Why does pathfinder unnessicarily hinder itself?

So, I've always been a fan of game balance, but I've also always been a fan of creativity and using RPGs to explore things you can't do in real life. I mean, that's kind of the point of RPGs, right? Imagine yourself S a big tough fighter that can take ungodly amounts of punishment, or a mighty spellcaster, or a bard who's very music is infused with magic?

And pathfinder, I find, does that job pretty well. Sure there are builds that are 'better' than others, but all the classes are decently well balanced in the grand scheme of things. In other words, PFS isn't only populated by (say) warpriests or maguses because those classes aren't so good that they always outshine another.

So my question is 'why doesn't pathfinder let us be a little more creative without changing the mechanics of the game?

Like, while I like 90% of the summoner rebalancing, the unnessissary limitations placed on new eidolons really bugs me. I know that they wanted to bring eidolons more into line with pathfinder lore, but aren't the planes infinite? I mean, I've seen a number of really interesting, fun, and creative eidolons out there, but now they have to be approved pathfinder creatures.

On the same token, spiritualists. Their phantoms have to be hunanoid, why? Why can't your spiritualist form a bond with a shard of a dragon's soul, or a thuqqoa? I mean, so long as the stat blocks stay the same for game balance purposes, what is they point of limiting us?

Now, I know what you're thinking: they have a 'theme' in mind when they make a class. But why MUST you stick to it? I mean, sure, you can make a big strong great-axe barbarian, but I can also make a ninja-like barbarian. You can make a dex-fighter, or a specialized wizard, so why not a sailor summoner with a boat-like eidolon?

And before you mention "ask your GM to house rule it," I would just like to say "I know," but I do a great deal of PFS and you can't always count on a GM ruling in favor of your specific character.

Anyway, just a little something I wanted to get off my chest. End of rant.

The reason is economics.

The more freedom players of the game have, the less dependent they are on Paizo. If you (the GM / the gaming group) can make your own class, or modify an existing one, why buy the next book of archetypes? If you can reflavor items, if you can come up with creatures on your own, why buy the next Armory or Bestiary or what have you? Heck, if you can come up with mechanics for mass combat / ships / intrigue / anything on your own, why buy the next Ultimate whatever?

The attitude of sticking to the rules, modifying nothing, taking the flavor as it is given, and religiously obeying the limitations (because "balance" would suffer otherwise!), is good for Paizo's bottom line. The attitude of DIYing, tweaking, remixing, rolling your own, and otherwise flexing your creative muscles, is bad for Paizo's bottom line. That's all there is to it.

The reason is economics.

The more freedom players of the game have, the less dependent they are on Paizo. If you (the GM / the gaming group) can make your own class, or modify an existing one, why buy the next book of archetypes? If you can reflavor items, if you can come up with creatures on your own, why buy the next Armory or Bestiary or what have you? Heck, if you can come up with mechanics for mass combat / ships / intrigue / anything on your own, why buy the next Ultimate whatever?

The attitude of sticking to the rules, modifying nothing, taking the flavor as it is given, and religiously obeying the limitations (because "balance" would suffer otherwise!), is good for Paizo's bottom line. The attitude of DIYing, tweaking, remixing, rolling your own, and otherwise flexing your creative muscles, is bad for Paizo's bottom line. That's all there is to it.

And where exactly have you seen Paizo espouse this logic?

And no, constantly creating material that people buy and are inspired by isn't it.

And where exactly have you seen Paizo espouse this logic?

And no, constantly creating material that people buy and are inspired by isn't it.

Who said I had?

Reread what I wrote, Rysky. I never said anything about what Paizo did or did not "espouse". Just the facts.

The thing about economics is, at the core, it's really about something very simple — and yet undeniable and inexorable:

People follow incentives.

Doesn't have to be conscious. Doesn't have to be intentional. They don't have to admit it to themselves, or be aware of it. But it's what happens, nonetheless.

What I wrote isn't an attack on Paizo. It's certainly not some sort of claim that Paizo is evilly plotting to take our money (besides, they are a business, after all; making a profit is kind of the point) by stifling our creativity.

All I am saying is that one attitude about modification/creativity is more profitable for Paizo, and another attitude is less profitable for Paizo. As a result, they have an incentive to publish one sort of content, and not publish another sort of content. And as I said: people (and especially people acting within organizations, like a business!) follow incentives.

The way this looks in practice is that Paizo hit on what we might call a "content architecture" that discourages creativity, and allows a business model wherein they publish lots of rulebooks. Rulebooks thus sell, and books that perpetuate that architecture sell, and each in turn creates the demand for further books that perpetuate that architecture. ("Buy this new book with rules for X! Then of course you'll want these supplements that expand your options for X. And look! There's a new AP, which features X - of course you'll want those rulebooks and supplements to go with it." — where X is kingdom building, intrigue, psychic magic, whatever New Thing it is that year...) Books that do not contribute to this structure, sell more poorly and enable fewer future sales.

Perhaps an example might illustrate my point.

In Pathfinder, multiclassing mostly sucks (as a quick perusal of forum threads on the topic will tell you). Archetypes are the new multiclassing; the way you achieve thematic/conceptual combinations of classes or roles is to take the appropriate archetype.

Now, there are certainly game design reasons for this, and we could, if we wanted, argue all day about whether they are good design reasons or bad design reasons, etc. But we could also observe the following:

In a game with a robust, flexible, and effective multiclassing system, if the core rulebook hands you a fighter, a cleric, a wizard, and a rogue class, you can then play a wizard/rogue, or a fighter/rogue, or a cleric/rogue, or a fighter/wizard/cleric, with no further materials. In Pathfinder, if you want to play a wizard/rogue, you have to wait until Paizo publishes the "eldritch scoundrel", and buy the book it's in; if you want to play a cleric/rogue, you have to wait until Paizo publishes the "divine stalker", and buy the book it's in; etc.

Straightforwardly, the latter design sells more books. Is this false?

sigh

Let's not fight.

While there is something to what you say, Makhno, it's a bit more complicated. A lot of Pathfinder issues, such as multiclassing, are inherited from 3e, and not of Paizo design. Fixing them would likely require significant revisions to the system, and given Paizo's long-standing commitment to backwards compatibility, that's not likely to happen.

In addition, people designing their own content is still very much part of the system - the ARG and ACG each contain sections discussing how to do just that. People can buy the books if they want a professionally-designed version. Or just use the PRD.

The idea that "you have to buy the book to do what you want" is undermined somewhat by the existence of the various SRDs, in fact. ^_^

Compared to 1st and 2nd edition Multi-classing in 3rd edition and Pathfinder is a sunny breeze of sunshine. :-)

Remember the past!

Edit: fixed my own shameful grammatical error.

Edit: fixed my grammatical error I made in the edit acknowledging my previous grammatical error.

I'm just going to go ahead and smurf myself now.

sigh

Let's not fight.

While there is something to what you say, Makhno, it's a bit more complicated. A lot of Pathfinder issues, such as multiclassing, are inherited from 3e, and not of Paizo design. Fixing them would likely require significant revisions to the system, and given Paizo's long-standing commitment to backwards compatibility, that's not likely to happen.

Well, this is true to an extent, but multiclassing is objectively stronger in 3.5 than it is in Pathfinder. It's not as if this is an accident; Jason Bulmahn has commented more than once that he doesn't think multiclassing should even exist (nor prestige classes, either), and that "archetypes as multiclassing" is deliberate. I was at a panel at GenCon at one point where he and Sean K Reynolds talked about this at some length, in fact.

(By the way, please do not take the above as some sort of claim in the vein of "See, it really is an evil plot!!!". As I said, there may be all sorts of game design reasons for this sort of approach.)

It's hard to deny that combining classes in arbitrary ways was quite commonplace in 3.5, and isn't in Pathfinder. (And 3.5 isn't a paragon of multiclassing systems either, by the way! Far from it. Wizards of the Coast, after all, also had financial incentives...) So, in fact, the weakness of multiclassing, and the fact that there is not a flexible and robust way to mix-and-match classes in Pathfinder is far from being a legacy of 3rd edition; rather, it's an innovation of Pathfinder (and a deliberate one, as I mention above).

In addition, people designing their own content is still very much part of the system - the ARG and ACG each contain sections discussing how to do just that. People can buy the books if they want a professionally-designed version. Or just use the PRD.

The idea that "you have to buy the book to do what you want" is undermined somewhat by the existence of the various SRDs, in fact. ^_^

Well, this is certainly true. People do buy the books, though, don't they? The SRDs are a great thing, but let's be fair: they're no substitute for a good PDF or a physical book or, especially, the combo of those two things. (And this is fine! Why shouldn't Paizo make money off the content they create?)

And so there are patterns to which books sell better and which sell worse. Empirically, people who want to use new content will buy the books. Many GMs in fact allow content only from books that either they or their players physically own (a sensible policy, imo). So what I said does, after all, still hold, SRDs notwithstanding...

Hence the "somewhat". Obviously, it's not a cure-all, but it is more accessible than it was in prior editions. ^_^

(And the SRDs aren't as reliable as they used to be. The warping of content on d20pfsrd is, sadly, a good reason to require an actual book.)

Hence the "somewhat". Obviously, it's not a cure-all, but it is more accessible than it was in prior editions. ^_^

(And the SRDs aren't as reliable as they used to be. The warping of content on d20pfsrd is, sadly, a good reason to require an actual book.)

Until the book becomes pretty much useless come the next errata.

While I appreciate everyone's opinion, I feel that this is a bit off of my original point. I'm not saying 'make a new class' or anything, I'm just asking why flavor is restrictive. I understand that PAIZO is going for a feel for certain classes, but that doesn't mean that is the ONLY interpretation. So a spiritualist is supposed to forge a connection with a singular humanoid right? But what about a fractured mind, who's phantom is an imaginary friend? Why can't that be a medium sized dragon with two slam attacks?

It just seems to unnessicarily restrict fun character ideas, is my only gripe.

Unless you don't care about such things.

Edit: ninja'd! I meant unless you don't care about errata.

It just seems to unnessicarily restrict fun character ideas, is my only gripe.

The restrictions are only as binding as you make them. But Paizo can't make options for everyone. They do their best, but their best will never be perfect for everyone. And some things are just not things they want to do.

Like, while I like 90% of the summoner rebalancing, the unnessissary limitations placed on new eidolons really bugs me.

I would have liked a sandbox Unchained eidolon myself, as alternative to the given outsider types. With less evolutions but more evolution points, so closer to the APG version, but not as lopsided in favor of Huge clawdolons.

There are players who like choices being narrowed down to only few, and there are those who like to crawl through a huge pool of options. And of course everyone in between.

Personally, I like the approach taken at kineticist and vigilante: Split the big pool of options into two still big parts, so builds are automatically less lopsided and less prone to extreme powerbuilding.

So, I've always been a fan of game balance, but I've also always been a fan of creativity and using RPGs to explore things you can't do in real life. I mean, that's kind of the point of RPGs, right? Imagine yourself S a big tough fighter that can take ungodly amounts of punishment, or a mighty spellcaster, or a bard who's very music is infused with magic?

And pathfinder, I find, does that job pretty well. Sure there are builds that are 'better' than others, but all the classes are decently well balanced in the grand scheme of things. In other words, PFS isn't only populated by (say) warpriests or maguses because those classes aren't so good that they always outshine another.

So my question is 'why doesn't pathfinder let us be a little more creative without changing the mechanics of the game?

Like, while I like 90% of the summoner rebalancing, the unnessissary limitations placed on new eidolons really bugs me. I know that they wanted to bring eidolons more into line with pathfinder lore, but aren't the planes infinite? I mean, I've seen a number of really interesting, fun, and creative eidolons out there, but now they have to be approved pathfinder creatures.

On the same token, spiritualists. Their phantoms have to be hunanoid, why? Why can't your spiritualist form a bond with a shard of a dragon's soul, or a thuqqoa? I mean, so long as the stat blocks stay the same for game balance purposes, what is they point of limiting us?

Now, I know what you're thinking: they have a 'theme' in mind when they make a class. But why MUST you stick to it? I mean, sure, you can make a big strong great-axe barbarian, but I can also make a ninja-like barbarian. You can make a dex-fighter, or a specialized wizard, so why not a sailor summoner with a boat-like eidolon?

And before you mention "ask your GM to house rule it," I would just like to say "I know," but I do a great deal of PFS and you can't always count on a GM ruling in favor of your specific character.

Anyway, just a little something I...

Interesting that you mentioned PFS. PFS was the source of a lot of datapoints fromm players, Judges and Venture officers on how the original Summoner worked out in play. The overwhelming consensus was that both the Eidolon and the unbalances spell list needed major adjustment. This was in addition to the overwhelming responses from home GM's, AND Paizo devs themselves, who had banned the original summoner in their home games.

The main reason was game play, not settings.

You actually answer your own question a bit.

In the context of PFS:

Things are flavored a certain way. You're not allowed to change them from that way. Why? Because that's the way it is in the Golarion setting that Paizo has created. Why can't you have a dragon spirit? Because that doesn't happen in Paizo's Golarion setting. (At least as published at this time). Why do Eidolons come from the specifically offered planes? Cause that's where Eidolons come from in Paizo's Golarion setting.

It's like going to any author or creator and asking why they didn't use this idea, or why their characters don't do a certain thing. It's just because the creators decided, in their world, that's the way it works.

That's why in Pathfinder you're able to use the ruleset - as opposed to the setting - in your own way and change it however you want.

4e encourages DMs and players to reflavor things, and 4e is awful. Therefore reflavoring things is awful.

You actually answer your own question a bit.

In the context of PFS:

Things are flavored a certain way. You're not allowed to change them from that way. Why? Because that's the way it is in the Golarion setting that Paizo has created. Why can't you have a dragon spirit? Because that doesn't happen in Paizo's Golarion setting. (At least as published at this time). Why do Eidolons come from the specifically offered planes? Cause that's where Eidolons come from in Paizo's Golarion setting.

It's like going to any author or creator and asking why they didn't use this idea, or why their characters don't do a certain thing. It's just because the creators decided, in their world, that's the way it works.

That's why in Pathfinder you're able to use the ruleset - as opposed to the setting - in your own way and change it however you want.

Yes, there is the feeling among many gamers and game designers that a thing is what it is. See: Every paladin thread ever. The Paizo team of course knows that their customers are free to reflavor what they produce, but there may be a general sense that that's 100% on the customers.

Simple fast answers:

1) You can do anything you want in a home game.

2) Things in PFS have to be stratified/standardized more so than a home game so that the people who play in it can go ANYWHERE and have their characters work and not have to bog down a game with their own "I am a special flower' differences.

While a class should be broad enough to allow for many character possibilities, it's also important for a class to have a strong flavorful foundation so it can have an identity.

I frequently see the problem in homebrew classes that try to be so broad that they're essentially a bag of talents.

It is possible to be creative within the mechanics of the game. Just about every possibility is represented by an element of game mechanics.

Simple fast answers:

1) You can do anything you want in a home game.

2) Things in PFS have to be stratified/standardized more so than a home game so that the people who play in it can go ANYWHERE and have their characters work and not have to bog down a game with their own "I am a special flower' differences.

As a pfs mostly player (work up to 2-3 months ago kept me on the road 4-6 month a year made home games problematic) I still find a lot of room for creativity.

I have a half orc with the ritual scaring alt race trait which is defined as Cheliaxian nuns attempting to beat the orc out of her. I have another who introduces his squire and herold vanities as his 14 year old twin daughters. Asked why he's adventuring he will state "have you seen the cost of a good Taldan education".

But I also find I am bothered by certain tendencies. I don't like that the unchained rogue now has to be Dex based. I despise the new summoner for the built in flavor (should have been archetypes) and that there but are options that are mechanically blocked off for no good reason (imagine a bluff eidolon with combat expertise, a decent spell like ability summoner etc) that fans of the original class wanted and could have been easily accommodated.

I don't like that the unchained rogue now has to be Dex based.

I find it weird when people suggest this. It doesn't... Nothing in Unchained Rogue makes a non-dex rogue worse than a non-dex non-Unchained rogue. It gives benefits for if you do want to be a dex rogue, that doesn't mean the unchained rogue has to be dex based.

well...in the case of the spiritualist, the very theme of the class is someone who has a "ghost" buddy (even if phantoms are considered outsiders). The class is geared around that concept, and not really the "friend of dragons/elementals/etc" That is more archetype territory, or the old unchained summoner, before it became more "existing" outsider focused.