I did make a sentient potted plant, as my ultimate demonstration that fun and balance are not inherently related).
    Sorry, but are you actually saying your "ultimate demonstration" is that surprising to most people? If so, that is weird, indeed.

    But I do also really think you should be a lot more careful in making sweeping assumptions about the game in general, or about the preferences of those who play it, based on your own "demonstrations". Your potted plant PC doesn't say anything about the game at all beside the fact that you can play as a potted plant. It does however say things about you and your games specifically. So merely using that term - "demonstration" - is not only grossly misleading, but more importantly risks invalidating any of your associated points, even those that are actually good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Citation, please.

    How would a spell have allowed Armus to control the flow of a "diplomatic" meeting, and establish himself as the party leader?
    Diplomacy check and/or most likely some application of a high Bluff, Sense Motive and/or Intimidate check result, (mass) charm person, dominate person, detect thoughts, certain bardic performances, several illusion spells, do I really need to go on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    How would a spell have allowed Armus to negotiate a PC agreeing to part with an artifact?
    Diplomacy check and/or most likely some application of a high Bluff, Sense Motive and/or Intimidate check result, charm person, detect thoughts, suggestion and several divination spells. Now I'll grant you that since this is very much an intra-party "challenge", it's already by default largely limited to RP rather than mechanics (and many of my suggestions may not be very nice and especially the use of Diplomacy between PCs is iffy also per RAW, to say the least). And while my group would most likely have a similar kind of IC discussion if facing a similar problem, it's worth keeping in mind that there seem to be plenty of groups which would either never even consider the idea that a PC maybe should give their inherited staff to another. Not to mention plenty of groups who would simply agree giving the staffs to the noobs would be optimal in less than 30 seconds OoC before the session has even started.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    How would a spell have gotten party members to unknown alternate prime material worlds?
    Not really valid, consider this was based on GM fiat from pretty much start to end. Nevertheless, in a game where this unique kind of spell exists, there are plenty of mechanical tools which ought to have given Armus plenty of actually reliable info saving him and his party a lot of time. The most obvious being Spellcraft, Know Arcana and/or Planes checks, plus any abilities boosting those checks, of course. But also something as simple as one single casting of a suitable divination spell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    It was a gamble, subject to GM whim.
    And that's the far most important detail, and unfortunately it invalidates the entire purpose of mentioning this example in this context. There's simply very little in there to help us determine whether the game's imbalance causes serious problems and/or grants significant benefits.
    Last edited by upho; 2019-02-11 at 02:09 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post

    Oh, and an optimized Fighter doesn't have Int 10. Int is a Fighter dump stat, and you can very easily play a Fighter or Barbarian with Int 6, all you're losing is some skill points, and that's not much of a loss since you've got no good skills anyway. At Int 6, no, it isn't plausible to come up with good ideas.
    A lot of fighters have a 13 Int due to feat req. Some even take knowledge skills.

  17. - Top - End - #137
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    The whole idea of the Fighter getting by with clever ideas and strategizing with the capabilities of their party members completely fail to account for the fact that it's both possible for the other players to have this kind of cleverness (you ought to be really skillful to succeed as a Level 1 Wizard after all) and that it's possible for the ingenious Fighter to also be playing a Cleric or Druid instead. It's also not really an argument for balance if the Fighter has to put in extra work to be relevant which the caster class trio is right out of the box (And some more of the casters also).

  18. - Top - End - #138
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tula, Russia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by upho View Post
    Two very simple examples:
    1. The party failed to stop the evil cultists from summoning a big badass demon, and know they won't be able to stop it from gobbing down the entire population of the nearby village within an hour. The wizard instantly gets the high level demon-hunter cleric and her apprentice from their temple two weeks of normal traveling distance away, and suddenly the party has a decent chance of stopping the demon.
    2. The friendly king's castle is under siege by an army of thousands of orcs, and they've breached the walls and will most likely break into the keep and slaughter the royal family in minutes. The wizard instantly teleports the entire royal family and their most valuable possessions to an allied queen's palace in a neighboring kingdom, taking the opportunity to impress on the queen the importance of her immediately rallying her army to help fight against the orcs.

    Can somebody please explain to me how the teleports in either example does not translate into increased narrative power, and give some examples of other things that do translate into increased narrative power?
    Or wizard may mishap the teleport, FUBARing the quest and dying ingloriously as a result
    Teleport is a Russian roulette - you may hope to arrive safely, but you can't ensure it
    Meanwhile, humble Expert may get the job done via several successful skill checks (which are way easier to ensure for a dedicated character)


    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    However, if you take the setting issues seriously, then widespread teleportation becomes a requirement for adventuring and a party without access to teleportation is going to face huge barriers interacting with the world.
    Note - there is such things as adventuring in the Underdark. How would you teleporting there?
    And it's just the most glaring example - there are pretty much other instances when teleportation is impossible, or impeded - such as within 700 miles from the Spire in Outlands, or in the area under the Black Labyrinth effect...

