Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Aryxbez]

I suppose he's saying, that as we know, CR isn't a solid representative of showing a monster's power, as doesn't it breakdown at the higher levels? Or rather, is it moreso it has a good few cases where it breaks down, like specific monsters, supplements, or dragons? Also that, as the game gets more supplements, be they more MM"s, stuff like Fiend Folio and like, Designers start to understand the game better, and likely end up making stronger monsters for the CR they've made them for. Quite possible the reverse is true, with their MM IV and V's, but I can't really say for sure myself.

Also yes, it's better to compare how well classes function in encounters, than strictly fighting another class. Even if can make an NPC that has class levels like another PC, they don't have as vast resources as they should (their wealth they get is less as I recall). Though it's a given the Same Game Test admits to Wizards breaking this model, doesn't mean it's not useful for the classes that aren't the Game Test Breakers. Far as I'm aware, so long as the Summoner is within "Rogue level" it's pretty much fine isn't it?

What part of 'while still important, are so mutable both within individual tables and the evolution of the metagame as a whole that they cannot function as the gold standard for determining 'is this class shit or not' is confusing you?

Albeit not directed at me, unless meant in snark, that statement itself I find rather difficult to follow. Although this entire conversation has been sounding a little muddled to me, so eh.

[Parthenon]

So here's what I'm understanding from Lago:

[*]Everyone does the Same Game test as a series of pass/fails which makes it worthless, even though people actually do look at how easily they curbstomp the challenges. Lago knows how you play your games and how you think, and if you disagree you are confused.

[*]The Same Game test is worthless because there is a perfect way of comparing classes quickly and easily, but unfortunately there isn't quite enough space in the margin for FermatLago to write it out.

[*]It's perfectly reasonable to clarify your opinion about your preference between two options by answering "Yes". It is also perfectly reasonable to always have a large unspoken disclaimer of "If everything changes in a specific way I haven't stated yet then...".

[OgreBattle]

Synthesist Archetype is basically that. You don't get time stop but whatevs. You still get to be a better fighty guy than most fighty guys.

balanced compared to what class though?

[Wrathzog]

balanced compared to what class though?

SHRUG

[Mask_De_H]

Well, if the Summoner does do well against level-appropriate encounters, then I still think it's useless comparing against a summoning wizard. Unless your DM throws you up against lots of wizards, who cares?

That's 4E D&D logic.

Are you on crack? That's not even a fucking response.

The Summoner gets pseudo-extended level appropriate Summon Monster as a standard action (Sp) as their other level 1 class feature of note. In 6 levels they get a Greatest Hits of Wizard spells and silly-early Haste. They have a pocket Barbarian that makes actual fighting mens cry or they can merely have a UMD monkey and choke the battlefield with level appropriate summons as a Master Summoner. They don't get the versatility of a Wizard, but when it comes to summoning, they can hang.

Get the dick out of your mouth and start arguing on solid principles before you go out like shadzar or PR. Because lord knows you haven't made sense for months and you're getting as annoying.

[MGuy]

I think he's saying that a wizard can do way more than just handle level appropriate challenges and he thinks that summoning stuff doesn't do enough in the "not handling challenges" part of the game I... guess. You know what, strike that from the record I don't know what he's saying.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The fact that CRs are not as mutable as classes and declaring something that solidly meets the SGT through its life as a failure shows a greater importance being placed on the mutable goalpost of "the most powerful".

So fucking what if classes change over the course of the edition more easily than monsters and what CRs mean -- even though that's strictly not the case for 3E D&D nor 4E D&D. It just means you have to do another analysis again.

My disagreement is the philosophy behind all of this rather than specific case of the summoner's balance. Personally, I'd like to test the Summoner some time to see where it actually falls; rather than a vague declaration by looking at someone's character sheet.

Hey, that's perfectly fine. And even recommended. Personally, I think that the Pathfinder cleric archer is a smidgeon more powerful than the 3E D&D counterpart given a similar sourcebook density (including divine metamagic cheese) and the blaster cleric is a lot more powerful. I don't have any hard evidence, though I'm going to get to play one in a campaign starting at 10th level pretty soon.

I still don't see how this is truly different than Roy's logic.

Example: Newtonian physics are less correct than relativity. But that doesn't make the classical equations worthless. Newtonian physics explained the orbits of the planets in the Solar System reasonably well for 300+ years. But since we actually have the Einsteinian equations and transformations, there's no need to keep using them.

So Lago I know that you're a 4urry, but bear with me for a second.

Uh, fuck you. Where the fuck did that stupid ad hominem come from?

I have played a, ran, and bought a lot of 4E D&D product. I've also written quite a lot about it. But that doesn't make me a 4E fanboy anymore than it makes Frank a CGL fanboy.

I mean, shit, this whole thread exploded when I implied that 4E balance paradigms wreck the game. How could and why would any 4Erry say something like that? Riddle me that.

That would mean that clerics, druids , and wizard are now underpowered, not that that class would be too strong?

I don't know whether you're unintentionally or intentionally equivocating. So let's assume the former.

There are two broad definitions of underpowered in the gaming community. There's underpowered compared to the difficulty assumptions of the game and underpowered compared to other classes. The subject of class balance relies on the latter. As 4E D&D has shown us, it's totally possible to have all of your classes generically pass the challenges the game puts out, so by that metric no classes in 4E D&D are underpowered. However, there are still classes in 4E D&D that are underpowered relative to other classes.

So to answer your question: the wizard, cleric, druid, and even summoner are not underpowered compared to the assumptions of the CR system. They are underpowered with respect to the class system, assuming that this is a legit class that is going to stick around as-is for awhile that people also play.

Bonus equivocation points: a lot of people will claim that this hypothetical class is in fact overpowered and not that the wizard/cleric/druid are underpowered. Whatever. As long as the relation is maintained who gives a shit? I mean, I know that declaring that the wizard/cleric/druid are underpowered elicits a different emotional response (and suggested reaction of buffing) than declaring that this class is overpowered (which suggests nerfing), but this is immaterial to the metric of class balance.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I suppose he's saying, that as we know, CR isn't a solid representative of showing a monster's power, as doesn't it breakdown at the higher levels? Or rather, is it moreso it has a good few cases where it breaks down, like specific monsters, supplements, or dragons? Also that, as the game gets more supplements, be they more MM"s, stuff like Fiend Folio and like, Designers start to understand the game better, and likely end up making stronger monsters for the CR they've made them for. Quite possible the reverse is true, with their MM IV and V's, but I can't really say for sure myself.

Are you on crack? That's not even a fucking response.

Let me try putting this another way.

There are two broad balance concerns in a class and level TTRPG. There's the balance concern of how a class performs against the challenges the game puts out (which may or may not include competition against other classes; 3E D&D has it, 4E D&D doesn't) and there's the balance concern of how a class performs against each other class.

As 4E D&D has shown us, both of them are important. 4E D&D thought that they could get away with only having PvE 'balance' just by editing (and in many cases fudging, see the treasure parcel and skill challenge systems) the challenges such that weaker classes could still pass them. This method of balance is woefully inadequate for two reasons:

[*] It makes things too easy for the stronger classes. If an O-Assassin can scrape by in a level-appropriate challenge, then a Ranger will never be challenged by it. It causes the game to devolve into a participation trophy.

[*] Players of weaker classes still compare themselves to stronger classes. Even if you only hand out participation trophies, people are still going to get jealous and feel cheated that their buddy did three times as much damage that they did over the course of the encounter despite not getting one critical hit. Even if you forbid players from direct competition or comparison or receiving unequal rewards, it happens all of the same.


This isn't to say that PvE tests aren't important. No one wants to play in a game where all of the players have exciting, interlocking, role-protected, and egalitarian ability sets yet the challenges the game throws at the party are still too easy are too hard. If your game is particularly shit you'll have people failing both PvP and PvE tests like in 3E D&D. As far as 3E D&D/PF is concerned, making a class that can pass a PvE test but not a PvP is still a net improvement. But it isn't something you should be cheering or celebrating. People shouldn't be happy that Pathfinder published a class that's half full. People should be pissed that Pathfinder, after all this time and game experience, published a class that's half empty.

The point is that passing PvE tests--which is what the SGT and 4E balance benchmarks does--is a necessary but not sufficient condition of judging whether a class is good or not.

[jadagul]

Lago: suppose there was a game with ten classes, nine of which were exactly balanced with each other (and with the standard challenges), and the tenth is noticeably more powerful than the others. Suppose I'm making a new class for this game. Should I aim for it to be balanced against the first nine classes, or against the tenth?

You're making it sound like it should be balanced against the tenth. And that's crazy. The design of Class #10 was a massive failure, but you don't fix that by deliberately failing again. You fix that by saying "whoops, that class was overpowered, sorry about that." And maybe you errata it or maybe you don't, but you don't repeat the error.

The problem in the 4E setup isn't that everyone can pass the challenges. It's that there's a massive variation in the power of characters, so if the weak ones can beat any challenge then the strong ones are never challenged. And I can see the argument that if you're designing new challenges, some of them at least should be targeted towards the high end.

But if you're designing a new class, the goal shouldn't be to make it cakewalk over all the challenges, because that's boring. And the goal shouldn't be to make it stronger than the strongest class, because that makes all these issues worse. The goal should be to make a class that can on balance pull its weight against challenges, and is neither the strongest nor the weakest class in the lineup. And it sounds like the summoner meets those criteria.

[Dean]

That is the question isn't it. I now understand what you're saying Lago and now that you have explained your point better it is much more acceptable. There is Class VS Enemy balance, and Class VS Class balance. Sure, fine. The problem is that your standard for the latter is still totally arbitrary. You're just picking an arbitrary point on the power level spectrum and saying classes pass or fail compared to this arbitrary point. To make things worse you haven't even told us where your arbitrary point is.

How many core classes does a new class need to be more powerful than? How many does it need to be weaker than? The Same Game test has standards to tell you what the results of the test mean. Your test doesn't. That is a problem.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago: suppose there was a game with ten classes, nine of which were exactly balanced with each other (and with the standard challenges), and the tenth is noticeably more powerful than the others. Suppose I'm making a new class for this game. Should I aim for it to be balanced against the first nine classes, or against the tenth?

Under those incredibly narrow design constraints, sure.

However, let's go back to Pathfinder again. The Sorcerer/Wizard/Cleric/Druid aren't new-to-the-table homebrew classes that are challenging the paradigm of the game. Nor do they form a lopsided proportion of the demographic, like they're odd outliers. They form about a third of the original classes and they have squatter's rights.

If Pathfinder doesn't intend to meaningfully nerf or cordon off the Four Sisters, every new class that the game introduces needs to be at their level. Or they're doing a game a disservice. The new classes don't need to be full-casters (though that seems the only way non-Tome people can get it right) but they do need to at least perform against the standard of cleric/wizard/sorcerer/druid. Because they ain't going anywhere and they have more of a right to be at a gaming table than any new class Pathfinder currently comes up with.

Summoner not being as shit as most homebrew or midstream classes is a plus, since people have done a lot shittier. And at the range 80% of games end at (levels 1 to 6) it appears to be very competitive with full-casters. But again it's like having the choice of a shit salad, a shit salad with some cola, or a cold hamburger with a bite taken out of it and cigarette ash on top.

[CapnTthePirateG]

I feel it should also be noted that due to the nature of 3.X/Pathfinder, the classes will also be used to generate enemies the players will fight. If a bunch of say, fighters go up against an enchanter wizard the result might not be pretty.

[Aryxbez]

I think it's making more sense now, saying in class v. Class, it's something we've heard before. Such as with the Tome Fighter, it contributes in battle well and good for its level span, but out of that notion, it fails to contribute the way the spellcasters do to out of combat challenges. So while the Summoner contributes in combat, it doesn't have the stuff after 6th, to be contributing as the other classes do out of that (or perhaps it falls off after mid level or so). Thus that, designers who are supposed to know this game well if they're to be qualified to be making rules, shouldn't be praised when they still failed a design goal that they should know better by now.

Though I guess it still gets praised, because they're incompetent louts that, had to be a fraggin miracle for them to have made something fun and contributes for combat for the level span its fans only play anyway. Since sure, if the Magus or Summoner doesn't contribute to 10th+, most would ask, "who cares? nobody plays that long anyway". Of course it actually still matters, by design it still kinda failed to deliver a whole class, it's valuable to find these faults so that they can be fixed for it, or least for future classes as Lago has said. At least though, what we "do" have to work with, when if forced to play a dreadful Pathfinder game, can choose this class and least expect to contribute in the game space most DM's will even let PC's decisions matter.

[Dean]

it fails to contribute the way the spellcasters do to out of combat challenges. So while the Summoner contributes in combat, it doesn't have the stuff after 6th, to be contributing as the other classes do out of that

Except....they succeed at that too. Summoners have Planar Binding, Simulacrum, Discern Location, Teleports, Plane Shift, Create Demiplane etc, etc. All the greatest hits. They can do literally anything. Request anything of a high level summoner and he can do it. He can do the same "Summon an infinite army of Solars" or "Chain Bind Efreet" bullshit that everyone can do. He can scry, dominate, save-or-die, plane shift, teleport, fly, cure diseases, raise the dead, and do every other insane thing the game allows. He can't necessarily do all of those things as well as the best class in the game can do them but he can do them. And that is actually Lago's critique, zany as it may be.

The problem isn't that the Summoner fails at enemy combat, class VS class combat, out of combat challenges, entertainment value, or enjoyment factor. The "problem" is that they are not literally the best class in the game. I am not trying to Strawman Lago here, read his last response. Lagos position is that every new thing made is only worth praise if it is as powerful or more powerful than the last most powerful thing ever made. Every new class needs to be made as powerful as the most powerful class ever produced by that system when optimized as much as possible. Only then is it valuable or praise-worthy. I do not agree with this position, but he is entitled to his opinion, even if it is balls-out-crazy.

[MGuy]

Lago are you suggesting that there is no problem with the power behind literally the best classes in the game? You don't have a problem with the fact that those classes totally stump any level appropriate challenges that are sent against them?

[ModelCitizen]

There are two broad definitions of underpowered in the gaming community. There's underpowered compared to the difficulty assumptions of the game and underpowered compared to other classes. The subject of class balance relies on the latter. As 4E D&D has shown us, it's totally possible to have all of your classes generically pass the challenges the game puts out, so by that metric no classes in 4E D&D are underpowered. However, there are still classes in 4E D&D that are underpowered relative to other classes.

No, I'm sorry, that's 4e thinking. In a better game the other classes are part of the difficulty assumptions. If your level 6 bard can't hang with a level 6 cleric you're going to be shown up by the party's priest AND you're going to get your ass kicked by NPC Orcus cultists. If your vampire's shitty clan discipline list doesn't have a round-1 KO and a way to counter ambushes, you suck compared to your buddy's Toreador or City Gangrel and you're also going to get torn apart by NPCs of those same clans.

[John Magnum]

I'm kind of amazed by the sheer level of illiteracy required for so many people to so thoroughly misinterpret Lago's extremely basic and obvious points.

[virgil]

I'm kind of amazed by the sheer level of illiteracy required for so many people to so thoroughly misinterpret Lago's extremely basic and obvious points.

Bullshit. I get his point, and it's wrong. If the only way a new class to be worthy of praise is by being on par with the most powerful option, then you either go full-on Roy in gameplay or you set your books on fire in a nihilistic rage because the system's flaws require new material to either escalate the game into participation trophies (weaken challenges or boost PCs, same damn thing) or be fecal sandwiches with a side of fail.

[Username17]

I'm kind of amazed by the sheer level of illiteracy required for so many people to so thoroughly misinterpret Lago's extremely basic and obvious points.

