Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Pathfinder Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous Beta Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

Pink Eye

Monk
Patron
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
5,793
Location
Space Refrigerator
I'm very into cock and ball torture
I'm addressing the tone of the posts that I was reading from pages ago. Just as how you've somehow insinuated tone from my posts. I as well. It's called reading. Getting passionate. Moving quick to post. Then humiliating myself. I've gone back and reread the posts. I made a mistake. Whatever. I still stand by what I said.
 

NJClaw

OoOoOoOoOoh
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2016
Messages
7,513
Location
Pronouns: rusts/rusty
Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
The very subject in which we're currently discussing is about whether or not mercs provide a better alternative to build making than the story companions. I've outlined in my prior post that they don't. I've specifically showcased how I was able to make someone like Valerie into a decent ranged damage dealer.
Pink Eye, I love you, but you really need to understand the difference between universal and existential quantifiers. ∃ x∈X: P(x) and ∀ x∈X: P(X) aren't the same thing. The fact that you can build Valerie as an efficient ranged Bard doesn't mean that you can build her as the best possible ranged Vivisectionist (whatever the fuck that is). Maybe you can build Nok Nok as a perfect ranged Vivisectionist, but maybe you want two ranged Vivisectionists in your group and mercenaries are a functional way of doing that.

Premade companions are varied and versatile enough to give the player almost infinite possibilities: all of them can be built in many different ways and you can probably have fun trying different combinations for thousands of hours. But, since this game offers a magnitude of possible party compositions even bigger than "almost infinite", it's understandable that some players may enjoy having mercenaries around.
 

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
9,427
Location
Grand Chien
Mercs are inferior to companions. In every conceivable way. Period. They lessen one's enjoyment and hamper the overall experience. This entire argument started over the idea that people did not like the companions in Wrath, and would rather instead opt for mercs. Which then defaulted back to Kingmaker.

The very subject in which we're currently discussing is about whether or not mercs provide a better alternative to build making than the story companions. I've outlined in my prior post that they don't. I've specifically showcased how I was able to make someone like Valerie into a decent ranged damage dealer.
First you change the goalposts by making the discussion about 'enjoyment' and 'overall experience', a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. Then you nakedly assert that mercs don't provide a better build-making experience compared to companions (they do).

Sorry Pink but this is some shit argumentation.
 

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
9,427
Location
Grand Chien
Here are the facts:

1) The companions vary wildly between well-built, awful and all shades between the two, but most of them can be built such that they are fairly competitive.
2) Mercs are always going to offer a better 'build porn' experience because they are 100% flexible while companions have things set in stone (and often non-optimal things from a meta perspective).
3) Companions are always going to offer a better story experience for obvious reasons.

End of story.
 

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
9,427
Location
Grand Chien
Conveniently ignores the fact that such mods, regardless of the game, have always been a dangerous proposition at best, and in Kingmaker's case the mod in question is 100% proven to have very bad bugs.
 

Pink Eye

Monk
Patron
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
5,793
Location
Space Refrigerator
I'm very into cock and ball torture
The very subject in which we're currently discussing is about whether or not mercs provide a better alternative to build making than the story companions. I've outlined in my prior post that they don't. I've specifically showcased how I was able to make someone like Valerie into a decent ranged damage dealer.
Pink Eye, I love you, but you really need to understand the difference between universal and existential quantifiers. ∃ x∈X: P(x) and ∀ x∈X: P(X) aren't the same thing. The fact that you can build Valerie as an efficient ranged Bard doesn't mean that you can build her as the best possible ranged Vivisectionist (whatever the fuck that is). Maybe you can build Nok Nok as a perfect ranged Vivisectionist, but maybe you want two ranged Vivisectionists in your group and mercenaries are a functional way of doing that.

Premade companions are varied and versatile enough to give the player almost infinite possibilities: all of them can be built in many different ways and you can probably have fun trying different combinations for thousands of hours. But, since this game offers a magnitude of possible party compositions even bigger than "almost infinite", it's understandable that some players may enjoy having mercenaries around.
>The fact that you can build Valerie as an efficient ranged Bard doesn't mean that you can build her as the best possible ranged Vivisectionist
But I don't agree with that. We can't discuss efficiency unless we agree to a metric on how to evaluate said efficiency. All of this is meaningless, unless there is content to test performance. We can sit here and argue that mercs can make for a better Bard Ranged damage dealer to due stat allocation and class optimization. But again, if I grab two and two, and both are able to perform decent on Unfair. Then both options are viable. We're not playing against enemies that have 10K health, and require only the most optimized of builds. We're playing against enemies that can be destroyed in one hit by any competently made martial, on any difficulty.

>but maybe you want two ranged Vivisectionists in your group and mercenaries are a functional way of doing that.
>But, since this game offers a magnitude of possible party compositions even bigger than "almost infinite", it's understandable that some players may enjoy having mercenaries around
Sure, and that does make sense. I myself have used mercs on the DLC dungeon. I can understand their usefulness there.
 

NJClaw

OoOoOoOoOoh
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2016
Messages
7,513
Location
Pronouns: rusts/rusty
Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
The very subject in which we're currently discussing is about whether or not mercs provide a better alternative to build making than the story companions. I've outlined in my prior post that they don't. I've specifically showcased how I was able to make someone like Valerie into a decent ranged damage dealer.
Pink Eye, I love you, but you really need to understand the difference between universal and existential quantifiers. ∃ x∈X: P(x) and ∀ x∈X: P(X) aren't the same thing. The fact that you can build Valerie as an efficient ranged Bard doesn't mean that you can build her as the best possible ranged Vivisectionist (whatever the fuck that is). Maybe you can build Nok Nok as a perfect ranged Vivisectionist, but maybe you want two ranged Vivisectionists in your group and mercenaries are a functional way of doing that.

Premade companions are varied and versatile enough to give the player almost infinite possibilities: all of them can be built in many different ways and you can probably have fun trying different combinations for thousands of hours. But, since this game offers a magnitude of possible party compositions even bigger than "almost infinite", it's understandable that some players may enjoy having mercenaries around.
>The fact that you can build Valerie as an efficient ranged Bard doesn't mean that you can build her as the best possible ranged Vivisectionist
But I don't agree with that. We can't discuss efficiency unless we agree to a metric on how to evaluate said efficiency. All of this is meaningless, unless there is content to test performance. We can sit here and argue that mercs can make for a better Bard Ranged damage dealer to due stat allocation and class optimization. But again, if I grab two and two, and both are able to perform decent on Unfair. Then both options are viable. We're not playing against enemies that have 10K health, and require only the most optimized of builds. We're playing against enemies that can be destroyed in one hit by any competently made martial, on any difficulty.
You are saying at the same time that:
- mercs suck and companions are better because they use an higher point buy, so they are stronger;
- it's irrelevant that you can build a more optimized character with a merc, because both options are viable if they both perform decently on Unfair.

You are pointing out that, since both are viable, optimization dicussions are pointless, but you are the one saying that mercs are useless because companions have better stats.

If optimization discussions are pointless, everything comes down to enjoying their writing/arcs or not. If you enjoy their presence, companions are the way to go; if you don't and they are a detriment to your enjoyment of the game, mercs are the better option.
 

Pink Eye

Monk
Patron
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
5,793
Location
Space Refrigerator
I'm very into cock and ball torture
>but you are the one saying that mercs are useless because companions have better stats.
But that is in regard to people calling out the companions in Wrath. And saying they would rather go for mercs instead. That is the entire reasoning of why I defaulted to Kingmaker, and why I'm even posting in the first place. I started reading the thread back when people were saying they didn't like how dex oriented the companions are in Wrath. That they'll probably roll mercs instead. Perhaps I could have done a better job in clarifying my points, sure. Maybe I've been flopping in between posts, sure. Regardless, to make myself clear. I like the companions in Wrath. I like the companions in Kingmaker. I am probably going to spend hours figuring out how to make the new companions fit into the roles I want.
 

InternalRevenue

Educated
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
54
With 25 classes and 162 archetypes available I should hope mercs are available even if they're at reduced point buy. But a lot of you people are acting like it's only a full merc party or full companion party when one can easily mix and match.

Anyways to bring it back on topic of the Alpha, did Owlcat make any additions/amendments/fixes to the existing classes/spells too? Sounds like paladins can have mount bond, but for instance do druids have new wildshape options and woodland stride, and summon monster/ally spells different or new options?
 

Sharpedge

Prophet
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
1,061
Wrong. If the caster is unprepared(and he can't have all buffs 24/7), a sneaky rogue can end his life in one round.

If you put a fighter with a warbow and poisoned arrows vs a high level sorcerer on 2e at long range, depends. If both sees the enemy at the same time, who wins the initiative wins the combat since the sorcerer can nuke the fighter in one round and the fighter can nuke the low hit dice of sorc in one round. On a RTWP 3.5e adaptation, unless the sorcerer pass 4 concentration checks, he wins. IF he fails the 4 concentration checks, he loses.

People generally put well rested arcane casters vs a fighter at long range and the fighter has only a sword. Give then at least a trowing javelin. And spoiler, any high level class with ranged capabilities would kill a fighter at 200m without ranged capabilities. A fighter archer with deadly poisoned arrows and stealth can be insanely deadly even without considering magical warbows. And again you gave me NO SOLUTIONS TO THIS NON PROBLEM. What OwlCat should made to casters? Ruins then completely so everyone who wanna to play as one will play with mods like spell fixes for nwn2? Make the game like Pathfinder 2e or D&D 4e???

Depends, if the mage has a contingency setup (and if this is high level Pathfinder and not the game since Contingency is not in the game, they will) then the mage will almost certainly win. I already said if you don't artificially create situations that favour the other classes, the caster will always win. Considering how long the duration of Contingency is, it seems almost insane to assume a caster does not always have 1 if it is something they are capable of casting.

Do you know that other martial weapons exists? And are far more effective vs wild animals and armor than swords?

Swords are probably the most overestimated and overrated weapon on the history.

It was an example. "Insert weapon of choice" vs magic. Magic is the better choice in terms of career opportunities in the forgotten realms.

Well, PAthfinder Wrath of The righteous is not a PvP game. WHY should i care if a pun pun build from a guy playing 30 000 km from my home could end the a boss that i had a hard time in one round and another guys is doing a weird naked barbarian challenge run?

Did you even read what I wrote? Here, let me help you:
and not something to expect in a single player game, there is no reason for balance to exist in a single player game since there is no competition
My point was that balance is not exclusive from fun (unlike what you seem to believe), not that it is necessary in a single player game.

Not easier? First link on google research pathfinder best class solo
Top awnser? Martial class https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_Kingmaker/comments/af0kq6/best_build_to_solo_game/
I too can link to the top answer of a reddit post, because clearly the hivemind of reddit is infallible and everyone there knows what they are doing. Have you even tried to solo kingmaker? Because all of my solo playthroughs were on unfair, from the start of the game (including the prologue) to the very end. The only time I would say melee has an easier time during that period is during the prologue. But ok, since you clearly only trust the opinion of "authoritative" sources why don't you go ask your favorite youtuber or something next.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
I don't see why people don't understand balance in a single player game. It's not about competition, it's about providing challenge and variety. When the classes are balanced with each other, it opens up more builds and more ways to play the game. I don't want to play a Wizard or Sorcerer all the time. It also encourages consistent challenge that is not possible if your class can dominate the battlefield constantly. That doesn't mean symmetrical balance, symmetrical balance in a party-based game doesn't make much sense either way.
 

Sharpedge

Prophet
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
1,061
I don't see why people don't understand balance in a single player game. It's not about competition, it's about providing challenge and variety. When the classes are balanced with each other, it opens up more builds and more ways to play the game. I don't want to play a Wizard or Sorcerer all the time. It also encourages consistent challenge that is not possible if your class can dominate the battlefield constantly. That doesn't mean symmetrical balance, symmetrical balance in a party-based game doesn't make much sense either way.
I can understand wanting it, but I also understand how difficult it is to do right. PVP games with much simpler mechanics fight for years over trying to get things balanced and balance is literally one of the things that makes them sell, so I don't expect balance in single player games.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
The least they could try is get all the classes up to snuff and prevent obvious abuses and overpowered-ness. Stacking all available Illusion DC in order to get Phantasmal Killer to work on a single boss is ok.
 

Efe

Erudite
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,597
warlocks weak on nwn2....
some whine...
black tentactles weak grapple no ice damage..

stop hating casters lacrymas.
 

Xamenos

Magister
Patron
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
1,256
Pathfinder: Wrath
Yes, somebody in the past wrongly said that mercenaries are stronger than premade companions and hurt you. Fine, get over it. Nobody is saying that right now.
2) Mercs are better than companions. That doesn't mean companions aren't good enough for the game. But it does mean that munchkins get less enjoyment from using them.
Nobody is saying that right now.
I was referring to the discussion between Pink Eye and dacencora. The Yosharian post you are quoting was in response to Pink Eye already talking about that stuff when the only points made by other participants were about not liking companions writing and voice actors.

If this has to be a "mercenaries vs. companions" from an optimization point of view, companions are obviously better than mercenaries most of the times, but that wasn't the original point.
Well, you did say "nobody is saying that right now" when someone had, in fact, just said exactly that. You gotta admit that's kind of funny. And that Pink Eye has a point about this, even if he's wrong about everything else and he takes it too far in his characteristic "enthusiasm".
 

Ontopoly

Disco Hitler
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
2,993
Location
Fairy land
Finally recruited Regill, dude is a total Tier 1 Operator. I was skeptical of the Gnome Hellknight thing but his personality seems awesome so far.
I kill hell Knights on sight. He won't be any different
Because everyone goes for Aerie. The other romance options are only urban legends that nobody ever even tried.
Jaheira is best girl.
Every Druid news is good news.
At least you're not a complete fucking idiot.
 

Cryomancer

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
14,467
Location
Frostfell
epends, if the mage has a contingency setup

How many mages on Forgotten Realms has Chain Contigency and similar spells? How many mages can learn tier 9 magic and get a scroll of it?

Note that the condition to activate contingency is seeing the enemy. If the magician doesn't sees you, he loses...

It is like the discussions between Batman VS Superman. With preparation, Batman can make deadly traps, weapons and armor to defeat the Superman. Without preparation, Superman wins.

Magic is the better choice in terms of career opportunities in the forgotten realms.

Not true. Wizards are expensive. Sorcerers needs a specific bloodline which you can't chose and warlocks, require that you convince a powerful extraplanar ally to TEACH magic to you. Clerics require to follow a dogma.

Reach lv 10 as a wizard on 2e also requires way more XP than reaching lv 10 as a Thief.

It was an example. "Insert weapon of choice" vs magic. Magic is the better choice in terms of career opportunities in the forgotten realms.

Depends. In Netheril? yes. In Thay? Yes. In other places, magic users are HATED, like in Dark Sun.

I too can link to the top answer of a reddit post, because clearly the hivemind of reddit is infallible and everyone there knows what they are doing. Have you even tried to solo kingmaker? Because all of my solo playthroughs were on unfair, from the start of the game (including the prologue) to the very end. The only time I would say melee has an easier time during that period is during the prologue. But ok, since you clearly only trust the opinion of "authoritative" sources why don't you go ask your favorite youtuber or something next.

Wrong. My point is that people who are min maxing and trying to solo the game on unfair most of the time uses martial classes. When they pick casters is only to buff the martial capabilities. This here on codex, on reddit, everywhere.

And a Wizard has almost no spellcasting capabilities until chapter 2 or 3(xp share off/on). The unique caster build that can beat the game on unfair is the sorcerer with animal companion. And even him, needs a party to be effective and the animal companion fullfil the martial role... You will ran out of spells so quickly if you are soloing.

it's about providing challenge and variety. When the classes are balanced with each other, it opens up more builds and more ways to play the game. I don't want to play a Wizard or Sorcerer all the time. It also encourages consistent challenge that is not possible if your class can dominate the battlefield constantly. That doesn't mean symmetrical balance, symmetrical balance in a party-based game doesn't make much sense either way.

Symmetrical balance is redundant.

But there is not a class that can dominate the battlefield constantly. And since is a party based game, you don't need to play as a wizard/sorcerer. You can have companions that fulfill that role and guess what. In many situations, wizards/sorcerers are better as party buffers that casts haste, stoneskin, protection from energy, mind blank, freedom of movement, etc; than as artillery. Mainly against enemies with high SR like Spawn of Rovagug.

------------------------------------------

I honestly give up.

I don't care if everyone talks about martial builds to solo on unfair, casters are OP and i don't need to say why!!!! For the sake of Balance, lets make like Jay Wilson which solved the problem of sorcerer(ss) being very popular on D1/D2 by making all classes equally boring on D3. Or like D&D 4e, the most balanced edition or like Pathfinder 2e. Why not remove all high tier magic(that i never used but believe that are OP)? Or nerf every spell in existence like NWN2 where everyone on MP servers uses martial classes and the game is a torment to casters without spell fixes. That is perfectly balanced!!!! Only martial guys should be able to be strong on high magical settings. Lets also remove all firearms stronger than the .22 pistol on Fallout New Vegas because i with a knife losing to a sniper with anti materiel rifles and explosive rounds at long range is not balanced. Fast swinging blades should be the unique viable way to play any RPG and how dare people who enjoy being a caster wanting a single game with the same amazing experience of infinity engine games!!!! They should be re playing the same game over and over with no new games to play, for the sake of the absolute godly balance, fast swinging blades should be the optional way to play any game, doesn't matter if is a sci-fi game or a high magical setting!!!! /sarcasm.
 

Sharpedge

Prophet
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
1,061
epends, if the mage has a contingency setup

How many mages on Forgotten Realms has Chain Contigency and similar spells? How many mages can learn tier 9 magic and get a scroll of it?

Note that the condition to activate contingency is seeing the enemy. If the magician doesn't sees you, he loses...

It is like the discussions between Batman VS Superman. With preparation, Batman can make deadly traps, weapons and armor to defeat the Superman. Without preparation, Superman wins.

Contingency (not chain contingency) is a level 6 spell. Contingency - Stoneskin will likely save a mage from a martial fighter unless they are literally killed in 1 hit. Killed in 1 hit already assumed an "unfair" fight from the get go, where you are setting up a situation where one of the fighters are asleep or in some way incapacitated. If a fight broke out suddenly in a bar for example - the mage would have time to activate contingency. If the mage was on a battlefield, they would have that kind of magic active already because they expect to have to defend themselves. If the mage sees someone approaching in a threatening manner or anything else, they have time to activate contingency. When don't they have time? "Mage is walking through a street and an assassin on the roof top shoots them," or, "poison is added to the food of the mage." What do all of these scenarios have in common? You are assuming the mage has no time to react, at all. You are tailor making scenarios where there isn't a fight to begin with. Give the mage even 1 turn to cast and they can probably turn the scenario to their advantage.

Not true. Wizards are expensive. Sorcerers needs a specific bloodline which you can't chose and warlocks, require that you convince a powerful extraplanar ally to TEACH magic to you. Clerics require to follow a dogma.

Reach lv 10 as a wizard on 2e also requires way more XP than reaching lv 10 as a Thief.
Not true? How many career opportunities does a weapon afford you. You can be a guard for some person, hire yourself out as a mercenary or maybe participate in intermittent tournaments or join wars. A mage? You can perform lots of other tasks beyond just fighting. You are not limited to war in order to make money. Choosing to limit yourself to a weapon is actually a piss poor career choice all things considered, choosing to do pretty much anything else would put you in a better place. Even NPCs like politicians probably have a better life expectancy, a better income and better prospects. Even a low level mage can do things not limited to combat, even if its as simple as, "identify this item" for people.

Wrong. My point is that people who are min maxing and trying to solo the game on unfair most of the time uses martial classes. When they pick casters is only to buff the martial capabilities. This here on codex, on reddit, everywhere.

