I'm good with that, too. How about both? :)
While anti-4e hysterics are unnecessary, taking an element from 4e just because it made it into that game is equally unnecessary for Pathfinder.
That's not to say that the designers shouldn't look at other games for inspiration or innovation.
However, a lot of what the OP is ranting against stems from people explicitly suggesting that Pathfinder adopt 4e-style mechanics. Prior to Pathfinder's release and continuing through when Pathfinder was in its infancy and 4e was still viewed as "the dominant game", there were a quite a few vocal posters railing against Paizo for not getting onboard the 4e/GSL bandwagon. For most of the early-adopter Pathfinder crowd, 4e was a HUGE step in the wrong direction.
Since 4e's decline/failure*, there's been an uptick in suggestions to add some 4e elements to Pathfinder and a lot of Pathfinder fans have no interest in it. Whether those suggestions are due to input from fans of both systems, willing Pathfinder converts, or reluctant Pathfinder converts whose 4e fields have dried up is anyone's guess.
One can argue the rationality of it, but one should acknowledge that looking to 4e for design inspiration carries some negative implications for many that looking at Savage Worlds, Hero, GURPS, Shadowrun, etc. doesn't.
*NOTE: I'm not slamming 4e. Objectively, the game is dead/in-decline from a publishing and 3PP-support standpoint as WotC is working on 5e/Next. There is, however, a large quantity of antecdotal evidence (some from opinions expressed by WotC staff) that 4e was not as successful as desired, fractured the fan base, and was too radical a departure from prior editions. By that criteria, I'm calling 4e to be in decline or a failure at this point it time as opposed to when it launched.
Rolemaster. Monte Cook worked on Rolemaster. I was a Rolemaster fan prior to finding Conan OGL which ultimately led me back to D&D 3e and evenutally Pathfinder.
Elves with low-light vision, dwarves with darkvision, the skill system, some of the fluff all were recognizable to me as Rolemaster influences.
Post full of soapbox ranting...
If you're trying to persuade someone to your viewpoint, you might want to avoid phrases like "don't have the balls" & "if I get banned for telling the truth". Your thread is full of your opinions, none of which I can see containing an objective truth.
No game is perfect but the way you're making your case is bordering on trolling. Also, I have to say:
1. If you have the option to multi-class and it's viable (which it is) and you have the option to single-class and it's viable (which it is and Pathfinder made it more so...) you haven't (I'm paraphrasing this next part since your sentence seems off to me) "given up all freedom of character creation".
2. Calling a professionally developed and published set of rules a "set of houserules" is insulting to the people who work on those rules. It also grossly dismisses the effort that goes into developing the Pathfinder products. IF they are just houserules, why are you so bent out of shape over not liking the items you're ranting about?
3. How do you get 10 years out of a game that wasn't published until August 2009? Are you blaming them for the development choices made by WotC in the 3e & 3.5e?
4. If the Paizo staff doesn't think about upcoming products there won't be a Paizo for very long. That's a wonderful business plan you've got there, pal. Since many of the Paizo family are full-time staffers, I hope for their financial well being that they ignore your advice on this point.
Additionally, I have never seen a RPG company that did as good a job as Paizo does at considering what rules currently exist. Just because they feel Stealth can be handled via common sense rather than a re-write or disagrees with whatever "broken rule" you're citing, doesn't make them ambivalent, incompetent, or uncaring.
Coincidentally, it's rantish posts & ground staked out like the one you submitted that prompted this thread in the first place.
In other completely ancedotal news from my gaming table:
2. Martials are more popular than spellcasters.
3. Stealth works fine.
4. My players run somewhere around 60/40% single-/multi-class.
5. Paizo keeps producing a TON of gaming content that I and my players want.
Nobody's going to argue that the whole team doesn't deserve a movie break after the GenCon rush, but don't you think it would look a bit better for the company if you did it after finishing shipping out this month's subscriber orders? It kinda ticks me off, personally. A minor thing, I admit, but still... the timing on it doesn't seem like the best fan relations idea.
As someone who's been checking hourly for the last day and a half to see if his Ultimate Campaign PDF is available, while I can appreciate the anticipation of new products, I have to disagree.
I think it's tremendous that Paizo does things like this. The people at this company, but all indications, work their collective butts off and I think it's great that the company rewards that work with things like this.
GenCon is just one event. The Paizo work ethic goes year-round.
I hope you all enjoyed the movie.
