| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The NPC Codes showed us the enormous variety of character types available, just using the core classes and races.
This raises an interesting question. Do we need more than the 11 core classes and the 7 core races?
For example: what does the “Witch” add that would not be better served as an archetype of Druid or Wizard?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Each of the new classes has a unique mechanic not present in any other class. For example, the oracle is the "spontaneous divine caster with full caster progression," the alchemist is the "buffs himself instead of others partial 'spellcaster' with skills," and the witch is the "full caster with one or more unlimited at-will abilities."
Thematically, yes, you can make a character that's similar to an oracle, alchemist, or witch, but the mechanics are different.
I like the oracle and it seems a natural corollary to the sorcerer, but many of the other classes don't seem to fill a needed roll. I dislike the summoner in particular, as he seems to step all over the toes of the conjurer.
I think this just comes down to what playstyle you enjoy. I (currently) like the idea of fewer base classes with more prestige classes. I know some people hate prestige classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The summoner is different from the conjurer in that the summoner always has a "pet" and has limited spellcasting compared to a conjurer (who gets 9th-level spells). The conjurer is more versatile (as he has a wider variety of non-conjuration spells than a summoner, and is therefore less of a "one trick pony").
Each of the new classes has a unique mechanic not present in any other class. For example, the oracle is the "spontaneous divine caster with full caster progression," the alchemist is the "buffs himself instead of others partial 'spellcaster' with skills," and the witch is the "full caster with one or more unlimited at-will abilities."
Thematically, yes, you can make a character that's similar to an oracle, alchemist, or witch, but the mechanics are different.
Of course, those other mechanics can also lead to balance issues.
The summoner is different from the conjurer in that the summoner always has a "pet" and has limited spellcasting compared to a conjurer (who gets 9th-level spells). The conjurer is more versatile (as he has a wider variety of non-conjuration spells than a summoner, and is therefore less of a "one trick pony").
Isn't that ("one trick pony") kind of a problem though?
The summoner is different from the conjurer in that the summoner always has a "pet" and has limited spellcasting compared to a conjurer (who gets 9th-level spells). The conjurer is more versatile (as he has a wider variety of non-conjuration spells than a summoner, and is therefore less of a "one trick pony").
Indeed, but there could be base classes designed around all of the schools of magic that have different gimmicks than their specialist brethren (a 'Blaster' who uses lots of evocation with a summoner-like spell progression and something like 'arcane fire' from the old archmage PrC, for instance). So the summoner isn't necessary, at least (since similiar classes are not).
The question, then, is are they a desirable addition to the game? That seems to be down to each player's opinion as well as to the question: "is the specific mechanical gimmick of a non-core class a better way to represent a specific type of character than a clever combination of archetypes and feats." That question should encompass the worlds of both flavor and balance (master summoner, I am looking at you).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The NPC Codes showed us the enormous variety of character types available, just using the core classes and races.
This raises an interesting question. Do we need more than the 11 core classes and the 7 core races?
Need? No. There's a lot of things we don't need, and tabletop gaming in its entirety is one of them. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be options.
For example: what does the “Witch” add that would not be better served as an archetype of Druid or Wizard?
The fact remains that the Witch is a very, very different class from both the Druid and Wizard. If you describe it in a five word sentence, yes, it seems very similar (full caster with flavorful abilities) but in practice it's a completely separate beast, altogether.
Let's take your argument a step further. Why do we need barbarians and rangers and monks, or clerics and druids and wizards?
Well, because someone wants to play them.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost every APG/UM/UC class fills a certain niche that was long asked for to be filled.
Combo arcane/divine caster? Mystic Theurge didn't work. Hence, Witch.
Divine skill monkey/fighty religious type that isn't a Paladin? We all know how "fighty clerics" broke 3.5e. Hence, Inquisitor.
Spontaneous divine caster? Favored Soul was booooring. Hence, Oracle.
Gish? EK didn't work. Duskblade was awkward, if efficient. Hence, Magus.
Skill/leadership Fighter? That doesn't double for WotC's Knight? Hence, Cavalier.
Pokemon Trainer? C'mon, that was an obvious one. Hence, Summoner.
Alchemist that does crazy alchemical stuff? How many times was that asked for throughout the 3.5 lifecycle, a million times? Hence, Alchemist.