And a Wizard has almost no spellcasting capabilities until chapter 2 or 3(xp share off/on). The unique caster build that can beat the game on unfair is the sorcerer with animal companion. And even him, needs a party to be effective and the animal companion fullfil the martial role... You will ran out of spells so quickly if you are soloing.

Almost all solos are with either an Arcane or Divine caster, either a full caster or a half caster. The main exception to this is Kineticist soloes. I challenge you to find me a solo with a fighter, barbarian, paladin or rogue. Go on, I am waiting. A Wizard 20 solo character who is playing in dragonform is still a Wizard. A Sorcerer 19/Monk 1 is still a sorcerer, regardless of how they choose to do damage. A Cleric 19/monk 1 is still a cleric. An Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight is still a caster and so is a magus. Why do people pick these classes for solo gameplay? Because they have magic.

Let me enlighten you to the solo unfair gameplay, since it seems like you are unfamiliar with how it works. You struggle through early fights with a caster until you get to the old sycamore, at which point you reach level 6ish and have access to level 3 spells. You then use AoE spells like Fireball to absolutely destroy everything, because the early game fights are not balanced around the player having access to them. You buff up with stuff like Mirror image and expeditious retreat, run and kite all the enemies into 1 group and then nuke them. Even if they make the save, most of them die to 3d6 fireball damage. For druid you just cast spells like Spiked Growth and have enemies kill themselves as they walk through it. Until the end of act 3, you will be killing most enemies with magic, because its much, much faster than using anything else. At the start of act 4 you then get options, you can choose to keep using spells or if you want to be efficient in terms of action economy, you can buff yourself up and clear the map with melee attacks. Because almost anyone who plays solo unfair likes to be efficient in their gameplay (myself included) they tend to favour the latter, buffing yourself up and then default attacking. It isn't that you cannot continue to nuke things, its just that, if you want to rest as rarely as possible (at most once per map), its more efficient to play the buff and spank game.

You know what is the important part of all those solo runs though? The spells are. You can solo the game without doing any melee fighting, but you will really struggle to solo the game without any magic. Now, how about instead of trying to represent the interest of the "solo player" for which it seems you have no experience and are in no position to provide an opinion on, you actually listen to the solo player. You might actually learn something. Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid and Cleric are not martial classes, even if you can default attack with them. So saying, "most of the solos are with martial classes" is outright lying when the majority of them will fall into those 4 classes, with the second highest group being Magus, Kineticist and Vivisectionist and the reason that most of these classes are picked is because they have spells, its not because they use weapons.
 

Ontopoly

Disco Hitler
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
2,993
Location
Fairy land
In a single player game where you have 6 characters all classes don't need to be equal because it's assumed you have spell casters and melee. As long as your team as a whole is balanced to give you a nice challenge. You can have mages as long as the game requires you to also have melee for a variety of challenges. They can work together. Rather than see it on a character by character basis you should look at the whole team. It's not your character and your companions. It's your team compromised of your character and your companions.

This design philosophy can teach us a lot about life and the importance of synergy, team work, fulfilling our individual roles for the whole, and seeing the future of humanity as a common cause rather than just selfishly looking to be the best at the cost of progress.

Sometimes in life people will be better than you but you still have a lot to offer. You should see it as an honor to contribute to something larger than you are.
 

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
I don't see why people don't understand balance in a single player game. It's not about competition, it's about providing challenge and variety. When the classes are balanced with each other, it opens up more builds and more ways to play the game. I don't want to play a Wizard or Sorcerer all the time. It also encourages consistent challenge that is not possible if your class can dominate the battlefield constantly. That doesn't mean symmetrical balance, symmetrical balance in a party-based game doesn't make much sense either way.

The difference between the classes is not as great as it may seem. Magic classes benefit from people being able to essentially rest spam. Kingmaker tried a little with time limits but they are a bit too generous. Also far more rests should be disrupted. Non-magic classes do have the advantage that they can go all day long. Magic classes especially early and mid run out of resources fast and have to think carefully when to use a spell. That is why I try my hardest to limit my rests to 1 per day/dungeon.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom