|
Just for class bloat giggles, here's what I recall from WotC during 3.X;
Core – Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard
Complete Divine – Favored Soul, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman
Complete Warrior – Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler
Complete Arcane – Warlock, Warmage, Wu Jen
Complete Adventurer – Ninja, Scout, Spellthief
Dragon Magic – Dragonfire Adept
Player’s Handbook II – Beguiler, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight
Oriental Adventures – Samurai, Shaman, Shugenja, Sohei, Wu Jen
Dungeon Master’s Guide – Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior
Heroes of Horror – Archivist, Dread Necromancer
Dungeonscape – Factotum
Eberron Campaign Setting – Artificer, Divine Adept, Magewright
Tome of Magic – Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer
Miniature’s Handbook – Healer, Marshall, Warmage
Tome of Incarnum – Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist
Book of Nine Swords – Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade
War of the Lance – Masters
Age of Mortals / Legends of the Twins – Mariners
Races of Ansalon – Nightstalkers
Dragonlance – Mystic, Noble
Magic of Eberron – Psionic Artificer
Sharn: City of Towers – Urban Adept
Expanded Psionics Handbook – Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder
Complete Psionic – Ardent, Divine Mind, Erudite, Lurk
Ghostwalk – Eidolon, Eidoloncer
That's more than 50, ignoring the NPC classes, the Ghostwalk stuff, the Dragonlance stuff and the Oriental Adventures stuff.
It's also not counting hundreds of Prestige Classes.
If PF wants to keep making new base classes, and some of them are as cool and fun to play as the Archivist or Dread Necromancer or Warlock, then I'm sure not going to stand in their way.
Current Hybrid Classes
Alchemist (Rogue/Wizard)
Bard (Rogue/Sorcerer)
Inquisitor (Cleric/Rogue)
Magus (Fighter/Wizard)
Oracle (Cleric/Sorcerer)
Paladin (Cleric/Fighter)
Ranger (Druid/Fighter)
Summoner (Druid/Wizard)
Witch (Druid/Wizard)Non-Hybrid Classes <# hybrids already>
Barbarian
Cavalier (Samurai)
Cleric <3>
Druid <3>
Fighter <3>
Gunslinger
Monk
Rogue (Ninja) <3>
Sorcerer <2>
Wizard <4>Niches that can be filled
Barbarian/Druid Shaman Type
Cavalier/Cleric Crusader Type
Cavalier/Rogue Secret Agent Type---Spy
Cleric/Monk Lay Priest/Friar?
Druid/Rogue Charlatan?
Fighter/Rogue Swashbuckler Type
Fighter/Gunslinger Musketeer Type
Monk/Sorcerer Psychic TypeThen to complete the Asian Sub-Class
Barbarian (Sohei)
Cleric (Shukenja)
Fighter (Bushi)
Wizard (Wu Jen)Just putting some thoughts out there.
Just to add on, brainstorming...
Monk/Fighter or Barbarian - Boxer/Wrestler (one outside of awkward archetypal replacements)
Druid/Fighter - Shapeshifter
The following combine with already-hybrid classes, but some thoughts:
Gunslinger/Alchemist - Demolitions expert
Bard/Cleric - Prophet
Lead Designer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there everybody,
We are just starting to trickle back into the office after gencon and getting caught up on everything that has been happening.
As for the Advanced Class Guide, there is currently a fair bit of misinformation out there, hearsay taken as fact, and a mountain of speculation and opinion based on a partial scope of what this book will contain.
That is normal. It happens every time we first announce a book. It takes time for the concepts and reasons to settle in, to become understood. Later on this week (I hope), I will be putting together a blog post that gives some concrete insight into this book so that folks can have a little bit more to go on.
I know that many of you are wary of bloat and creep, and you can believe me when I say that we are too, but this book and the concept of fleshing out some hybrid classes, was just too good to pass up.
We have some exciting things in store and I hope you will hold off on your judgement until we have the time to explain them.
So... in other words, calm it down. There are some folks out there who have seen and heard a lot more about this than is currently public knowledge and there is a lot of excitement for what they have seen. You will get more info soon and I hope that many of you will get just as excited as I am.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the rumor about the full BAB, d12 hitdie, 9th level arcane caster what dual-wields great axes isn't true?
Hey there everybody,
We are just starting to trickle back into the office after gencon and getting caught up on everything that has been happening.
As for the Advanced Class Guide, there is currently a fair bit of misinformation out there, hearsay taken as fact, and a mountain of speculation and opinion based on a partial scope of what this book will contain.
That is normal. It happens every time we first announce a book. It takes time for the concepts and reasons to settle in, to become understood. Later on this week (I hope), I will be putting together a blog post that gives some concrete insight into this book so that folks can have a little bit more to go on.
I know that many of you are wary of bloat and creep, and you can believe me when I say that we are too, but this book and the concept of fleshing out some hybrid classes, was just too good to pass up.
We have some exciting things in store and I hope you will hold off on your judgement until we have the time to explain them.
So... in other words, calm it down. There are some folks out there who have seen and heard a lot more about this than is currently public knowledge and there is a lot of excitement for what they have seen. You will get more info soon and I hope that many of you will get just as excited as I am.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Department of Managing Expectations is active! :)
|
I've been holding my breath for more official insight into the ACG.
"Ten shiny new base classes is a bit crazy", I think...
"What are they really doing?", I wonder...
I have a sneaking suspicion that it may not be 10 full new base classes comparable to the magus, gunslinger, etc. But, perhaps something similar to Unearthed Arcana days where classes could swap out core features for other core features.
I'd kind of expect a book like this to quantify the value of abilities. Like "sneak attack progression" is worth 7 "class points", and "full BAB" is worth 10 "class points".
Then when it comes down to it, the Slayer for example, is really an example of choosing a skeleton (the ranger?) and ordering class mechanics from an ala-carte menu. Instead of spending X class-points on FE/FT, one adds sneak attack.
By having 10 named examples of these customizations, it makes the whole organized play aspect much easier than opening up every possible permutation of building custom classes.
They likely have a couple things that we don't have yet (i.e. to open up Int/Dex based fighters?) and from the 10 named examples, a handful include these new purchasable mechanics.
The above is totally a guess...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have some exciting things in store and I hope you will hold off on your judgement until we have the time to explain them.
Jason, this is Internet. Internet, Jason.
I dont think you've met.
On the one hand, I think the optimal number of "real" classes for a class-based RPG is between six and twelve, which gives a variety of options while not being too many for GMs and authors to "keep in RAM". Anything over two dozen is decidedly too far.
On the other hand, there are lots of AD&D "multiclass" options that the basic 3.x structure doesn't handle well. (Multiclass doesn't cause the same degree of problems as class proliferation because they have the same interactions with the system as the combined classes). Saying, "Well, prestige class" doesn't fix that at low levels where most play happens. Hybrid classes seem a good idea here.
On the gripping hand, the magus is our example implementation, and that doesn't so much effectively blend fighter and wizard as it creates something very distinctly new.
I think Jason Bulmahn got asked about [the artificer] in a panel at PaizoCon and the answer from him is that the class concept has a lot of flaws and would be hard to do "right".If only we had a team of award-winning game designers available to tackle the problem.
Yep. My thoughts exactly. I can't +1 this enough.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only want a class builder, just with that this book will be awesome.
|
|
Interesting... I think this will work nicely. When I heard the first tidbits about APG, I thought Paizo had dropped the ball. I mean, witch, cavalier, alchemist and oracle... really? Variant/prestige classes as new base classes? My first thought was that it just cannot work.
The playtest proved me wrong, as every one of them felt like a new, exciting base class.
Then I heard about the magus, and again I was skeptical... a gish class that is supposed to be some sort eldritch knight variant? Why? And now I'm playing a 7th level elven (bladebound) magus, and it's been a blast!
As has been said on this board, Paizo has an amazing team of designers, and I have no doubt they can pull this off. I'm already excited about the upcoming playtest, but let's give them some time and breathing room after GenCon.
|
Hey there everybody,
We are just starting to trickle back into the office after gencon and getting caught up on everything that has been happening.
As for the Advanced Class Guide, there is currently a fair bit of misinformation out there, hearsay taken as fact, and a mountain of speculation and opinion based on a partial scope of what this book will contain.
That is normal. It happens every time we first announce a book. It takes time for the concepts and reasons to settle in, to become understood. Later on this week (I hope), I will be putting together a blog post that gives some concrete insight into this book so that folks can have a little bit more to go on.
I know that many of you are wary of bloat and creep, and you can believe me when I say that we are too, but this book and the concept of fleshing out some hybrid classes, was just too good to pass up.
We have some exciting things in store and I hope you will hold off on your judgement until we have the time to explain them.
So... in other words, calm it down. There are some folks out there who have seen and heard a lot more about this than is currently public knowledge and there is a lot of excitement for what they have seen. You will get more info soon and I hope that many of you will get just as excited as I am.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
LOL, and here I was getting excited about the rumors and now I don't know what to expect. Still I wish you would comment about what exactly do you mean by hybrid classes. Are they new base classes, or a sort of like archetypes/alternative classes, are you just taking an existing class and adding abilities from another class akin to DnD 1st & 2nd editions multi-classing? If so I'm still interested in the book but admittedly a little less excited.
Perhaps you can offer some explanation in the blog.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, perhaps something similar to Unearthed Arcana days where classes could swap out core features for other core features.
We already have that. It's called archetypes.
Hey there everybody,
We are just starting to trickle back into the office after gencon and getting caught up on everything that has been happening.
As for the Advanced Class Guide, there is currently a fair bit of misinformation out there, hearsay taken as fact, and a mountain of speculation and opinion based on a partial scope of what this book will contain.
That is normal. It happens every time we first announce a book. It takes time for the concepts and reasons to settle in, to become understood. Later on this week (I hope), I will be putting together a blog post that gives some concrete insight into this book so that folks can have a little bit more to go on.
I know that many of you are wary of bloat and creep, and you can believe me when I say that we are too, but this book and the concept of fleshing out some hybrid classes, was just too good to pass up.
We have some exciting things in store and I hope you will hold off on your judgement until we have the time to explain them.
So... in other words, calm it down. There are some folks out there who have seen and heard a lot more about this than is currently public knowledge and there is a lot of excitement for what they have seen. You will get more info soon and I hope that many of you will get just as excited as I am.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Geez, way to ruin all our FUN.
I mean what the hell is the point of ANYTHING if we can't wildly speculate and jump to ridiculous conclusions based on no facts whatsoever?
;)
Seriously though I feel like most folks were just sharing thoughts and speculation, no more harm done than on any similar announcements. Am definitely looking forward to more official word of course.
Geez, way to ruin all our FUN.
I mean what the hell is the point of ANYTHING if we can't wildly speculate and jump to ridiculous conclusions based on no facts whatsoever?
To be fair, most of the time "Rampant Speculation" leads to disappointment when the product in question can't possibly live up to the amount of hype that its own customers have set it up for. This happens all the time with other media as well, especially video games.
EDIT: Ah! I has a Lisa post AND a Jason post! I feel SPECIAL.
I'll need to make sure to make the announcement post again next year too. :-P
|
|
We already have that. It's called archetypes.
Mmm.. this line was meant to be in context with the rest of the post, with the speculation of a "class-point system". For example, a class has something like a "100 class point" budget and you could build it by picking different cost class abilities from a big menu.
Archetypes effectively do this, but if a class is something like a 100-pt budget, an archetype is really only maybe swapping 15-20 points worth between hallmark base class abilities (i.e. bombs for sneak attack?), and often times it would be something (another 10 points) for an ability that isn't really from a big ala-carte menu of base class abilities (i.e. scrollmaster wizard, cruoromancer wizard, freebooter ranger, etc).
My speculation was that something like a Slayer, to achieve a split of ranger and rogue, would use a theoretical 100-pt budget to order up 50-pts of rogue and 50-pts of ranger, without introducing a new mechanic like that present in the magus class (an arcana pool).
So the hybrid classes would kind of be archetypes on steroids.
Base class = 100 pts from its base class category (i.e. rogue is 100pts from the "rogue abilities")
Hybrid class = 40-60 pts each from two base class categories (i.e. 50 pts ranger, 50 pts from rogue)
Archetype = 75 pts from its base class category, 25 pts from archetype subcategory.
TLDR - I'd be stunned if the Paizo team invents 10 brand new base classes with unique, previously-unseen mechanics (i.e. grit, magus arcana, curses/revelations, hexes, etc) in the ACG. This is mostly speculation/spit-balling on what else they could do to present 10 new base hybrid base classes without designing a half-dozen or more new core mechanics to fuel them.
Plus, if JB's post is imminent, we're down to like 24-48 hours left to speculate... and speculation is FUN! (it's kind of like divination)
So, the rumor about the full BAB, d12 hitdie, 9th level arcane caster what dual-wields great axes isn't true?It's totally balanced by the fact that it gives up a familiar.
yeah it sure does suck that you have to choose a free set of
un-sunderable plate mail with 0 acp as your bonded object.|
|
So, the rumor about the full BAB, d12 hitdie, 9th level arcane caster what dual-wields great axes isn't true?It's totally balanced by the fact that it gives up a familiar.
yeah it sure does suck that you have to choose a free set of
un-sunderable plate mail with 0 acp as your bonded object that projects an Eidolon with its own class levels (Berserker/Arch-Mage/Lich w/Demi-Lich Prc).
Fixed for you.
Geez, way to ruin all our FUN.
I mean what the hell is the point of ANYTHING if we can't wildly speculate and jump to ridiculous conclusions based on no facts whatsoever?
To be fair, most of the time "Rampant Speculation" leads to disappointment when the product in question can't possibly live up to the amount of hype that its own customers have set it up for. This happens all the time with other media as well, especially video games.
Please note that MASSIVE amount of facetiousness I fueled into that post.
You are absolutely right on every point of course.
And of course gamers can be asked to stop speculating. They can also be asked to stop breathing. The chances of either are about as likely.
The whole class bloat isn't there, IMHO. The idea is hybrid classes, which actually makes them an option for virtual multiclassing. It is more along the lines of combing classes, then adding abilities that are akin to synergies of abilities from the combination. The magus is a great example. It is a two-weapon fighting wizard/fighter. The synergy of abilities means his two-weapons are spell & blade. It is appropriate to think of these as codified multiclass options.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
My question about the 10 new hybrid classes is will we see a base class equivalent to mystic theurge and arcane trickster prestige classes, similar to how the magus is a base class equivalent to the eldritch knight? If so, do the prestige classes that act as hybrids like this have a place in the game anymore, or is this a trend that suggests that hybrids should be base classes only, and prestige classes should be for concepts that are more specialized and, well, prestigious?
|
|
If we get new iconics to go with these classes, there's one thing I've been noticing about the existing ones and this might be a good chance to balance things out a little: there's a major gender disparity when it comes to divine caster iconics. Other than Harsk, the divine caster iconics are all female (and lets face it, rangers barely even count at all).
The other categories are pretty well balanced, it's just this one that is so lopsided. Just a point to keep in mind, maybe. So a male iconic shaman for example, to go with the female dwarf war priest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there dose seem to be a lot of female iconics
|
|
there dose seem to be a lot of female iconics
They've got 21 core classes, of which 10 are male and 11 are female, so it's not terribly lopsided or anything.
I suspect that the 10 new classes will be 5 and 5, and it will remain ever so slightly weighted towards hawtness*, at least until they have an even number of iconics.
[*definitions of hawtness may be entirely subjective]
Between WotC and Paizo, the trend seems to be that bards are always non-human boys, druids are always non-human girls, fighters are always human boys, paladins are always human girls, rogues are always non-human girls and clerics and sorcerers are always humans. But with a sample size of two (three for bards, thanks to Devis and Gimble), it's hardly indicative of anything other than sheer coincidence. :)
Since the Bestiary races are not Golarion specific or tied to the setting exclusively (like those from the Inner Sea Bestiary or Dragon Empires Gazetteer), there's not really any excuse for why the new Iconics couldn't be Hobgoblins or Tieflings or whatever. (Although it might be better to stick to Bestiary 1 races, rather than make assumptions that purchasers of the Advanced Class Guide will own Bestiary 2 or 3.) No reason not to take advantage of the fact that the core books are setting-independent, and not Golarion-restricted.
The setting-independence of the core line should be seen as a feature, not a bug, after all.
|
|
The odd one out could be a hermaphrodite or neuter Aasimar/Tiefling
I just remembered that tiefling could in fact be a hermaphrodite(intersex), sounds weird but intersex people get like no representation at all, so maybe Paizo could break down that barrier.
By the way I loved the hexblade class, and thought it was far more interesting and flavorful then the duskblade, and way more balanced. Hopefully, a full BAB warrior/arcane-caster hybrid is in the works, I've been waiting for such a long time for one. Don't get me wrong I've learned to appreciate the magus from a design standpoint, but I really want spells that concentrate more on buffing and debuffing and simple letting my great sword do the talking, rather then flashy spell effects of the magus. When I play a magus I inevitably end up mutli-classing to try to get closer to what I want, and even then I'm a little disappointed with the results.
Perhaps the rumored blood rager is that class, especially since I was a fan of the Rage mage in 3.5. I can see a warrior/arcane-caster with d10 hp's, full bab, up to 4th level arcane spells, all simple & martial weapons, spell-casting in light armor and some sort of ability which he sacrifices some of his own HP in order to power some abilities that act like both rage powers and sorcerers blood lines, awesome.
|
|
I merely mentioned the idea because PF has had some iconics with non-standard choices (Dwarf Ranger, selfish jerk cavalier) and I'd love to see more such iconics (it encourages creativity).
That is very true. I love non-standard stuff. An elven monk? A dwarf wizard? A Halfling paladin? A Qadiran fighter who doesn't wear armor? A battle sorcerer? An Asmodean druid? Bring eeet!
3.X really kind of skirted their own revolutionary ideas in that sense. After breaking down the 'only race X can be class Y' barriers, they went ahead and made their Monk and Paladin iconics humans anyway, and their Wizard iconic was the race (elf) most associated with wizardry in previous editions, instead of showcasing the new hotness of dwarves being able to be wizards, or elves being able to be paladins.
Possibly that was deliberate intent to not scare away older D&D fans, by presenting Iconics that were friendlier and suggested old standbys like human-only monks and paladins, elven wizards and Halfling rogues. But it's been a long time since then. Time to embrace the new, I think.
I guess Jasons blog post is fashionably late? ^^
|
|
@deuxhero
I'm not one of those people who insist that everyone must be represented in equal amount. Otherwise we would need an asexual, albino, disabled, furry loving, etc iconic. It wouldn't serve any purpose, my comment was simple that tiefling's can be intersexed so it's a option for an iconic not a requirement. Honestly I wouldn't like it if everyone had to be represented in full, because it becomes unrealistic. Anyway that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
As a bonus, here is a link to Paizo's announcements at Gen Con.
http://youtu.be/CQbNw4C0bSU
@Zombie Ninja
I dislike "representation" as it quickly (if not instantly) becomes tokenism.I merely mentioned the idea because PF has had some iconics with non-standard choices (Dwarf Ranger, selfish jerk cavalier) and I'd love to see more such iconics (it encourages creativity).
You can have representation without diving into tokenism. I wouldn't consider the PF icons as token anything, except their "token classes".
I don't know if this is quite the right place to put this,
But I was thinking one hybrid I would love to see, that isn't really doable at the moment, would be a combination of Oracle and Sorcerer,
I agree. I'd love to see the two spontaneous arcane/divine caster classes spliced together. I know the Shaman is an Oracle/Witch, but I'd like to see Bloodlines and Mysteries combined into something. Hopefully something that sounds cooler than what I have in my head; Blood Mystery :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the concept of this book, but really wish they'd done the same thing for monsters first :)
I mean, we already have one book that has all my players drooling over options - the Advanced Race Guide. For the new campaign we're starting up, they're (mostly) all designing their own races, and that's cool - I'm designing the campaign world so that makes sense.
However, I'm really, really hoping this is more like the Advanced Race Guide than the Advanced Players Guide, and I suspect it is. I'm guessing Paizo doesn't want to dump another 10 classes into their universe - in fact I'm guessing that the 10 new classes will be as much a part of Golarion canon as the new races in the ARG are part of Golarion canon.
Regardless, I suspect it will be a good read :)
However, I'm really, really hoping this is more like the Advanced Race Guide than the Advanced Players Guide, and I suspect it is. I'm guessing Paizo doesn't want to dump another 10 classes into their universe - in fact I'm guessing that the 10 new classes will be as much a part of Golarion canon as the new races in the ARG are part of Golarion canon.
Huh? The new races in the ARG ARE part of golarion. Most of them had already appeared in one of the setting or adventure books in some form or another.
|
|
I like the concept of this book, but really wish they'd done the same thing for monsters first :)
I mean, we already have one book that has all my players drooling over options - the Advanced Race Guide. For the new campaign we're starting up, they're (mostly) all designing their own races, and that's cool - I'm designing the campaign world so that makes sense.
However, I'm really, really hoping this is more like the Advanced Race Guide than the Advanced Players Guide, and I suspect it is.
I wish I could generate a script that would create Paizo accounts just to +1 your comment on the monster book.
The sad reality about marketing is that this game is about the players so DM exclusive books are rare (with the exception of the APs and Bestiaries) if almost non-existent. And no, Ultimate XX are not also DM books, these are primarily player focused books with no material that is exclusively targeted at DMs. Can they use them - yes, but their target market is for players.
Need a monster builder book and ideally would not like to wait till 2015 for it to show up. Should have been priority one after the UC and UM came out (IMO of course, obviously I am in the minority on this one).
I like the concept of this book, but really wish they'd done the same thing for monsters first :)
I mean, we already have one book that has all my players drooling over options - the Advanced Race Guide. For the new campaign we're starting up, they're (mostly) all designing their own races, and that's cool - I'm designing the campaign world so that makes sense.
However, I'm really, really hoping this is more like the Advanced Race Guide than the Advanced Players Guide, and I suspect it is.
I wish I could generate a script that would create Paizo accounts just to +1 your comment on the monster book.
The sad reality about marketing is that this game is about the players so DM exclusive books are rare (with the exception of the APs and Bestiaries) if almost non-existent. And no, Ultimate XX are not also DM books, these are primarily player focused books with no material that is exclusively targeted at DMs. Can they use them - yes, but their target market is for players.
Need a monster builder book and ideally would not like to wait till 2015 for it to show up. Should have been priority one after the UC and UM came out (IMO of course, obviously I am in the minority on this one).
Um, you realize paizo actually releases more gm oriented products then any rpg company in history right?
Their GM focused releases:
Adventure path (monthly)- Definately GM centric
Campaign setting line (monthly) - mostly gm centric
cards/flipmaps/map packs - GM Centric
Modules (quarterly- dm centric
In the rpg line we have:
Core rules - neutral
Mythic Adventures - netural (I'd say this is neutral because this is ONLY an option book for players of a gm is deciding to run a mythic campaign)
Bestiary 1,2,3, NPC Codex, Gamemastery Guide, Ultimate campaign - all dm centric products.
For players
APG, UM, UC, UE, ARG,
If you count their whole release schedule, I'd say their material skews towards gms. If you just look at the rpg line, thats 2 neutral titles (core rules and Mythic) and then 6 GM centric books, and 5 player option books.
Its one thing to say they havent release the gm toolbox YOU want yet. But to say that paizo doesnt put out enough dm focosed material, is frankly not true.
I wish I could generate a script that would create Paizo accounts just to +1 your comment on the monster book.
The sad reality about marketing is that this game is about the players so DM exclusive books are rare (with the exception of the APs and Bestiaries) if almost non-existent. And no, Ultimate XX are not also DM books, these are primarily player focused books with no material that is exclusively targeted at DMs. Can they use them - yes, but their target market is for players.
Need a monster builder book and ideally would not like to wait till 2015 for it to show up. Should have been priority one after the UC and UM came out (IMO of course, obviously I am in the minority on this one).
I also think Paizo should publish monster builder, lets hope ACG have class builder like ARG and hopefully for 2015 monsters will come.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, you realize paizo actually releases more gm oriented products then any rpg company in history right?
Their GM focused releases:
Adventure path (monthly)- Definately GM centric
Campaign setting line (monthly) - mostly gm centric
cards/flipmaps/map packs - GM Centric
Modules (quarterly- dm centric)
Um, no (again), TSR has them beat. They released considerably more books on NPCs, Monsters, Villans, Game Mastery style books and plenty of non-player focused campaign material (DM eyes only campaign material) then this company has.
I don't run Golarion and only the cards/flip maps are system neutral. I do count those as support material and they are valuable, but I would rather have game content support vs. miniatures support if I had to choose. I have plenty of 3rd party gaming aids for minis (Dwarven Forge, etc) so I would rather Paizo spend resources on game content vs. miniature/tabletop support. That is of course assuming that these resources are shared, which I do not believe they are.
In the rpg line we have:
Core rules - neutral
Mythic Adventures - netural (I'd say this is neutral because this is ONLY an option book for players of a gm is deciding to run a mythic campaign)
You could apply the "only if the DM wants to run it" to any and every single product outside of the core. The last release you listed is primarily targeted at players. If they come out with a Mythic Bestiary/threat book or an Advanced Mythic Gamemastery guide then I would agree with you. But I go by target demo - in this case this book is primarily directed at the players and focuses primarily on PC enhancement.
Bestiary 1,2,3, NPC Codex, Gamemastery Guide, Ultimate campaign - all dm centric products.
Agree on all points but UC.
UC was a toolset for player interaction and mini-games to facilitate downtime activity. I would say that UC was 90% player focused with a small set of rules and guides that were directly targeted at the DM. Most if not all the campaign rules are player dependent and focused – unlike rules/suggestions on handing Charm Person spell being abused to buy items in the marketplace (which is DM focused).For players
APG, UM, UC, UE, ARG,
If you just look at the rpg line, thats 2 neutral titles (core rules and Mythic) and then 6 GM centric books, and 5 player option books.
Again, disregard their Campaign line and focus on the rules - their products skew heavily towards players. New rules content – players, new options – players.
Its one thing to say they havent release the gm toolbox YOU want yet. But to say that paizo doesnt put out enough dm focosed material, is frankly not true.
No, it is true.
I don't buy the APs because I don't think their quality/formula is up to snuff and I don't run Golarion. I would consider buying an individual AP for a monster or two and that's why I purchased the first 8 1/2 AP series - source material. APs are also extrememly limited (beyond first installment) and are not designed to run as stand alone adventures and are heavily tied with Golarion events. Wasn't enough to validate continuing my sub though.Focusing on the rules/core material leaves: AGG, Bestiary 1, 2, 3, and 4 (not yet released), NPC codex.
And I am not arguing that they do not support DM in their campaign line - they do. Both players and DMs get support Golarion campaign play. If you are just looking at the core game and releases the product lines skew heavily towards players. (
Players: APG, UM, UC, UE, UCamp, ARG, MA, SA (unreleased), ACG (unreleased)
DMs: AGG, B1, B2, B3, NPC Coded, B4 (unreleased)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, you realize paizo actually releases more gm oriented products then any rpg company in history right?
Perhaps a bit of hyperbole there :)
However, I think Auxmaulous's point is far more valid than you're giving him credit for. He said GM exclusive books. Adventures (modules and adventure paths) are not GM exclusive - they're for the whole table. Ditto for all the Ultimate books (including Ultimate Campaign) the APG, the Core Rulebook, etc.
Many, many books are toolkits for players to customize their PCs. Great. Yeah, GMs can use those too, but the reality is that making NPCs is far, far too expensive of an activity for me to do for the throwaway opponents that are typical for encounters, and it gets more expensive the higher the CR.
Books like Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, Savage Species, and Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary are invaluable tools for GMs, and we have exactly zero books like that. Heck, Exemplars of Evil and especially Elder Evils were pretty good too, though I could have done with a bit more toolkit and a bit less canned material.
Throwing 5 levels of fighter on a monster is not the same as tools for customization, regardless of the repeated refrain that GMs can use the same books :)
I think arguing that Paizo doesn't support GM material, and then immediately discarding all the AP and CS material because you don't like it...is a bit much.
It might be that you don't like the flavor of the material, but it's there to help GMs. For many (including me), that stuff is far far more useful as a GM than a monster or class builder.