Bullshit. I get his point, and it's wrong. If the only way a new class to be worthy of praise is by being on par with the most powerful option, then you either go full-on Roy in gameplay or you set your books on fire in a nihilistic rage because the system's flaws require new material to either escalate the game into participation trophies (weaken challenges or boost PCs, same damn thing) or be fecal sandwiches with a side of fail.

He's not talking about the most powerful option. He's talking about things being on par with the upper half of options.

In Pathfinder, there are classes and builds that can pass a Same Game Test, and almost all of them are full casters. So to nominate anything as the intended balance point of Pathfinder is completely retarded.

Let's be real here: there are 11 classes in Pathfinder Core. They are:

Class	Passes SGT?
Barbarian	No.
Bard	Only at low levels.
Cleric	Yes.
Druid	Yes.
Fighter	No.
Monk	Not even at 1st level.
Paladin	Only with specialized builds.
Ranger	No.
Rogue	Only at low levels.
Sorcerer	Yes.
Wizard	Yes.

Seriously, look at that fucking list and tell me that there is an available balance point you could be offering that isn't "the full casters". You could try to make a game around the Bard/Rogue/Paladin, but I'm openly contemptuous of you pulling that off. For one thing: that party just gets its ass kicked by most of the 11+ CR enemies.

When people say that they have this cool class that passes a SGT at low levels and isn't as good as a Wizard, they are just saying that they have fucking failed to design a D&D class. The "less than a Wizard" balance point that many people want so badly just doesn't fucking exist and you should probably get around to accepting that.

-Username17

[virgil]

At the moment, the only 'facts' stated are that the summoner passes the SGT but isn't as powerful as a cleric/wizard. If being weaker than them means you fail the SGT, then there is a contradiction for some reason. If they pass the SGT, I consider it acceptable. If you can meet the standards but not have the same maximum power (sorcerer vs cleric), then I do not consider it a failure; and calling the summoner a cold ash-burger will invoke the ranting I've given thus far.

Nobody's done an actual SGT of high level summoners, so right now it's a philosophical/opinion 'debate' here.

Screw it, I'm testing the stinking summoner at level 15 when I get home this evening.

[Juton]

I thought we where comparing things to just Wizards? I get the impression that in Pathfinder a Cleric is weaker than a Wizard past level 6 or so because Clerics haven't been getting the same love they where in 3.5. Clerics are still very powerful though, but under Lago's criteria if they are weaker than a Wizard they are underpowered.

[ishy]

He's not talking about the most powerful option. He's talking about things being on par with the upper half of options.

In Pathfinder, there are classes and builds that can pass a Same Game Test, and almost all of them are full casters. So to nominate anything as the intended balance point of Pathfinder is completely retarded.(...)
When people say that they have this cool class that passes a SGT at low levels and isn't as good as a Wizard, they are just saying that they have fucking failed to design a D&D class. The "less than a Wizard" balance point that many people want so badly just doesn't fucking exist and you should probably get around to accepting that.

-Username17

What? That isn't what Lago is saying at all.

So to answer your question: the wizard, cleric, druid, and even summoner are not underpowered compared to the assumptions of the CR system. They are underpowered with respect to the class system, assuming that this is a legit class that is going to stick around as-is for awhile that people also play.

[virgil]

Stats are provided in the spoiler box. Tactics are rather simple, have a handful of bound outsiders, keep your body in a steel coffin that's been magically treated for hardness and ride around in some tough monster with magic jar all freakin' day. I'm not sure how the SGT will go at the moment, because so much depends on what mooks I should have.

Half-Elf Summoner 15, 20pb
HD 15d8+60 (131hp)
Ability Scores: 7, 12, 18, 10, 10, 29
BAB +11
AC 20 (+7 armor, +1 Dex, +2 Deflection)
Saves +7/+6/+9

Feats: Extra Evolution x4, Improved Share Spells (Share w/both, half duration), Resilient Eidolon (Stays for 15 rounds if owner killed), Spell Focus (Conjuration), Augment Summoning

Skills: Spellcraft +18, Use Magic Device +27

Spells/Day (8/7/7/6/5; DC 19+SL)
Spells Known (6/6/6/5/4/4)
1st - Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, Protection from Evil
2nd - See Invisibility, Summon Eidolon
3rd - Dimensional Anchor, Charm Monster, Invisibility (Greater), Magic Circle Against Evil
4th - Evolution Surge (Greater), Magic Jar, Baleful Polymorph
5th - Planar Binding, True Seeing
Equipment (240k): Cloak of Resistance +5 (25k*), Amulet of Mighty Fists +4 (80k*), Headband of Alluring Charisma +6 (36k), Belt of Mighty Constitution +4 (16k), Normal Metamagic Rod of Extend (11k), Eyes of the Eagle (2.5k*), Ring of Protection +2 (8k*), Invisibility (20k), Scroll of Raise Dead (6k), Magically Reinforced Steel Coffin (inner lock), Bribe Money (10k)
Primeup: Day prior to adventuring, extended mage armor on eidolon, extended magic jar while in coffin; bind soul to previously charmed monster

Eidolon
Biped, Speed 30'
HD 12d10+84 (150hp)
AC 35 (+19 natural, -2 size, +2 Dex, +2 Deflect, +4 armor)
* CMB +36 (+12 base, +2 size, +14 Str, +4 Grab, +4 Gtr Grapple)
* CMD 42 (+12 base, +2 size, +14 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Deflect)
Saves +20/+11/+13 (+4 vs enchantment, Imp Evasion)
Stats: 38, 14, 24, 7, 10, 11
Skills: Stealth +9 (+29), Perception +20, Fly +9, Use Magic Device +15
Feats: Multiattack, Lunge, Improved Natural Attack (Claws), Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Greater Grapple, Chokehold
Reach 15'
Attack: 6 Claws +28 (2d8+18)
Evolutions (27ep): Limbs (Arms) x2, Limbs (Legs), Claws x3, Pounce, Improved Damage (Claws), Huge, Spell Resistance 26, Flight 50' (Perfect), Grab (Claws)

[Archmage]

Your base concept is good, but unless they errata'd it somewhere, only quadrupedal eidolons can have Pounce.

At the low levels where the game actually gets play you have to settle for *gasp* grease, glitterdust, summon swarm, black tentacles, weird but potentially useful Pathfinder spells like the create pit nonsense, and having a fighter on a leash who has 3-4 attacks and pounce. Having 3 attacks and pounce might seriously carry a character until level 5 or so when flying enemies become an issue.

The high level summoner gets--among other things--teleport, contact other plane, magic jar, charm monster, and planar binding. He can seriously solve any problem anyone throws at him given sufficient prep time.

It's only not as good as a wizard because the wizard's preparation-based casting and arbitrarily-large spell list means he can do a totally different set of tasks on a given day. The summoner has to settle for having only 80% of the most ridiculously versatile and powerful spells on the sorc/wiz list. Oh darn.

[Mask_De_H]

When people say that they have this cool class that passes a SGT at low levels and isn't as good as a Wizard, they are just saying that they have fucking failed to design a D&D class. The "less than a Wizard" balance point that many people want so badly just doesn't fucking exist and you should probably get around to accepting that.
-Username17

Frank, the Summoner is worse than a Wizard in a slightly more painful way than a Sorcerer is worse than a Cleric. They get stuck Bard casting almost all of the Wizard's greatest hits, but fuck with the action economy in equal or greater value, with equal or slightly greater (with UMD spellpoaching) effectiveness as a dedicated arcane summoner. Divine summoners can do it better thanks to the Evangelist Cleric and/or some bullshit Druid feat, but the basic concept of flooding the board with tokens is a meaningful role. It is also one the Summoner does about as well as the big boys.

And you defended the fucking Rogue as a "less than a Wizard" balance point that could (sorta) keep up in higher levels. Your pre-Races of War classes were tuned to that breakpoint. Shit, the Soldier and the Tome of Blue classes you made semi-recently are tuned to that breakpoint. The fucking Same Game Test, which is a part of this discussion, was in whole or in part your idea. Are you going senile or something?