  19. - Top - End - #139
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    @Quertus
    they don't have a general planeshift in there (and iirc there shouldn't be a generalized planeshift ritual)
    what they do have is a highly specific planeshift which shifts you to a specific location on a specific plane. so if you want to go anywhere else you'd need to find a different ritual.
    A neat custom class for 3.5 system
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94616

    A good set of benchmarks for PF/3.5
    https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2...y-the-numbers/

    An alternate craft point system I made for 3.5
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...t-Point-system

  20. - Top - End - #140
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by MeimuHakurei View Post
    The whole idea of the Fighter getting by with clever ideas and strategizing with the capabilities of their party members completely fail to account for the fact that it's both possible for the other players to have this kind of cleverness (you ought to be really skillful to succeed as a Level 1 Wizard after all)
    Actually, it's not failing to take that into account. That is infact the whole point. All players have equal capability for narrative direction, despite their potential mechanical ineptitude.

    Quote Originally Posted by MeimuHakurei View Post
    and that it's possible for the ingenious Fighter to also be playing a Cleric or Druid instead. It's also not really an argument for balance if the Fighter has to put in extra work to be relevant which the caster class trio is right out of the box (And some more of the casters also).
    The talk of narrative power isn't an argument claiming that it makes the game balanced, what it is arguing is that despite the imbalance, all players have the capability to shine, regardless, by making narrative choices.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  21. - Top - End - #141
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DeTess's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Maybe it'd be a good idea to actually define 'narrative power', before everyone starts discussing it? Some people seem to use a definition where narrative power is 'the ability to make decisions and come up with plans', while other use 'the ability to personally change the narrative', and I think this results in a lot of discussion and people talking past eachother. For example, if using the first definition, a fighter coming up with the fortress idea has a lot of narrative power, while in the second case the fighter would have none, because he needs the wizard to actually affect the change to the story.
    Jasnah avatar by Zea Mays

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Randuir View Post
    Maybe it'd be a good idea to actually define 'narrative power', before everyone starts discussing it? Some people seem to use a definition where narrative power is 'the ability to make decisions and come up with plans', while other use 'the ability to personally change the narrative', and I think this results in a lot of discussion and people talking past eachother. For example, if using the first definition, a fighter coming up with the fortress idea has a lot of narrative power, while in the second case the fighter would have none, because he needs the wizard to actually affect the change to the story.
    Eh, by either definition the Fighter is deciding jack-all. He's offering a proposal the wizard may or may not act on. The wizard is the one actually deciding things. He could just as easily say something along the lines of: "Nah I've a much more effective thing to do here." or: "Eh, I didn't prepare wall of stone this morning. I could evacuate some people." Or even: "Didn't bother with conjuration today, you, you, and you are now cryohydras."

    Decision ultimately always falls to the person DOING.
    Most people see a half orc and and think barbarian warrior. Me on the other hand? I think secondary trap handler and magic item tester. Also I'm not allowed to trick the next level one wizard into starting a fist fight with a house cat no matter how annoying he is.
    Yes I know it's sarcasm. It's a joke. Pale green is for snarking
    Thread wins: 2

  23. - Top - End - #143
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by upho View Post
    1) call the GM an incompetent fool.

    2) Agreed. But then I hope you also realize that it's both unfair and frankly mean to demand players to counter balance issues by playing brilliant or inept characters, especially in a game like 3.5 where simply realizing whether you ought to do one or the other requires quite a bit of system mastery.

    3) But I do also really think you should be a lot more careful in making sweeping assumptions about the game in general, or about the preferences of those who play it, based on your own "demonstrations". Your potted plant PC doesn't say anything about the game at all beside the fact that you can play as a potted plant. It does however say things about you and your games specifically. So merely using that term - "demonstration" - is not only grossly misleading, but more importantly risks invalidating any of your associated points, even those that are actually good.

    4) Sorry, but are you actually saying your "ultimate demonstration" is that surprising to most people? If so, that is weird, indeed.

    5) Diplomacy check and/or most likely some application of a high Bluff, Sense Motive and/or Intimidate check result, (mass) charm person, dominate person, detect thoughts, certain bardic performances, several illusion spells, do I really need to go on?