Check "My Downloads"
One kingdom out of the campaign setting doesn't cut it and it still doesn't make Andoran or Galt integrate better with the rest of the setting.
By all the demons in the Abyss!! How in the hell do they go see Star Trek while I'm still waiting for my Ultimate Campaign PDF!!!!
I've been jonesing for this one since it was announced last year. You people are killing me!
P.S.: The fact that I haven't been able to go see Star Trek myself yet ain't helping your case...
P.P.S.: Feel free to process my PDF before telling us how great the movie was! Pretty please.
So, as a subscriber, I'm being thwarted by the f-ing ALPHABET!
Oh, the humanity!
1. I can't stand Andoran and Galt as written. Primarily, the anachronistic elements of them - 18th Century clothing/uniforms, Colonial mindset, etc.
They're just jarring in comparison to the rest of the setting. So much of Golarion is Classical in nature & theme. Rather than have some classic medieval nations mixed in with those nations, we get a mix of that just doesn't jive with the rest of the setting.
Andoran would have been better if they'd gone the route of "enlightened Camelot". It could still have been focused on freedom and anti-slavery under a "Kingdom of Free Men" model.
Galt could have been a perfect Game of Thrones style kingdom that devolved into civil war.
By the way, both of those would have supported the existence of the cavalier class far better. We FINALLY get a decent knight-based character class and we have a setting where you have to struggle to fit in the classic knight concept.
For folks that come from a deep affection for Greyhawk, I still can't figure out how we ended up with Andoran and Galt and completely missed supporting classic Greyhawk themes of secular knights & medieval kingdoms.
Andoran & Galt as written would be perfect for a Razor Coast or Freeport style of game, but I am bordering on nuking all canon-related content and reimagining them as I've described above in my home campaigns.
2. Guns in Golarion, as others have noted above. Yes, they've said magic is a deterrent/impeder of widespread adoption. Yes, it's limited to the Alkenstar region (somewhat). But it was also one of the most transformational technologies with respect to warfare to ever be invented.
Then we get the "Guns go with pirates" crowd, as if pirates never existed prior to gunpowder. Yes, I know cutlass & flintlock and cannons are the iconic image one gets when you hear the word "pirate" but it's not as if you're going to have cannons and guns on ships and they're going to stop working when you get to ground warfare. If you're running a pirate campaign one-off, go for it. But you can't avoid affecting the campaign setting as a whole. (Fortunately, Paizo went for the "limited guns" route in Skull & Shackles.)
3. While I like the humanocentric focus of Golarion, I'd lik a little bit better integration of fantasy races. I love the Forlorn take on elves and Pathfinder gnomes and goblins. But I'd like orcs to thrive in more than one place. I also don't understand the need to further explode the number of player character races when such races will be a "niche of a niche" in such a human-centric setting. The core races and monsters have a hard enough time carving out their place in Golarion without the additional competition.
I love the Golarion setting. Generally, speaking, I love the kitchen-sink approach. But sometimes, the answer should be "No" to avoid turning the setting into a hodge-podge mess.
the Queen's Raven wrote:
I am not trolling here and don't want to see any negative comments. It is a simple question, are any of you out there just happy with Pathfinder.
Biggest plusses/improvements for me: the new base classes & archetypes.
It's the best FRPG I've ever owned/played/GMed. (And I've run BECM D&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, GURPS, Rolemaster, WHFRP, & the Conan RPG.)
I think the idea of the grid for city development is a good thing. The level of abstraction, or lack thereof, isn't the most important thing, IMO. I think it's the framework that it provides that's important. I also think Sean's examples of what constitutes a "building" for the grid are excellent.
However, the issue that I had with the concept of the grid/map is that it's not reflective of ANY Golarion city published to date as far as I can tell. This is hardly surprising since the City-Building Rules came out after multiple Golarion towns & cities saw print. Also, what constitutes a "good map" is usually what is visually interesting, not how logical a layout the city might have, as defined by the city-building rules.
Now, I'm not suggesting that it has to be taken into account when mapping Golarion settlements, but it definitely undercut my interest in building out the town grid. Not because it wouldn't be useful, but primarily because I couldn't see myself reverse-engineering something like Korvosa or Magnimar using the system. Yeah, I know, that's what happens when the only part of your life that supports OCD is your GM-side...
In much the same way as the settlement stat blocks can be applied to any settlement in Golarion, it would be a nice-to-have if future settlement maps had some planning/methodology that paid some attention to the City-Building rules.
If a Ranger (Falconer) multi-classes into Druid and takes the Eagle Domain, do those benefits apply to his existing animal companion or does he have to take a 2nd animal (technically referred to as a familiar in the text)?
I really hate this kind of heavy-handed railroading of character concept in a DM. Lawful Evil can be the most honest and trustworthy character in a party and still be roleplaying the alignment properly. By forcing you to lie to your party, he is making party in-fighting much more likely when they find out you are a Cleric of Asmodeus. Just because you selected the Trickery domain is no justification for being a pathological liar with your adventuring party.
While I agree with your railroad comment, it's frakkin' Asmodeus. Lies are kinda one of his things...
I'd preorder immediately.
I loved the Kingdoms of Kalamar atlas. While an Avistan/Inner Sea/Garamund atlas wouldn't feasibly go as granular (nor would I want it to) it would be fantastic to get more detailed maps, climate, vegetation, trade routes, resources/exports laid out in a single book!
No. This guy is a train wreck clinging to his "treats women well" as a crutch to excuse the rest of his deplorable behavior. Yeah, it's great how enlightened he is in his treatment towards succubi. You know, those demonic entities that seek the destruction of mortals through lust and carnal pleasures twisted to destructive ends. Yeah, that's a tough code to follow....
This is like saying the Joker isn't CE because he occasionally shows Harley Quinn an unintended kindness.
This has been an interesting thread to see how much deplorable behavior is being hand-waved away by one or two (minor) tenets of decent behavior. That makes the character a believable, three-dimensional villain, but he's a villain all the same. If I were a PC in a game, I would LOVE bringing this jerk to justice after he'd been established as an adversary in the game.
Coincidence or not, I do find it interesting that quite a few of those talking about TPKs & overall AP difficulty use not only 20-pt buy, but 25. It does make me wonder if that pc-optimization view causes those players to have a false sense of invulnerability.
My groups use 15-point buy. The Paizo APs we've played have been challenging and hard at times. But you're playing ADVENTURES for high stakes. It's supposed to be hard. My players have never felt cheated or that the deck was stacked against them.
And while there's nothing wrong with optimizing PCs, it doesn't negate the need for smart tactical play. I've seen "tougher" encounters resolved handily through smart tactics and "weaker" encounters result in PC deaths because the bad guys used good tactics or the PCs got too cocky.
Some people focus on the numbers. Perhaps there truly are a large number of RPGers out there who focus on DPS/DPR but my guy tells me that they are just vocal.
Same goes for the class-criticism threads. While I'm not suggesting all classes are equal, some folks interpretations of broken/weak are 180 degrees out of whack with others viewpoints. In my own experience, the claims of fighter and rogue weakness are VERY overblown. My groups nor I have experienced it and they remain the two most popular classes in the games that I run.
I also think that threads about mechanics lend themselves to greater forum discussion because there is a view, rightly or wrongly, that looking at the numbers is more "objective". However, class effectiveness is rarely captured fully by looking at DPS/DPR.
In no particular order:
1. Osirion AP
And my far-out concession to a planar AP. The PCs start out as recently-deceased souls awaiting Pharasma's judgement. The PCs end up traveling the planes to learn who they were, why they were killed, with the goal of either ascending to a higher-order outsider or being restored to life and then exact justice on those who slew them. Kind of a trippy, plane-hopping whodunit.
I’m a huge OGL & 3PP fan. It was the OGL & 3PP that brought me back into the d20-sphere and caused me to purchase the D&D 3e ruleset. Rather than being limited to official D&D splatbooks, there were suddenly a very large offering of products that catered to varying tastes and if you looked hard enough, you could find something to scratch your particular itch.
So while going the Pathfinder route was a no-brainer for me, I was thrilled that PF would encourage the ongoing use/support of 3PP products. I have bought & continue to buy a ton of 3PP products. However, this past weekend as I was looking through several PDFs, it occurred to me that unlike in years past, I use very few “crunch” products these days. It was a short walk to realize why:
General lack of Hero Lab support.
Yes, I know that in some cases, fan-created material is available for Hero Lab. However, in the rare instance where I go searching for it, I’m often reluctant to use it.
Yes, I know that Hero Lab is not required. However, one of the major draws for me as a GM is that PF utilizes a consistent framework for PCs, NPCs, and Monsters. Hero Lab allows me to have my cake and eat it, too – I can turn out a fully-statted, detailed character in minutes. I don’t go so far as to say Hero Lab is a requirement for PF GMs, but I strongly recommend it for the utility & value it provides.
Although it’s a nice-to-have tool rather than a must-have, as a GM with a full-time, demanding job, a wife, and kids and all of the time demands those require, I’m not willing to lose the time-saving HL gives me on NPC creation so I can focus on adventure, setting, & such.
Unfortunately, this means that most of those awesome character classes by Super Genius Games or those expanded character options/advanced feats from Open Design don’t get used. Or if so, very rarely.
I recognize that some 3PPs have begun testing the waters with HL support in some of their products. I'm officially weighing in with a "thank you" and "please, more".
I recognize that the coding of Hero Lab files isn’t an insignificant undertaking. I realize that there are costs involved. However, I’d pay more for those PDFs if HL files were included. I’d also likely buy more as I’d be more likely to use them.
As it stands, without them, I find myself leaning towards products that aren’t providing character-crunch like setting creation guides, pre-made settings, etc. or searching out publishers that are providing HL support (or are at least having Lone Wolf develop it) ala Frog God Games.
I can’t speak to the business realities of being a 3PP. I suspect that what I’m asking for may be seen as unrealistic or unfair. However, I can’t escape the conclusion that I’ve arrived at from a time/prep/value-for-my-$ perspective. As a fan of 3PPs and their products, I figured that it couldn’t hurt to ask. Maybe I’m just in a small minority. However, my gut tells me that I’m probably not.
Thanks for your consideration.
Knight Magenta wrote:
I am pretty sure that torture is a fear effect. Paladins are immune to fear. Ergo: you can not break a paladin under torture. You can tempt them, but you can't break them. Barring certain powerful magics.
That's .... Something that I never considered but a pretty cool interpretation. Remove the fear element and the only reason for breaking would be from a selfish sense of self-preservation vs. devotion to the faith. This is a much cleaner scenario where falling could result.
I have to chew on this some, but I like it on 1st glance.
Aunt Tony wrote:
Golly, mister! Thanks for telling us we've all been playing wrong!
In case you're wondering why some are taking issue with your posts, this is a good example of how your "I know the one true way" tone is extremely off-putting.
You also seem to think it's all about optimization. Finally, opinion does not equal "universal truth".
Alexander Augunas wrote:
THIS! A thousand times this!
IMO, most -- at least if they're trying to be good GMs.
For any level of immersion beyond a beer-and-pretzels dungeon crawl, a GM better put at least enough effort to not throw a snowstorm into mid-summer by way of ignorance/carelessness.
Weather can be used to great effect in enhancing a game. I'm not trying to be rude, but if a GM said this to me, I'd think that person was a lazy GM.
To the OP, a couple of questions:
1) Does your group subscribe to the concept of "party roles" and each character is expected to fill one?
2) Do YOU see a "problem" with you current sorcerer as the experienced player cits?
For #1, if your group expects character to fit a particular role, make sure the role slotted for your Oracle is one that you want to play. Understanding that role can help define the spell list.
Personally, I think the idea of players-must-fill-party-role is vastly overblown. Most players in my games make "what do I want to play" the 1st priority. They also tend towards more well-rounded characters rather than trying to optimize into glass-jaw/one-trick-pony characters but different strokes for different groups...
For #2, if you don't see a problem with your sorcerer character, then there's nothing to "fix" with your oracle build.
Optimization aside, I do think that "don't try to do everything" is good advice. I believe you can get a better play experience (mechanically & role-play) if you tailor your spellcaster around a particular theme. Be really good at one form of magic and decent in a few others. Trying to "cover all the bases" tends to lead to watered-down or directionless characters in my experience.
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
There's language that goes against civil discourse in public, and there's censorship of ideas. Guess which column your suggestion falls into...
I don't care for the badwrongfun accusations either, primarily because they seem to originate from hypersensitivity to something trivial. You know how I avoid them? I don't read those posts and/or threads. It has the added benefit of getting me through a thread faster, too.
...and I'm out. I'll be temporarily suspending my module subscription with this one.
Now before the flamethrowers come out, for those who have been wanting more Gunslinger & Alkenstar goodness, I'm happy for you.
However, unlike past years, 2013 is, for the first time, developing into the year where I'm not trying to get everything Paizo publishes. I decided to stay the course with my AP subscription through Reign of Winter - where I have zero interest in trips to 20th century Earth, and the Worldwound AP - where I'm still on the fence about Mythic (anti-Epic-level play, but intrigued by Mythic). That's an entire year of APs that may be of little interest/use to me but I'm hoping to pilfer stuff I like, I have collected the entire AP run thus far, and I like the AP discount.
But that's a lot of money to eat on a "maybe" for content usefulness.
In a world where instantaneous travel is possible via teleportation, while I've liked Golarion's "this theme pervades this region" approach, the idea that technology like firearms wouldn't SERIOUSLY alter the setting & warfare seems highly unlikely to me, magic-be-damned. Thus the firearms-Alkenstar thing has always bugged me and quite honestly, I go to Golarion for classic swords-and-sorcery/High Fantasy play, not steampunk. Steampunk typically brings along with it 18th- & 19th-Century Earth tropes or at least window-dressing, and while Golarion is not strictly "medieval" or "Renaissance" in setting, those are the influences most commonly associated with the game, its influences, and the setting to date.
And while I want to continue to support Paizo and enjoy all of my subscriptions, it's reached a point where I can't buy products from a collector's standpoint, continue to take a "give it a chance/wait-and-see" or just so fans of "X" get to scratch their itch.
So for the fans of gunslingers, firearms in PF, and Alkenstar, I hope that this module is everything you've been patiently waiting for.
However, I also hope we don't see more of the same thematic material anytime soon after this one.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
You win the thread! Spot on!
So up front, I'm an AP subscriber who is not interested in the Earth/Russia connection with Reign of Winter and is on the fence with Mythic rules/content. I'm NOT cancelling my AP subscription.
That said, going in reverse order:
Salvage is all well and good. Like you, the number of APs that I'll actually get to run is pretty small. Almost every AP installment I'm getting is stuff that will be salvaged in some way for my campaigns. I also like just reading the APs for the story aspect. However, the greatest value I get from the APs is as an inspirational source and as examples that inspire my own creations.
But salvage is only useful if there's a decent chance that there will be something to salvage. And for the price of a AP installment a couple of monsters, a few magic items, and a gazetteer isn't enough salvage to justify the price in some cases. Using "Rasputin Must Die!" as an example, if the magic items are all enchanted 20th century items, the bestiary is 20th century foes, vehicles, or enchanted variants of such, there won't be much for me to salvage. I don't care how much disposable income you have, $20+ for a few pages of "salvage" is a poor bang:buck ratio.
As for the theme, why wouldn't that be the primary criteria for continuing/stopping a subscription?!? Why should anyone purchase something if they aren't interested in it? I'm keeping my subscription because a) I can afford to, b) I'll savage bits, c)I like the discount applying to my Paizo purchases. Take those considerations away, and my AP subscription is gone.
Also, Paizo is always asking for feedback. Yapping away on a messageboard provides feedback, but I have yet to see a company that doesn't pay more attention to what customers are, or as the case may be, are NOT buying. Voting with your wallet is a pretty concise way of providing feedback. Truth be told, even with my 3 considerations met, I was on the fence with cancelling my AP subscription. Ultimately, I decided that Paizo had earned enough customer loyalty from me to ride out a year's worth of AP installments that I potentially will not like. (And if consideration "a)" goes away for economic reasons, so does that ride...)
Also, for those citing "traditionalist", "conservative", and "reactionary" fantasy fans, like it or not, those sources and elements are the foundations upon which this game is built upon. Is the game limited to such things? Of course not. But they have a wide appeal for a reason. Some GMs and players don't get to play every week. We don't burn through a setting in a year or two. We're not looking for the weird thing or the new shiny for the novelty of it. We've bought into the setting as it was revealed to us and while we want to be as inclusive as possible, not everything "fits".
There are all too many examples of settings that have "jumped the shark" because detrimental elements were introduced, or the setting morphed into something that was a huge departure from the established canon. We don't want that in Pathfinder or Golarion.
Paizo has ONE setting, because they've seen the business pitfalls of supporting multiple settings simultaneously. Fair enough. But part of that equation for some fans is that Golarion CAN'T be all things for every type of fantasy or else you get a watered-down hodgepodge. For us, Golarion IS for the mainstream/classic fantasy -- blended with all of Paizo's modern-day goodness & inspiration. Other settings, like Iron Kingdoms, Neo-Exodus, and others are for the radically divergent.
(And in case anyone is wondering -- no, given the game's roots and inspirational sources, I don't consider Numeria "radically divergent".)
My two recommendations would be Mutants & Masterminds or Savage Worlds.
Both are flexible games that have a fair amount of sci-fi setting conversion material available on the web.
Mutants & Masterminds:
Pro & Con:
Having used both for sci-fi campaigns, my recommendation would be Savage Worlds. I use Pathfinder for my fantasy RPG, but sci-fi doesn't lend itself well to RPGs with that depth of detail. In my experience, by the time the "robot book" or "spaceship book" gets published, the game or setting is on the decline. You want detail but you don't want to spend hours statting up a starship or a piece of gear -- that's where Savage Worlds edges out Mutants & Masterminds, IMO.
Finally, while I love GURPS, and found it to be incredibly fast to run once you know the rules, I can't recommend it unless you have tons of free time. Everything is so detailed that with work, wife, & kids I just didn't have the kind of time available to prep things in GURPS. Yes, you can sacrifice detail as needed, but the detail is a huge selling point of GURPS.
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
How are those rose-colored glasses?
You're pretty much theorizing that Microsoft will drop the ball entirely while Sony releasing an announcement -- again, they didn't show it -- puts them beyond Microsoft's reach.
Honestly, I don't think the PS4 or the Xbox 720 is going to shake up the gaming universe all that much, at least from a console perspective. It'll be like upgrading a PC -- you get the new bells and whistles, but you needed those to stay competitive. We're not seeing a tablet-style revolution here.
I have both the XBOX 360 & the PS3. The only 2 things I care about from a PS3 perspective are the exclusive games (Uncharted, Infamous, Killzone are the only ones I care about) and the blu-ray player. That's it. Even accounting for the fact that I have to shell out for XBOX Live while I can play online with PS3 for free, the XBOX provides a better experience with respect to:
1. Controllers - totally subjective but I like the Xbox controllers better
2. Better/smoother Online play - yeah, it sucks to pay for it, but it has a far better play:issue ratio than PS3 has had for me.
3. Interface - even with Microsoft stupidly changing the UI annually and cluttering it up with crap I don't care about, it's STILL more intuitive/faster than the PS3.
4. User admin - I can create, modify, delete & change user account permissions at whim on the Xbox. My kids have gotten old enough that I want to relax some parental controls on the PS3 and every time I attempt it, I get some "Can't do that at this time" (or somesuch) message. If you're wasting my time, you're not earning loyalty.
Best case, Sony & Microsoft will continue to counter the worst elements of each other. If the PS4 can play used games and that forces Microsoft's hand, all well and good. If the PS4 gets a better UI and clears up all of the negatives listed above, I'll look at it.
However, at the end of the day, as has been said upthread, it's all about the games. I'm loyal to IPs and game series, not the freaking system it runs on.
Agreed, but I always took those bits as benchmarks for home types that equalled that lifestyle, not the purchase of the property itself.
Cost of living, if I recall correctly is just that -- the cost to maintain that level of lifestyle: food, clothes, upkeep, taxes, etc. it cites rooms in inns or houses, etc. I never read it as the cost to buy a house.
Several of the city books, such as Korvosa & Absalom, gave prices for renting or owning buildings. I always took that as additional cost. Someone paying 100 / m to have a suite in an inn might have the same cost of living & general lifestyle/amenities, but someone who owns a townhouse should have had to shell out money to do so.
I know Paizo likes to support topics/AP setting material across multiple lines and I'm a fan of the method.
I'd really like to see additional treatments for topics in Ultimate Campaigns that are of player interest but don't fit as cleanly into one of the other lines.
I know we're getting PC: Quests & Campaigns, but it only specifically mentions expanding upon the PC background expansion and the Kingdom-building rules.
Things I'd like to see in future Companions:
1. A Companion treatment/expansion on the rules for running a business. Expand upon it to include Knightly Orders, Thieves' Guilds, Temples, Arcane Academies, Merc companies, etc.
My players and I really like these kinds of topics because they immerse the players more deeply in the setting. I'm also a big fan of many of the subsystems introduced in the various APs, but they're often a flash-in-the-pan and then never developed any further or broadened for inclusion beyond a particular AP.
Using Bethesda & Skyrim as an example, if they can base an entire DLC pack on homesteading in a fantasy RPG & fully integrate it into the game, my players and I can't be alone wanting more for players than feats, spells, and traits. I love those too, but they're only cool in these books because/when they reinforce the fluff.