Of this list, perhaps the Cavalier could be archetyped. The rest? Not really.
The question, then, is are they a desirable addition to the game? That seems to be down to each player's opinion as well as to the question: "is the specific mechanical gimmick of a non-core class a better way to represent a specific type of character than a clever combination of archetypes and feats." That question should encompass the worlds of both flavor and balance (master summoner, I am looking at you).
This is precisely what I am trying to get at.
Also, all those "new" mechanical" gizmos of the new classes are more things that a writer/game master has to account for.
My only issue with all of the new base classes is that the Magus made the archtype Eldritch Knight next to useless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To keep it simple... yes.
To keep it simple... yes.
Your answer is, perhaps, a little too succinct.
Yes - limit to the core classes and races?
or
Yes - we need the new options.
I am not sure which you meant.
|
|
The question, then, is are they a desirable addition to the game? That seems to be down to each player's opinion as well as to the question: "is the specific mechanical gimmick of a non-core class a better way to represent a specific type of character than a clever combination of archetypes and feats." That question should encompass the worlds of both flavor and balance (master summoner, I am looking at you).This is precisely what I am trying to get at.
Also, all those "new" mechanical" gizmos of the new classes are more things that a writer/game master has to account for.
Only if they show up at your table. And even then, so what?
You're pulling off a very convincing crotchety old man with this argument. ;)
To keep it simple... yes.Your answer is, perhaps, a little too succinct.
Yes - limit to the core classes and races?
or
Yes - we need the new options.
I am not sure which you meant.
Your question was "Do we need more than the 11 core classes and the 7 core races?" My answer is "Yes". We do need more, because they don't cover the wide range of awesome that can be in a fantasy setting.
There is no "need" for additional classes or races.
However, they can be flavorful and provide a better means of achieving specific build concepts. Some of the mechanics simplify or improve the concept compared to trying to make it work with existing classes and races. Some of us created our own custom classes and races already.
It's all good. The game is about options, not efficiency.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example: what does the “Witch” add that would not be better served as an archetype of Druid or Wizard?The fact remains that the Witch is a very, very different class from both the Druid and Wizard. If you describe it in a five word sentence, yes, it seems very similar (full caster with flavorful abilities) but in practice it's a completely separate beast, altogether.
Let's take your argument a step further. Why do we need barbarians and rangers and monks, or clerics and druids and wizards?
Well, because someone wants to play them.
The horse has left the barn a long time ago, but I wouldn't have minded only having 4 classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic User and Thief). All the customizations could be done with archtypes or spending development points of some sort to buy class abilities. If someone works on DND 3.875 maybe that would be something for them to consider.
I think these five were outstanding additions:
Oracle - Spontaneous divine caster.
Inquisitor - Spontaneous divine melee character, without the alignment restrictions of a Paladin.
Magus - aka "Finally a Gish Worth Playing" People constantly tried to make arcane/melee characters, and finally they have a go-to class.
Alchemist - A blaster! Like the Magus, something lots of people wanted to build, but few could.
Witch - A full arcane caster with enough cleric spells to fill both the arcane & divine roles in a party of players who prefer martial classes.
I'm indifferent to:
Cavalier - Full martial class with a mount. Also, a way to build a "knight" without being a Paladin. I don't think there was as much demand as the previous 5, but some. This could have been covered with a good Fighter archetype.
Summoner - I like that they made a pet focused class. I don't like the execution.
I dislike:
Gunslinger - Totally unnecessary, in my opinion. I don't want to get into an argument about it, but I generally prefer fantasy without guns. If they were going to introduce a gun-based class, I would have wanted it to be less old-west flavored, possibly an archetype of Alchemist.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its a sad sad thing when people complain about having options. Honestly if you don't like them don't use them. There are many people that do like them and frankly the "I don't like it so you shouldn't have made it!" thing is a bit arrogant.
The last thing I want is for the game to stop moving forward because some people don't like more options. I would like to see more alternate classes for instance.
Totally with Stome here. The "4 sacred cows" are to me some of the classes less interesting, and the game could be really bland with only the bases with some little options to personalize them.
In my opinion we have a good number of classes. The only ones I don't like are Summoner (too complex and irregular) and Gunslinger (no problem with the class, but the rules for guns are not my cup of tea). I would like some kind of artificier and swashbuckler, but in general the actual number seems ok, really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they didn't make more classes and races, Paizo would go out of business.
|
|
The horse has left the barn a long time ago, but I wouldn't have minded only having 4 classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic User and Thief). All the customizations could be done with archtypes or spending development points of some sort to buy class abilities. If someone works on DND 3.875 maybe that would be something for them to consider.For example: what does the “Witch” add that would not be better served as an archetype of Druid or Wizard?The fact remains that the Witch is a very, very different class from both the Druid and Wizard. If you describe it in a five word sentence, yes, it seems very similar (full caster with flavorful abilities) but in practice it's a completely separate beast, altogether.
Let's take your argument a step further. Why do we need barbarians and rangers and monks, or clerics and druids and wizards?
Well, because someone wants to play them.
Hello Doug! How are you? I hope everything is going well down in "your neck of the woods". I'm really just replying to say Hello.I'm doing ok. I'm working on rebuilding the PFS group up here and discovering what surrounding groups there are that I can support.
To the OP. As it has been said up thread, some people like options, but, you can play with just the core rule book and have a great time. You don't need anything else.
But Paizo does need to keep their doors open.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless we get a decent archetype for a Swashbuckler, I say we still need a Swashbuckler base class. One-handed weapon agility fighters are sorely needed ( more than Gunslingers in any case ).
I would say, no, you don't "need" more than core. That's the thing about core. They're core. And Pathfinder, especially with archetypes, lets you build a lot of concepts within core without ever needing to look at additional classes.
But if you want to add the new stuff, they do fill niches in different ways that the core classes don't--and well they should. But I agree with you TO SOME DEGREE that with archetypes, you could even adjust existing classes--to an extent--to do a lot of what the newer base classes do. I really like the oracle's flavor, but it's very very specific to a certain idea, whereas cleric can accommodate a broader range of character concepts. So for my world, where the flavor of oracles don't fit properly, if I wanted a spontaneous divine caster, for example, I'd probably use a homebrewed or 3PP spontaneous casting cleric archetype. Some classes are more or less duplicable depending on what you want to duplicate. Personal preference, but I'd rather play a bard as a gish than a magus anyway. Or an EK.
BUT I think the newer classes also propose alternatives for classes where the core ones don't work for a very specifically flavored game that isn't straight up high fantasy (as broad as that category is). For a sword and sandals game, I'd probably drop the cleric and wizard and add the oracle and witch instead, because I think they could fit the feel of that campaign idea better. For a steampunk game, I'd use the alchemist and get rid of some of the more hardcore fantasy classes.
I think most of the new base classes fill a role more easily than trying to adjust core classes, and they can serve a purpose to add additional themes and flavor to a world. Pathfinder's probably richer for having them than not. But sticking to core works just fine and gives you more than plenty to work with.
Magnuskn: I agree we need a better way to build a skirmisher, although it's possible to do with rogue, ranger, and/or fighter (or a combination thereof). That I think is less of a class issue and more of an ability score issue, maybe with a side of weapon mechanics issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslinger - Totally unnecessary, in my opinion. I don't want to get into an argument about it, but I generally prefer fantasy without guns. If they were going to introduce a gun-based class, I would have wanted it to be less old-west flavored, possibly an archetype of Alchemist.
I like the option. You can always say guns aren't invented in the world yet. Or you can make a Napoleonic Era Fantasy World where Firearms are more common than a Longsword.
And I agree we need a good Duelist/Swashbuckler archetype. I am working on modifying the Duelist PrC and the Aldori Swordlord PrC and Archetype into a Fighter Archetype that can be used for a 1-Handed Finesse Duelist.
I have to say, for me, I don't *need* more than the core classes. BUt it does nto bother me if they add more so that folks can play their ideas. As long as new classes are, for the most part, balanced with the core classes I think there is nothing wrong with options.
|
Its a sad sad thing when people complain about having options.
While I mostly like the new classes (I could live without the summoner and gunslinger), worrying about the addition of "options" -- especially extremely heavy interactive options like new classes -- isn't unreasonable. New options increase the amount of play-testing that must be done, and increase the chance that something truly broken (*cough*synthesist*cough*) will slip through the cracks.
If the increases were only linear, there would be little reason to worry ... but they're not linear, but rather geometric.
Now, that said, I think Paizo has done a pretty good job, and I'm reassured by statements to the effect that they're pretty much done with creating new classes, but just because something is "only another option" doesn't mean that it's harmless to the game.
Do we need more than the 11 core classes and the 7 core races?
For example: what does the “Witch” add that would not be better served as an archetype of Druid or Wizard?
The only class from the APG that I thought was really filling an empty niche was the Alchemist (which is closest to the 3.5E Warlock than it is to any core class, IMO).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless we get a decent archetype for a Swashbuckler, I say we still need a Swashbuckler base class. One-handed weapon agility fighters are sorely needed ( more than Gunslingers in any case ).
Pretty much this. The swashbuckler archetype is like a bad joke. The free-hand fighter archetype is still somewhat lacking, although much closer to the mark than the aforementioned archetype.
I'd much rather have seen the APG offer up a true swashbuckler base class than the cavalier, which felt to me like it was too rules-intensive for its own good and dictated too much flavor-wise with the inclusion of the orders.
The summoner's role is "what if I were a spellcaster with a pet, and rather than me being the more powerful member of the team, my pet is the more powerful member."
BTW, I'd be curious to know if you also dislike more monsters, spells, magic items, and feats, or if it's just more classes you don't like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The summoner's role is "what if I were a spellcaster with a pet, and rather than me being the more powerful member of the team, my pet is the more powerful member."
I personally object to the Summoner for three reasons.
1.) Building the Eidolon is a recipe for disaster. The rules are way to complex for most players and as a GM I need to supervise it at every step, every level.
2.) For some personal reason I find the idea of calling up some undefined ball of protoplasma from the ether and shaping it into whatever you like, multiple spiked tentacles included, to be way icky and unsettling.
3.) The spell list is epically ridiculous, with its multiple higher level spells being lowered one, two or even three levels. Completely screws up the existing magic item crafting rules.
|
|
[with completely unrelated teamwork feats stapled on because, sure, why not.]
I don't think it's unrelated. I think it's a mechanic intended to distance the inquisitor from the feel of the cleric and paladin.
The cleric and the paladin, at root, are selfless classes. The stuff they do best, if you develop the classes along the path of least resistance, are things that directly and explicitly help other members of a group.
The inquisitor, on the other hand, is a selfish class. Pretty much everything the inquisitor does is geared toward helping the inquisitor, not other members of the group.
So Solo Tactics and the teamwork feats are just logical extensions of that in a cooperative roleplaying game. An inquisitor with Outflank doesn't make you better ... he takes advantage of the fact that you're a distraction to make him better.
I really like the thematic cohesion of the inquisitor. I like that it's an inherently selfish class, that -- in the in-game world -- is pretty capable of going it alone, yet has a strong mechanical reason to surround himself with allies, even if they're only allies of convenience.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've seen variations on that argument, and think you've done a good job articulating it, but I just don't buy it. Maybe it's because I conceptualize the inquisitor as a loner class - I always want to build a bounty hunter inquisitor, and every time I get to the teamwork feats, I throw up my hands in disgust and walk away. I just don't see why a class that's so self-sufficient, both in terms of role and design, has a bunch of random feats relating to having allies in combat. There are a large number of classes where those feats are relevant (e.g., any class that comes with a built in ally, such as ranger, druid, summoner, paladin, etc.) and the inquisitor just isn't one of them.
I think the better explanation is that something had to be done with the teamwork feats because they aren't very good, and they were slapped onto the inquisitor despite not belonging there. The argument advanced above strikes me as an after-the-fact patch. A selfish class shouldn't have to rely on others to activate its abilities, and it's not at all clear why this particular selfish class needs mechanical incentives to be part of a group.
Edit: On top of the above, there's already a good selfish class mechanic that works better with an ally, but has the distinct advantage of not actually requiring an ally: sneak attack. It's a criminally underused ability, particularly given that all of its rules are fairly well known and easily summarized. An inquisitor with sneak attack instead of teamwork feats would be my ideal version of the class, even if the sneak attack is at a slower progression than a rogue (e.g., every 3 levels).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally object to the Summoner for three reasons.
1.) Building the Eidolon is a recipe for disaster. The rules are way to complex for most players and as a GM I need to supervise it at every step, every level.
The book says Advanced Player's Guide for a reason.
2.) For some personal reason I find the idea of calling up some undefined ball of protoplasma from the ether and shaping it into whatever you like, multiple spiked tentacles included, to be way icky and unsettling.
Yeah, but casting a spell that causes black sticky tentacles to have a hentai moment with somebody is a-ok.
3.) The spell list is epically ridiculous, with its multiple higher level spells being lowered one, two or even three levels. Completely screws up the existing magic item crafting rules.
Bard called, asked to tell you that he can still make wands of hold monster and you didn't tell him it's badwrong.
If the goal is to make a game system that best suits my own personal playstyle, then heck, I'd get rid of classes altogether. I really dislike the entire concept of classes. And while we're at it, I'd dump the alignment system and come up instead with some sort of moral/ethical code for different "professions" like, you know, the real world has. And then I'd totally redo the magic item system from scratch so that characters were legendary based on their actual abilities instead of because of how much shiny junk they can hang off their bodies...
But then nobody else would be playing that game I suppose.
So I'm mostly fine with PF as it is. Since I want to play instead of theorycraft all the time. Sure, I'd love to see some of my personal pet peeves addressed, but that's what they are, personal pet peeves.
|
|
The summoner's role is "what if I were a spellcaster with a pet, and rather than me being the more powerful member of the team, my pet is the more powerful member."
BTW, I'd be curious to know if you also dislike more monsters, spells, magic items, and feats, or if it's just more classes you don't like.
I think the summoner is one of the coolest classes yet. You get to pimp your pet at the cost of 7th+ level spells and the speed at which you get your spells. Sure people can make Godless Killing Machines out of their eidolons but thats the person's fault and not the class.
|
|
I just don't see why a class that's so self-sufficient, both in terms of role and design, has a bunch of random feats relating to having allies in combat.
They're not random.
The "loner who hooks up with allies of convenience and uses them to his advantage" is a very strong archetype in fiction.
If Solo Tactics doesn't work for you, I doubt there's anything I can say to change your mind. I like it, both thematically and mechanically. (And, BTW, it seems like the Preacher archetype is all you need, if you want to dispense with any mechanical reason to have allies at all.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If Solo Tactics doesn't work for you, I doubt there's anything I can say to change your mind.
That's probably true, but I appreciate the discussion. I'd still rather have sneak attack as I think it makes more sense thematically and mechanically.
(And, BTW, it seems like the Preacher archetype is all you need, if you want to dispense with any mechanical reason to have allies at all.)
I'll take a look at that - what book is it in?
|
|
I'd still rather have sneak attack as I think it makes more sense thematically and mechanically.
Wait ... you have a problem with Solo Tactics, but you wouldn't have a problem with Sneak Attack, which is very nearly as dependent on having allies, and comparatively boring and done-to-death in other classes? Really? (Not to mention that the inquisitor is already capable of being a pretty impressive melee combatant. Adding Sneak Attack would be serious overkill. (And, BTW, you can get something close to +1d6 Sneak Attack with the teamwork feat Precise Strike. Just sayin'.))
The Preacher is HERE.
BTW, I'd be curious to know if you also dislike more monsters, spells, magic items, and feats, or if it's just more classes you don't like.
While I don't dislike more classes, I still want to address this question:
I do like when new spells, monsters, feats, magic items, and even classes are added when they seem to fit into the overall game and bring something to the table. But if the item being added feels liek filler to allow more stuff and is more a duplicate of something that already exists, then I am less excited about it.
One more point I would add; if the item is adding complexity and does nto offer the same level of benefit to the game, I say the complexity should be reviewed and cut back.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'd still rather have sneak attack as I think it makes more sense thematically and mechanically.Wait ... you have a problem with Solo Tactics, but you wouldn't have a problem with Sneak Attack, which is very nearly as dependent on having allies, and comparatively boring and done-to-death in other classes? Really?
Absolutely. If what you want is a loner character that takes advantage of allies, sneak attack is your man. Solo Tactics, despite it's name, is not usable unless you have an ally. Sneak attack can be used without an ally, it just requires work. The former requires me to be part of a group and means that a true loner or solo build leaves abilities on the table. The later means that I have advantages while working with a group, but that I can still create a loner or solo build and get to use all of my class abilities. Sneak attack satisifies all the justifications in your original argument, and, on top of that, it's (a) good and (b) makes sense for a class that doesn't necessarily want allies. I will take boring and reliable over so-bad-we-have-to-give-it-away-for-free.
Edit: Heck, if solo tactics had some alternate trigger ala sneak attack's flat-footedness that actually allowed it to be used without a party, I'd be happy. Maybe something that could let you treat an opponent as an ally for purposes of solo tactics (using one opponent to grant an advantage against another opponent is even more in the spirit of the archetype than using an ally to perform the same function). Really, anything that makes solo tactics actually usable on a solo basis would go a long way towards satisfying my peeve. Creating a loner character with abilities that only work if the character is in a party is bad design in my book. It's like creating a magic-hating barbarian who can dispel hostile magic, but only if he has a buff spell in effect on him.
The Preacher is HERE.
Thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I do kind of feel done with classes, magic items, spells, and feats pretty much. There are enough, IMO. More than, even.
Monsters--you can probably always have more monsters.
You could probably squeeze in a couple more archetypes and prestige classes if you wanted.
Looking forward to Ultimate Campaign, which will work on some new/different mechanics, hopefully.
You know, cavalier has been around since First Edition Unearthed Arcana (where paladins became a subclass of cavaliers, not fighters or their own class,) it's got just as much history in the game as barbarian. And if you want to make it just another fighter archetype, you might as well make anything with full BAB fighter archetypes as well because, while it might not look like it on paper, the class truly does feel unique when you play it.
I'm indifferent to:
Cavalier - Full martial class with a mount. Also, a way to build a "knight" without being a Paladin. I don't think there was as much demand as the previous 5, but some. This could have been covered with a good Fighter archetype.
Greetings fellow oldster! I too played with Barbarians and Cavaliers from the Unearthed Arcana. (aka “Why does this book always fall apart?” and “Learn to glue!”) There is certainly a historical precedent for Cavaliers in D&D, and history is a great place to look for ideas. On the other hand, some things really need to change. (I’m looking at you saving throws on page 101, THAC0, random psionics, percentile strength . . .) The Cavalier was indifferently received in 1985, and I guess I still feel the same way. I could take it or leave it.
Speaking of mounts, what I would really like to have seen is a series of mounted archetypes for different classes, a feat that grants a mount, or some combination of the two. The fragility of a purchased horse contrasts so heavily with the durability of a mid-level PC that only certain classes can effectively bring mounts adventuring, and that’s something I would like to see addressed fully.
And the first time I read about the gunslinger, I remembered the section of the First Edition DM Guide that covered conversion to Gamma World.
*sigh* Gamma World. Some small masochistic part of me wants to see what the optimizers would do with that system!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm chock full of crying about my pet peeves today.Inquisitor - Spontaneous divine melee character, without the alignment restrictions of a Paladin [with completely unrelated teamwork feats stapled on because, sure, why not.].Fixed that for you.
Yeah, reamwork feats. Someone looked at a list of 300 feats and thought, "You know what we need? 30 more that nobody will use!" I'll stop now before I get on a soapbox that belongs in a different thread.
I agree that the Inquisitor was among the least likely candidates for extra use of teamwork feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it universally accepted by now that part of 3.5's problem was splatbook bloat?
More options equals more complexity; the writer of a new feat, class, race, etc., may not take into account its interaction with feat a, class b, spell c, or race d.
I think paragon surge is a perfect example of this. Whatever you think of its actual power level, I don't think all the ways it is currently used (picking up new spells or extra talens, discoveries, etc.,) was how it was intended to be used.
That is the main problem with more options. It starts to strain the game. The internet goes to work on it and fine tunes a few 'duh' builds for specific concepts. Less character concepts become viable under such conditions (sure, you can play x character, but everyone else is playing optimized z, y, and r and they will be outshining you consistently).
Another element of complexity is, well, complexity. As a DM, I should know all the feats, classes, archetypes, and spells my players have. That's a lot of work. Players, as in those who only play, often make a fair number of mistakes; such mistakes only bloom in the conditions of complexity.
Another other issue is a certain form of player entitlement. Yes, DMs can houserule anything they don't like or think is unbalanced from their games... this does not stop a certain breed of player from complaining like the dickens.