    Diplomacy check and/or most likely some application of a high Bluff, Sense Motive and/or Intimidate check result, charm person, detect thoughts, suggestion and several divination spells. Now I'll grant you that since this is very much an intra-party "challenge", it's already by default largely limited to RP rather than mechanics (and many of my suggestions may not be very nice and especially the use of Diplomacy between PCs is iffy also per RAW, to say the least). And while my group would most likely have a similar kind of IC discussion if facing a similar problem,

    5b) it's worth keeping in mind that there seem to be plenty of groups which would either never even consider the idea that a PC maybe should give their inherited staff to another. Not to mention plenty of groups who would simply agree giving the staffs to the noobs would be optimal in less than 30 seconds OoC before the session has even started.

    6) Not really valid, consider this was based on GM fiat from pretty much start to end.

    6) And that's the far most important detail, and unfortunately it invalidates the entire purpose of mentioning this example in this context. There's simply very little in there to help us determine whether the game's imbalance causes serious problems and/or grants significant benefits.
    Numbered for convenience (and, yes, there are two #6)

    1) that's not what I was doing.

    2) sigh. "GM grog think game no work right, krag do to much. Grog pull out nerf bat on krag" doesn't seem to require much brainpower or understanding of the game. Neither does toning down your character when you realize that you're OP by sharing the spotlight or whatever. Quertus and Armus just represent engineered balance (OK, Quertus was purely accidental, he was engineered psychology that happened to be fun and balanced), demonstrating that it is possible - yes, with system mastery and knowledge of the group - to engineer such things without requiring epimethian fixes.

    3) ? So, how is "demonstration" the wrong word?

    4) well, much like I never met a 2e group that didn't try to "correct" me when I ran Amalak, and said that my AC was 11 (which was worse than 10), it sure seems to surprise many people that balance and fun are not synonyms.

    5) well, an awful lot if that isn't spells, doesn't work on PCs, and/or will have bad consequences down the road. About the only one that would have helped at any of my tables was Detect Thoughts, and it wouldn't have had the desired effect for either scene at this particular table.

    Oh, wait, you notice Detect Thoughts in 3e. Never mind. They all would have been worse than what Armus did. So I reject your examples that spells could have done it "better".

    5b) absolutely. This was quite the gamble, and wouldn't have worked (or wouldn't have been necessary) at many tables. Which transitions into #6 nicely.

    6) Narrative power isn't Magic Missile, it isn't "push button, get effect", it isn't science. It's swinging a sword, it's hoping things work as intended, it's art.

    Narrative power is inherently subject to GM (or other player) whim. That doesn't invalidate it, that's the point.

    I choose not to slaughter all the goblin children. I don't know what effect that will have. But that's narrative power, at least under a good GM.

    The GM who absolutely required the McGuffin and who nearly ruined one of my favorite characters? He believed in the "law of unintended consequences" (which is fine), but did not believe in the "law of intended consequences". So much so that I listed it as a "major accomplishment" when one of my character's actions actually had the intended* effect. He was not amused.

    * Which only worked because that didn't look like what he intended to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Actually, it's not failing to take that into account. That is infact the whole point. All players have equal capability for narrative direction, despite their potential mechanical ineptitude.

    The talk of narrative power isn't an argument claiming that it makes the game balanced, what it is arguing is that despite the imbalance, all players have the capability to shine, regardless, by making narrative choices.
    +1 this.

    I'd just add that, if you know the group, and have the skills, you can build your own character to balance your mechanical and narrative contribution - and maybe even encourage the group to do likewise.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2019-02-11 at 11:17 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tula, Russia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by ryu View Post
    Eh, by either definition the Fighter is deciding jack-all.
    Unfortunately, I'm unable to find it for quoting, but I remember vividly as some OP tell about how one player "overshadowing their whole party"
    Herewith, the OP played as a Wizard, and the "gamebreaker" - as a single-class Fighter...

  25. - Top - End - #145
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by ShurikVch View Post
    Unfortunately, I'm unable to find it for quoting, but I remember vividly as some OP tell about how one player "overshadowing their whole party"
    Herewith, the OP played as a Wizard, and the "gamebreaker" - as a single-class Fighter...
    You mean, someone other than me?

    Although, really, the party Monk outshines us all.

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by ShurikVch View Post
    Unfortunately, I'm unable to find it for quoting, but I remember vividly as some OP tell about how one player "overshadowing their whole party"
    Herewith, the OP played as a Wizard, and the "gamebreaker" - as a single-class Fighter...
    We are talking about what making decisions means when a fighter presents a plan for the party wizard to implement. I made a point of stating that decision is at the point of DOING on the grounds that a proposal means nothing compared to spells available. Especially when the fighter doesn't even necessarily know what spells the wizard has available, doubly so if this is to be an in the day problem. Even if not the wizard may not have even taken wall of stone yet, or even inexplicably banned conjuration.
    Most people see a half orc and and think barbarian warrior. Me on the other hand? I think secondary trap handler and magic item tester. Also I'm not allowed to trick the next level one wizard into starting a fist fight with a house cat no matter how annoying he is.
    Yes I know it's sarcasm. It's a joke. Pale green is for snarking
    Thread wins: 2

  27. - Top - End - #147
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by ShurikVch View Post
    Unfortunately, I'm unable to find it for quoting, but I remember vividly as some OP tell about how one player "overshadowing their whole party"
    Herewith, the OP played as a Wizard, and the "gamebreaker" - as a single-class Fighter...
    If you basically never use the Wizard abilities at any point and the game's challenges are something a decent party 5 levels lower could handle well, yes, the Fighter can feel like a game breaker. Especially if there's never any swarms, fliers, incorporeals, floating castles, underwater ruins, teleporting outsiders, enchantment spells, ability drain, undefined locations, stealth missions, intrigues, negotiations, harsh climates etc. in the entire campaign.

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by ryu View Post
    We are talking about what making decisions means when a fighter presents a plan for the party wizard to implement. I made a point of stating that decision is at the point of DOING on the grounds that a proposal means nothing compared to spells available. Especially when the fighter doesn't even necessarily know what spells the wizard has available, doubly so if this is to be an in the day problem. Even if not the wizard may not have even taken wall of stone yet, or even inexplicably banned conjuration.
    The fact that some schools are so clearly better that banning them is unwise, while others are more disposable, are just another form of imbalance that'll crop up even if you stick to the same "tier" of gameplay. Just like the imbalance between weapons and fighting styles will rear its head even if you stick to fighters, rogues and other Muggles.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by ryu View Post
    Eh, by either definition the Fighter is deciding jack-all. He's offering a proposal the wizard may or may not act on. The wizard is the one actually deciding things. He could just as easily say something along the lines of: "Nah I've a much more effective thing to do here." or: "Eh, I didn't prepare wall of stone this morning. I could evacuate some people." Or even: "Didn't bother with conjuration today, you, you, and you are now cryohydras."

    Decision ultimately always falls to the person DOING.
    Quote Originally Posted by ryu View Post
    We are talking about what making decisions means when a fighter presents a plan for the party wizard to implement. I made a point of stating that decision is at the point of DOING on the grounds that a proposal means nothing compared to spells available. Especially when the fighter doesn't even necessarily know what spells the wizard has available, doubly so if this is to be an in the day problem. Even if not the wizard may not have even taken wall of stone yet, or even inexplicably banned conjuration.
    1) you realize that, by your definitions, the boss isn't deciding anything, it's only the employees "doing" that are making decisions. Is that really what you believe?

    2) "hey, Wizard whom I've seen create walls of stone out of thin air..."

    3) "... how long would it take you to build X?"

    4) ”Three days? OK guys, we just need to hold the pass for 3 days. Let's make a plan for that."

    5) note that I did include a clause about the Wizard being a ****, and not playing ball.

    So, for example, the player who is just there to hang out with friends, who doesn't care about or put one moment's thought into the game, is playing the Wizard. Do you really see them getting any spotlight time out of the Fighter planning siege fortifications, and them just saying, "sure, I do that."?
    Last edited by Quertus; 2019-02-11 at 11:36 AM.

  30. - Top - End - #150
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    The fact that some schools are so clearly better that banning them is unwise, while others are more disposable, are just another form of imbalance that'll crop up even if you stick to the same "tier" of gameplay. Just like the imbalance between weapons and fighting styles will rear its head even if you stick to fighters, rogues and other Muggles.
    While various schools are better or worse, banning isn't mandatory by any means and there is no combination of bans short of literally prestiging to ban more schools that will make a wizard incapable of contributing to a tier one party. Lose conjuration, transmutation, and illusion? The remaining schools are still going to be better WITH SPELLS SELECTED RANDOMLY than a fighter. With spells selected with purpose easily better than most tier 3s and possibly a few tier 2s.

    Meanwhile the boss in an employer employee relationship has a position of power because the worker has agreed to do what he says in exchange for money. Money itself is a form of power.

    The fighter has offered the wizard no compensation and is entitled to no control whatsoever of his actions save the general agreement that he travels with the group and works toward its aims. He has his own character to micromanage. If I'm to solve a problem entirely on my own merits I'll damn well pick whatever solution I like.
    Most people see a half orc and and think barbarian warrior. Me on the other hand? I think secondary trap handler and magic item tester. Also I'm not allowed to trick the next level one wizard into starting a fist fight with a house cat no matter how annoying he is.
    Yes I know it's sarcasm. It's a joke. Pale green is for snarking
    Thread wins: 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •