Obviously, WotC's non-core classes cannot be used.
Since alternate class features aren't in the SRD, will you be including new core classes in Pathfinder to fill some of the gaps (like ninja, swashbuckler, etc.)? Or will you focus on a different alternative?
I'm just curious while trying to brainstorm ideas while waiting for the submission guidelines to materialize. ;)
Obviously, WotC's non-core classes cannot be used. Since alternate class features aren't in the SRD, will you be including new core classes in Pathfinder to fill some of the gaps (like ninja, swashbuckler, etc.)?
These are splat supplements and prestige classes. All core classes are per the OGL and Paizo has full rights and use of them in anything they develop. And as Fake states...why invent the wheel. Those classes are already out there...just go ahead and use them.
Or will you focus on a different alternative?
I'm just curious while trying to brainstorm ideas while waiting for the submission guidelines to materialize. ;)
I'm curious too...what are they brainstorming? I know that Pathfinder needs a world...check, they're working on that. This new world needs deities...check, they have that covered too. Cosmology...check, it's in their vision going forward.
Quesion is, are they thinking along the terms of adding source material (i.e. splat books similar to what WotC produces) to continue to support the current OGL going forward? Hmmmm...interesting, cause if I were as currently successful as Paizo, I would play the wait and see game with current product lines and ideas in play. If I continue to be successful, rather than add to an OGL that will probably diminish over time; I may be as brave as to make an attempt on a full revision of the game system, and lay claim to it or pursue a license similar to the current OGL.
You know, a new and improved magic system...remove classes altogether and start with just selecting a race and then select class feats from a tree list, talents with levels to replace the current feat system and skills...remove the cross class skill issues altogether...
Just an idea that I would go with if I were the big cheese at Paizo. ; )
They could get away with it in a number of cases and probably do so well. Essentially all they have to do is take the concept of the classes and make ones that work well and are balanced. Now in some cases the splat books already do this well but it seems to me that this is more the exception then the rule. The Ninja is underpowered at least up into the mid levels. Some of his abilities just don't stack very well (there is some kind of a concealment ability that he gains that seems worse then simply using the invisibility ability he already has). I rarely see Swashbucklers and suspect that they just don't really stack up compared to using the basic fighter class. Almost every divine class is underpowered compared to the cleric with the exception of the healer which no player actually wants to play. Samurai has spawned at least one thread as the class is really not very good etc. Essentially the splat books themselves tend to make the core classes ever more powerful, because almost all of them have something for the core classes while the additional classes tend to only be supported in a single splat book.
These are splat supplements and prestige classes. All core classes are per the OGL and Paizo has full rights and use of them in anything they develop. And as Fake states...why invent the wheel. Those classes are already out there...just go ahead and use them.
Pardon me, but I don't understand the argument. Using that logic, why bother with a new pantheon (just to pick an example)? The Greyhawk gods are there; sure Paizo can't use them as they're not OGL, but you could use them in your own game. They could have just left a divine gap there and expected the DM to fill it. (That was example only, and I don't truly advocate the removal of this new and interesting pantheon.)
I happen to like playing around with new mechanics and alternatives. For some reason, that seems to be frowned upon lately. I would love to see Paizo's versions of the swashbuckler and ninja. However, I also happen to love new classes.
:)
Contributor
|
Quesion is, are they thinking along the terms of adding source material (i.e. splat books similar to what WotC produces) to continue to support the current OGL going forward?
Yes, as we need to. For the most part, we aren't going to create new prestige classes and standard classes and new feats and spells just for the sake of creating new stuff. We'll create new rules mechanics as we need them to support our stories (as told through Pathfinder and the GameMastery modules). Please note that I said "for the most part." We might, down the road, put out something that contains tons of new rules bits, but we'll likely always tie in those new bits with our campaign setting. :)
You know, a new and improved magic system...remove classes altogether and start with just selecting a race and then select class feats from a tree list, talents with levels to replace the current feat system and skills...remove the cross class skill issues altogether...
We might add subsystems to the game, but we'll never reinvent existing systems from the SRD. The less like the world's most popular roleplaying game we make our stuff, the fewer copies it will sell.
These are splat supplements and prestige classes. All core classes are per the OGL and Paizo has full rights and use of them in anything they develop. And as Fake states...why invent the wheel. Those classes are already out there...just go ahead and use them.
Pardon me, but I don't understand the argument. Using that logic, why bother with a new pantheon (just to pick an example)? The Greyhawk gods are there; sure Paizo can't use them as they're not OGL, but you could use them in your own game. They could have just left a divine gap there and expected the DM to fill it. (That was example only, and I don't truly advocate the removal of this new and interesting pantheon.)
I happen to like playing around with new mechanics and alternatives. For some reason, that seems to be frowned upon lately. I would love to see Paizo's versions of the swashbuckler and ninja. However, I also happen to love new classes.
:)
Well, it's a slightly different case with classes than it is with deities and worlds. Pathfinder needs to mention gods and locations, but they can't use anything that already exists*. They also need to use classes, but there they can use a lot of what already exists.
The core classes are, well... core. They cover every aspect of the game that needs to be covered, and they are free for Pathfinder to use. Thus, I can see how the drive to make new classes would be lesser. Also, as was stated before, WotC owned splatbook material, such as warlocks and favored souls and whatever else, should work just as well in Pathfinder as anywhere else, so it does run into a bit of the "reinventing the wheel" problem.
That said, I'm all in favor of letting new classes be developed and seeing what is produced, although that aspect of the game isn't so gripping for me.
*I suppose they could say, "In a mountains region of the world you are using," etc., etc., but I think, and I'm sure most people agree, that it would be much better to actually have a world and say, "In the Dragonfang Mountains." Now, I know you're not advocating this, but I was just illustrating that the situation regarding the world and pantheon is slightly different from the situation regarding classes.
It pretty unorthodox for modern publishing but...
The staff might consider putting things like new classes on the board before finalizing it and seeing what kind of feedback they get in terms of play balance and overall appeal for the class. The posters that frequent this message board have, in general, a really good eye for this sort of thing and can really help refine and balance a class or PRC. Furthermore I think the posters would, in general, be proud to have played a small part in refining a class included in what their subscribing to even if its just one of their suggestions being followed and their not actually compensated financially. Speaking for myself at least - I'd want a monetary reward if I completely invented the class, its back story etc. but I'd be perfectly OK just knowing that one good suggestion I had was followed for a class even if I did not get paid for it.
I do not like new base classes: They can always be done as a multiclass or a multiclass with prestige class. This becomes even more clear when one considers some of the new base classes WotC made. The Swashbuckler, for instance, is just a 20-level version of the Duelist. I realize that people want to make unique characters, but if you want a ninja, it's fully possible to make a rogue/monk or use a ninja presige class. Scouts could easily be rogue/rangers. Warlocks should have been left as sorcerors (and were just part of the 'make it more like WoW' movement anyway). Warmages, marshals, and favored souls were miniatures fodder from the get-go. I can go on.
I realize that a ninja has slightly different abilities from a rogue/monk, but the point is that a rogue/monk can easily fill the role and the flavor. New Presige classes are interesting, and fill more specific niches, but extra base classes are unecessary and ignore the prestige class mechanic.
Pardon me, but I don't understand the argument. Using that logic, why bother with a new pantheon (just to pick an example)? The Greyhawk gods are there; sure Paizo can't use them as they're not OGL, but you could use them in your own game.
Saern answered this question quite well for me...thanks Saern.
Yes, as we need to. For the most part, we aren't going to create new prestige classes and standard classes and new feats and spells just for the sake of creating new stuff. We'll create new rules mechanics as we need them to support our stories (as told through Pathfinder and the GameMastery modules).
I figured this much...just didn't know if this was just short term. However...
...but we'll never reinvent existing systems from the SRD. The less like the world's most popular roleplaying game we make our stuff, the fewer copies it will sell.
This answers my long term curiosity with regards to Paizo's vision for the future, and it makes sense.
|
Contributor
|
Don't forget LookThroughMike'sBedroomWindowAtNight.gov.
*sob*
So it was YOU, Jacobs? How could you?
What a job! Here's to hoping Paizo doesn't decide to associate the website with 'games,' lest they be blocked from my office network like WotC's site was/is...
I too hope our site doesn't get banned by your office network. :\
Since alternate class features aren't in the SRD, will you be including new core classes in Pathfinder to fill some of the gaps (like ninja, swashbuckler, etc.)? Or will you focus on a different alternative?
I happen to like playing around with new mechanics and alternatives. For some reason, that seems to be frowned upon lately. I would love to see Paizo's versions of the swashbuckler and ninja.
Well, we have Unearthed Arcana's OGC to serve as inspirations for class substitution levels and variants where needed, and look at Class Acts. The anagakok variant wizard which appeared in Dragon originally appeared as a kit (as did the wu jen, incidentally) in the 2e The Complete Wizard's Handbook (and my copy is sitting on my lap right now :) )
What about using thrd party classes instead.
I love the classes from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. No need to go past them, inc the unfettered for your swashbuckler.
|
What about using thrd party classes instead.
I love the classes from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. No need to go past them, inc the unfettered for your swashbuckler.
I don't like this idea.
There are a lot of AU/AE fans out there, but I would like Pathfinder adventures to be playable with D&D core books.I wouldn't like to see class descriptions from AU/AE being reprinted in Pathfinder just in order to make a class playable which could be depicted by OGL classes as well.
Apart from that some people above already mentioned that your players can play whichever class they (and their DM) like. So why so much effort for those NPCs featuring class levels?
Greetings,
Günther
|
Contributor
|
There are a lot of AU/AE fans out there, but I would like Pathfinder adventures to be playable with D&D core books.
So would we. Monte's classes are very flavorful and quite neat, but they are flavored to fit into his campaign setting, not ours.
Apart from that some people above already mentioned that your players can play whichever class they (and their DM) like. So why so much effort for those NPCs featuring class levels?
Exactly. :) If we need a standard class to fill a niche not covered with the core eleven, we will create it from scratch.
If we need a standard class to fill a niche not covered with the core eleven, we will create it from scratch.
Thank you...I am 110% in agreement with this philosophy/approach.
Look at me, talking like I'm part of the Paizo team. Hahahaha
|
The anagakok variant wizard which appeared in Dragon originally appeared as a kit (as did the wu jen, incidentally) in the 2e The Complete Wizard's Handbook (and my copy is sitting on my lap right now :) )
I hate to nitpick, but the wu jen originally appeared in Oriental Adventures in 1e waaay before 2e's The Complete Wizard's Handbook. Yes, I'm a nerd. :D
Exactly. :) If we need a standard class to fill a niche not covered with the core eleven, we will create it from scratch.
Excellent. ;)
I'll take it a step further and say, "PLEASE design some new classes!" I've been greatly disappointed with most of those produced in WoTC's splatbooks, and have found darn few usable classes in other sources. I definitely appreciate the versatility provided by all the substitution levels, feats, etc. (it sure beats the crap out of 1e and 2e rules), but I'd definitely like to see something new that is both interesting AND playable. I'm not fond of classes that are too campaign- or situation-specific, but I'm sure the Paizo folks can come up with something.
freakish double-post frankenstein
huh?
I'll take it a step further and say, "PLEASE design some new classes!" I've been greatly disappointed with most of those produced in WoTC's splatbooks, and have found darn few usable classes in other sources. I definitely appreciate the versatility provided by all the substitution levels, feats, etc. (it sure beats the crap out of 1e and 2e rules), but I'd definitely like to see something new that is both interesting AND playable. I'm not fond of classes that are too campaign- or situation-specific, but I'm sure the Paizo folks can come up with something.
Umm.... No.
I would prefer the Paizo guys spend what limited time they have developing the new world, and making the pathfinder and modules line a raging success.
Would I love it if Paizo invented some new classes? Absolutley.
Would I prefer they took time away from making Pathfinder an excellent product to make some new classes? No way.
As said above, there are a ton of classes out there for players to use for their PCs. Paizo don't need to spend stacks and stacks of development time developing new classes for NPCs that are going to last 4- 6 rounds once they encounter the PCs. Casue even if the NPC is around for many levels / adventures, their stats (including class etc) ONLY matter when / if they are fighting the PCs.
|
Contributor
|
I would prefer the Paizo guys spend what limited time they have developing the new world, and making the pathfinder and modules line a raging success.
This is absolutely our focus. That's not to say we might not tinker with some pet ideas on the side, in our spare time. Pet ideas that we might someday, somehow, get put into the Paizo world. I'm certainly not saying that. ;)
This is absolutely our focus. That's not to say we might not tinker with some pet ideas on the side, in our spare time. Pet ideas that we might someday, somehow, get put into the Paizo world. I'm certainly not saying that. ;)
McNinja?!
|
You know, a new and improved magic system...remove classes altogether and start with just selecting a race and then select class feats from a tree list, talents with levels to replace the current feat system and skills...remove the cross class skill issues altogether...
Just an idea that I would go with if I were the big cheese at Paizo. ; )
Ummmm that is called GURPS. Been done for about 20 some odd years or more. And in my opinion is about 1 billion times better than d20.
GURPS... you select a race, and point buy your stats (modified by race). Then you point by your advanatages and disadvantages (Feats essentially) then buy your skills. You want a fighter that is really good with swords, spend some points on the sword skill, or just uses brute force, then spend more points on Strength and less on weapons skills.
For example, in Deities and Demigods, it describes Thor's and Sif's cults and battling to see which is better, brute force or skill. Well, neither... they both have the same BAB, regardless. There is no skill involved at all. All 5th level fighters are the same, differentaited almost entirely by feats. Pretty darn boring. In fact for almost all classes, until you reach 12th or 15th levels they really are the same. Pick up one cleric or another, does it matter? Not really. Wizard the same. Different spells maybe, but heck so what.
But what about a 5th level fighter that has points maxed in swords, but also in say, poetry, astronomy and perception? Pretty different from the guy who maxed out in just swords, axes, polearms and thrown weapons. Add in Advantages to the mix and now you have something entirely unique right from the beginning.
|
|
I do not like new base classes
Here, bloody, here. In fact I think the core classes have too many core classes. Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. Done. Everything else can be done with multi-classing and prestige classes.
You want a paladin, sure thing. Three levels, mix up fighter and cleric, make a name for yourself and join or religous organization. Ranger, mix up some Rogue/Wizard in three levels and join our group. Sorcerer... who's idea is that useless class? Ok, Wizard/Cleric modify your casting mechanics to fit in like a cleric (anyone remember when the big difference between arcane and divine magic was "prepared" vs "spontaneous"...Clerics prayed for a spell on the spot and the wizard memorized them?)
It makes low levels all the same, yes, but makes higher levels much more attractive to Prestige Classes.
I would prefer the Paizo guys spend what limited time they have developing the new world, and making the pathfinder and modules line a raging success.
Perhaps my statements were incomplete. Of course I'd prefer Paizo concentrate on the new setting and all that "necessary" stuff. However, I'm so confident in their impending success that I'm sure they'll eventually have a chance to broaden their focus a bit. Given what I've seen in Dragon and Dungeon, and given the ill feelings toward WoTC's recent offerings, I'm positive the Paizo folks are able and (will be) more than willing to fill in some gaps here and there.
I realize I'm probably a bit more ambitious at this point than most, but I sense a great opportunity here to "fix" a few things that WoTC has done poorly, and probably please a whole lotta people in the process.
|
|
Perhaps my statements were incomplete. Of course I'd prefer Paizo concentrate on the new setting and all that "necessary" stuff. However, I'm so confident in their impending success that I'm sure they'll eventually have a chance to broaden their focus a bit. Given what I've seen in Dragon and Dungeon, and given the ill feelings toward WoTC's recent offerings, I'm positive the Paizo folks are able and (will be) more than willing to fill in some gaps here and there.I realize I'm probably a bit more ambitious at this point than most, but I sense a great opportunity here to "fix" a few things that WoTC has done poorly, and probably please a whole lotta people in the process.
Nice attempt. ;-)
The problem is just that everyone dislikes something else about "recent offerings" (no offence intended).
They'll do exactly what you expect them to do.
But they will do it when necessity of the adventure plot dictates it.
Exception: Monsters. There are supposed to be new monsters in each issue (way too much for e.g. my taste - how much tastes can differ... ;-) )
Greetings,
Günther
I hate to nitpick, but the wu jen originally appeared in Oriental Adventures in 1e waaay before 2e's The Complete Wizard's Handbook. Yes, I'm a nerd. :D
I stand corrected. Hey, we're all nerds here about different stuff. :) Me? The application of the warm-blooded vs cold-blooded dinosaur argument to the dragon physiology that was mentioned in the Draconomicon.
|
|
I hate to nitpick, but the wu jen originally appeared in Oriental Adventures in 1e waaay before 2e's The Complete Wizard's Handbook. Yes, I'm a nerd. :DI stand corrected. Hey, we're all nerds here about different stuff. :) Me? The application of the warm-blooded vs cold-blooded dinosaur argument to the dragon physiology that was mentioned in the Draconomicon.
One would think that at least the fire breathing dragons would be warm blooded...
Maybe the acid breathing dragons have acid for blood...and ice breathing dragons have ice in their veins (I know a few women that I think are white dragons in disguise)...
:)