On a cursory glance, it seems to me that the design team got the idea for 'hybrid' classes in their mind, found some niches that suited the concept well and then kind of forced the concept on the others in order to round out the tree.
There are some interesting and fun new options out there certainly, but at the end of the day the entire idea of the advanced hybrid classes just adds more clutter in my opinion. There is little to nothing I've seen that they add which the various archetypes of existing classes couldn't do as well or better. Summoners, Gunslingers, Witches, etc. - there was a real place for those guys, but these new classes just feel like more 3PP options (which we rarely if ever use anyway).
If this is what's keeping the manpower tied up and preventing the updating of 3.5 AP's into RotRL style collected editions (for instance) then I'd definitely prefer they go the other way. I bring that up because limited manpower is often brought up as a reason why there are no plans to do such things despite the clamoring of many for the product. Counting core classes, base classes, archetypes and prestige classes (not to mention multi-classing), we already have more character options than I can count. Not once have I ever seen a thread asking for a Warpriest, especially not with Clerics, Paladins, Inquisitors and Oracles (and their many, many archetypes) already available. Given all of the wonderful choices that already exist, I'd rather see the effort put into additional content that the Paizo faithful are clamoring for.
That might not be a popular opinion, but its my two cents on the whole project.
Adventures (collected or not) sell mostly to DMs.
Character options/splatbooks sell to DMs and players*.
At least, this was the baseline in 3.5 days, don't know if it's the same now.
* yes, I know, the DM is also playing the game, etc.
.
I could be wrong on this - what do I know about business - but the impression I had was that Paizo's business model rested more on the campaign side of things (modules, AP's, campaign settings, etc.) since the actual rule books are commonly available to all online and the other material is not.Incidentally, I want to thank Paizo for that. Not having to invest in multiple expensive rulebooks has allowed me to introduce many friends into RPG's that I might otherwise have not. Moreover, it has freed up funds to spend on modules and especially the superbly-written AP's which has in turn really allowed me to write a lot more than I once was able.
Incidentally, I want to thank Paizo for that. Not having to invest in multiple expensive rulebooks has allowed me to introduce many friends into RPG's that I might otherwise have not. Moreover, it has freed up funds to spend on modules and especially the superbly-written AP's which has in turn really allowed me to write a lot more than I once was able.
This. This so much. I currently own all the books because they don't come out very often and I am thankful for that.
On topic; to some extent I can see these coming out as some sort of smaller 'Advanced Classes' line, because big book old APs would be nice. It helps that the APs are amazing. But I play Homebrews more than APs so I'd selfishly favor the Advanced Class Guide over a Curse of the Crimson Throne book.
I've been out of the loop for a while, but that seems to have been the idea but I think the idea has become corrupted. Paizo is, in my limited knowledge opinion, doing exactly what caused me to steer clear of wizards back in the day. It's not as bad as every single book has to have five new races, three new base classes, and three dozen new prestige classes...but it's the same mentality.
I've been out of the loop for a while, but that seems to have been the idea but I think the idea has become corrupted. Paizo is, in my limited knowledge opinion, doing exactly what caused me to steer clear of wizards back in the day. It's not as bad as every single book has to have five new races, three new base classes, and three dozen new prestige classes...but it's the same mentality.
Also not as frequent. That's a big one. I mean Advanced player's guide came out in 2010, since then we got the Magus and Gunslinger as actual new classes. Two classes in almost five years is a good pace in my opinion, and they came out in separate books.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been out of the loop for a while, but that seems to have been the idea but I think the idea has become corrupted. Paizo is, in my limited knowledge opinion, doing exactly what caused me to steer clear of wizards back in the day. It's not as bad as every single book has to have five new races, three new base classes, and three dozen new prestige classes...but it's the same mentality.
What mentality is that? Having a rulebook line? Giving a signficant portion of their customer base something they want? It isnt even close to the mentality wizards had. Paizo is being very very measured in how they add options to the game.
It is rather nonsensical to say that they should STOP adding options to the game. There are obviously customers who are interested in such products. Why shouldnt paizo supply their desires as well? If it isnt what you want, you can simply not purchase those products. The last player option book was the advance race guide and even that was a very specific kind of option set. The last book comparable to wizard's monthly releases was ultimate combat. Thats what, 2 years ago now? I think that waiting until august 2014 to put out the next one is very, very reasonable and in no way comparable to the mentality that wizards had.
To the op, while not every class was directly clamored for, many were. Spefically, the Swashbuckler, the Bloodrager, and the skald were things that were EXTREMELY comonly requested. The swashbuckler, 4level full bab arcane caster and the bardbarian were concepts that were absolutely not fufilled by existing options. A non-mystical brawler type was also commonly requested, and not really fufilled by the monk. And so has been a 'fix' for the lowly rogue. Whether or not you think giving a different class that could do the rogues job is the 'correct' way to fix it, the slayer and the investigator both give people an option to play something roguish that dont suffer from it's difficulties.
So to say that no one has been clamoring for whats in the acg is disengenuous. Every single thing? Probably not, but a game company is supposed to have ideas people havent thought of before. Thats why they are game writers, and not simply game players.
As for the manpower issue. For the most part, the people who work do the brunt of the work on the rpg line, arent the same people who do the brunt of the work on Adventure paths. So unless you are suggesting the end the RPG line (which is pretty nonsensical as I mentioned given paizo's subscription business model), it doesnt have a very large effect on whether or not the updates to the 3.5 adventure paths happen.
A bigger obstacle, as stated by people like Lisa Stevens and James Jacobs in interviews is that they dont want to do the hardcover adventure paths because it would draw sales away from their bread and butter, their monthly softcover adventure paths. If they put out a hardcover version of crimson throne it will without question draw sales away from the current adventure path. Basically anything that has the potential to do that is going to be low on the totem pole of ideas, period. We might see it on the 10th aniversary or something, but thats about it.
To the op, while not every class was directly clamored for, many were. Spefically, the Swashbuckler, the Bloodrager, and the skald were things that were EXTREMELY comonly requested. The swashbuckler, 4level full bab arcane caster and the bardbarian were concepts that were absolutely not fufilled by existing options. A non-mystical brawler type was also commonly requested, and not really fufilled by the monk. And so has been a 'fix' for the lowly rogue. Whether or not you think giving a different class that could do the rogues job is the 'correct' way to fix it, the slayer and the investigator both give people an option to play something roguish that dont suffer from it's difficulties.
So to say that no one has been...
I know I've been clamoring for Hunter, Swashbuckler, Shaman, Slayer, Brawler, and Investigator. I've paid money for third party products to supplement all of those concepts. I was clamoring for at least half this book.
[edit] Speaking of clamoring, I'm still surprised we have not seen a Steam Engineer, Artificer, Multi-alignment Paladin, or Spell-less Wild Shaper class yet. In addition to Skalds, Swashbucklers, Brawlers, and Shaman people have been whining for those classes since I started playing Pathfinder.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are some interesting and fun new options out there certainly, but at the end of the day the entire idea of the advanced hybrid classes just adds more clutter in my opinion.
Fortunately, if you don't like a book, you don't have to buy it. And double-fortunately, because this book is in the core line, you'll still be able to access its contents for free through the PRD.
If this is what's keeping the manpower tied up and preventing the updating of 3.5 AP's into RotRL style collected editions
It's not.
Counting core classes, base classes, archetypes and prestige classes (not to mention multi-classing), we already have more character options than I can count.
Just because you're not interested in a particular character option doesn't mean there aren't other people who are.
Not once have I ever seen a thread asking for a Warpriest, especially not with Clerics, Paladins, Inquisitors and Oracles
You must have missed all the people who have been asking for "a more martial-focused cleric" or "a paladin of different alignments." We're not done with the design for the warpriest (or any of these classes), which is why we're having a playtest.
Again, this is a playtest. Please roll up a character with one of these new classes, try it out, and let us know how it plays. That's the purpose of a playtest.
Not once have I ever seen a thread asking for a Warpriest, especially not with Clerics, Paladins, Inquisitors and OraclesYou must have missed all the people who have been asking for "a more martial-focused cleric" or "a paladin of different alignments." We're not done with the design for the warpriest (or any of these classes), which is why we're having a playtest.
This. Ive seen The Warpriest concept asked for unsolicited a lot. Some people just scratch the alignment restriction sticker off but there have been requests for any-alignment-Paladin and divine-Magus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this is what's keeping the manpower tied up and preventing the updating of 3.5 AP's into RotRL style collected editions (for instance) then I'd definitely prefer they go the other way. I bring that up because limited manpower is often brought up as a reason why there are no plans to do such things despite the clamoring of many for the product. Counting core classes, base classes, archetypes and prestige classes (not to mention multi-classing), we already have more character options than I can count. Not once have I ever seen a thread asking for a Warpriest, especially not with Clerics, Paladins, Inquisitors and Oracles (and their many, many archetypes) already available. Given all of the wonderful choices that already exist, I'd rather see the effort put into additional content that the Paizo faithful are clamoring for.
That might not be a popular opinion, but its my two cents on the whole project.
There are probably half a dozen threads out there on "Why Paizo isn't doing AP compilations" While manpower is an issue, it's not the most important one. No, the most important one is that producing the perception that AP will be compiled into single volumes means people are less likely to continue to buy new APs, instead waiting for the reprinted compilation. It also means that the existing stock they have becomes harder to move. Paizo's lifeblood is the AP subscription system, and collected editions are a pretty good way of nuking that.
There are probably half a dozen threads out there on "Why Paizo isn't doing AP compilations" While manpower is an issue, it's not the most important one. No, the most important one is that producing the perception that AP will be compiled into single volumes means people are less likely to continue to buy new APs, instead waiting for the reprinted compilation. It also means that the existing stock they have becomes harder to move. Paizo's lifeblood is the AP subscription system, and collected editions are a pretty good way of nuking that.
If this is what's keeping the manpower tied up and preventing the updating of 3.5 AP's into RotRL style collected editions (for instance) then I'd definitely prefer they go the other way. I bring that up because limited manpower is often brought up as a reason why there are no plans to do such things despite the clamoring of many for the product. Counting core classes, base classes, archetypes and prestige classes (not to mention multi-classing), we already have more character options than I can count. Not once have I ever seen a thread asking for a Warpriest, especially not with Clerics, Paladins, Inquisitors and Oracles (and their many, many archetypes) already available. Given all of the wonderful choices that already exist, I'd rather see the effort put into additional content that the Paizo faithful are clamoring for.
That might not be a popular opinion, but its my two cents on the whole project.
.
The thread wasn't really about that, but the demand is for those 3.5 AP's, not for all of them. The out-of-print AP's using an out-of-date rule set that is in high demand by a great many people. They would not compete with current AP's nor would they signal for people to 'hold off' for the compilations since its understood that those AP's which are NOT out of date and don't require updates wouldn't be published in similar fashion. We're not idiots, we know the difference between current content and out-of-date content. There really isn't a conflict unless its a manufactured one.I can't imagine anyone nuking their subscription to all of the new content simply because the original out-of-date out-of-print AP's from five or ten years ago were updated and offered for sale... and the 'existing stock' has pretty much evaporated thanks to the Great Golem sale.
On a cursory glance, it seems to me that the design team got the idea for 'hybrid' classes in their mind, found some niches that suited the concept well and then kind of forced the concept on the others in order to round out the tree.
There are some interesting and fun new options out there certainly, but at the end of the day the entire idea of the advanced hybrid classes just adds more clutter in my opinion. There is little to nothing I've seen that they add which the various archetypes of existing classes couldn't do as well or better. Summoners, Gunslingers, Witches, etc. - there was a real place for those guys, but these new classes just feel like more 3PP options (which we rarely if ever use anyway).
If this is what's keeping the manpower tied up and preventing the updating of 3.5 AP's into RotRL style collected editions (for instance) then I'd definitely prefer they go the other way. I bring that up because limited manpower is often brought up as a reason why there are no plans to do such things despite the clamoring of many for the product. Counting core classes, base classes, archetypes and prestige classes (not to mention multi-classing), we already have more character options than I can count. Not once have I ever seen a thread asking for a Warpriest, especially not with Clerics, Paladins, Inquisitors and Oracles (and their many, many archetypes) already available. Given all of the wonderful choices that already exist, I'd rather see the effort put into additional content that the Paizo faithful are clamoring for.
That might not be a popular opinion, but its my two cents on the whole project.
As for new classes they often fill the niche in ways current classes can't. I can make ranger into an "assassin" but most likely that new slayer class will be better at it than a ranger.
As for updating AP's from 3.5 to Pathfinder, they know people who stop buying new AP's and wait for certain 3.5 ones to be updated such as Curse of the Crimson Throne. That means they are competing with themselves, and the manpower used to update an old AP could be used on a new AP. That have said that is why it takes a special event for a 3.5 AP to be updated.
There are probably half a dozen threads out there on "Why Paizo isn't doing AP compilations" While manpower is an issue, it's not the most important one. No, the most important one is that producing the perception that AP will be compiled into single volumes means people are less likely to continue to buy new APs, instead waiting for the reprinted compilation. It also means that the existing stock they have becomes harder to move. Paizo's lifeblood is the AP subscription system, and collected editions are a pretty good way of nuking that.
If this is what's keeping the manpower tied up and preventing the updating of 3.5 AP's into RotRL style collected editions (for instance) then I'd definitely prefer they go the other way. I bring that up because limited manpower is often brought up as a reason why there are no plans to do such things despite the clamoring of many for the product. Counting core classes, base classes, archetypes and prestige classes (not to mention multi-classing), we already have more character options than I can count. Not once have I ever seen a thread asking for a Warpriest, especially not with Clerics, Paladins, Inquisitors and Oracles (and their many, many archetypes) already available. Given all of the wonderful choices that already exist, I'd rather see the effort put into additional content that the Paizo faithful are clamoring for.
That might not be a popular opinion, but its my two cents on the whole project.
.
The thread wasn't really about that, but the demand is for those 3.5 AP's, not for all of them. The out-of-print AP's using an out-of-date rule set that is in high demand by a great many people. They would not compete with current AP's nor would they signal for people to 'hold off' for the compilations since its understood that those AP's which are NOT out of date and don't require updates wouldn't be published in similar fashion. We're not idiots, we know the difference between current content and out-of-date...
I chose RotRL Anniversary edition over a current AP. Not so much for money but I can only run one AP at a time, but for some it is a money issue. No matter how you slice it Paizo lost to itself on that deal.
I chose RotRL Anniversary edition over a current AP. Not so much for money but I can only run one AP at a time, but for some it is a money issue. No matter how you slice it Paizo lost to itself on that deal.
See, you say that - and I've heard that argument before - but I'd be very interested in seeing just how many subscriptions were lost when the Anniversary Edition of Rise of the Runelords came out. I obviously have no factual data to support this belief, but I suspect not very many.
Lacking that data, I can only speak for myself. When I came to Pathfinder I was wary after recently enduring what I saw as a 'bait and switch' from 4th Ed. and had absolutely no intention of signing up for a subscription to anything. Nor did it appeal to me to have a campaign split into 6 different soft-cover books or to have to wait for 6 months after the initial offering to discover whether or not I was satisified with its conclusion...
...then I came across the Anniversary Edition of Rise of the Runelords in a local book store. This was my first direct exposure to the AP's and what to expect from them. I was so blown away by the quality of the product that not only did I purchase the item, I immediately went home and began an AP subscription. My enjoyment of them has led to me searching out past AP's to fill out my collection (only lacking Kingmaker now), to sing their praises to others - two of whom have also subscribed - and eventually to expanding my subscription to modules as well.
I can honestly say that none of that would ever have happened if not for the collected edition of Rise of the Runelords... and I'd be very surprised if I were the only one for whom that publication served as a 'gateway' into AP's across the board. Paizo didn't lose to anyone when it came to me.
And again, I honestly didn't intend to threadjack in this fashion. I promise not to post on this subject in this thread again.
What mentality is that? Having a rulebook line? Giving a signficant portion of their customer base something they want? It isnt even close to the mentality wizards had. Paizo is being very very measured in how they add options to the game.
The mentality that we need a specific class for so many of these concepts. It was talked about above a bit, and like I said I've been away from the boards/Pathfinder in general for a while, but were people honestly asking for a mix between sorcerer and barbarian? Are there groups of PF players clamoring for the ability to play a sorcerer/wizard that doesn't suck? If so then all I can really say is I'm more out of the loop than I thought, and then ask, is a whole new class really the best answer to that?
It is rather nonsensical to say that they should STOP adding options to the game.
I whole heartedly agree. Which is why I neither said that, suggested it, implied it, or thought it and typed something else. Tell you what, if you'd like to discuss this, great, don't put words in my mouth to make me sound like a moron/troll and I'll treat you with the same level of respect?
There are obviously customers who are interested in such products. Why shouldnt paizo supply their desires as well? If it isnt what you want, you can simply not purchase those products. The last player option book was the advance race guide and even that was a very specific kind of option set. The last book comparable to wizard's monthly releases was ultimate combat. Thats what, 2 years ago now? I think that waiting until august 2014 to put out the next one is very, very reasonable and in no way comparable to the mentality that wizards had.
There are customers interested in a great many things. I'm sure if Paizo said they had plans to do an archer class, a two weapon fighting class, and a sword and board class in a supplement there would be people who would be knocking down their doors shoving handfuls of cash at them. There are other options that people have been asking for that Paizo has shown a continued disinterest in doing (psionics), where I just haven't seen the player interest in these particular concepts (again, it's entirely possible that it's there and I haven't seen it...and at the end of the day everything Paizo does doesn't have to be justified to me...just trying to explain where I'm coming from and why I'm not excited to see this product).
To the op, while not every class was directly clamored for, many were. Spefically, the Swashbuckler, the Bloodrager, and the skald were things that were EXTREMELY comonly requested. The swashbuckler, 4level full bab arcane caster and the bardbarian were concepts that were absolutely not fufilled by existing options. A non-mystical brawler type was also commonly requested, and not really fufilled by the monk. And so has been a 'fix' for the lowly rogue. Whether or not you think giving a different class that could do the rogues job is the 'correct' way to fix it, the slayer and the investigator both give people an option to play something roguish that dont suffer from it's difficulties.
So to say that no one has been...
Last I knew there was an archetype for an unarmed fighter and I swore there was a bard archetype for the skald. As for the swashbuckler, what specifically is the concept people felt wasn't being adequately represented? Cuz it seems to me there are a number of archetypes and prestige classes that fit that bill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The mentality that we need a specific class for so many of these concepts. It was talked about above a bit, and like I said I've been away from the boards/Pathfinder in general for a while, but were people honestly asking for a mix between sorcerer and barbarian? Are there groups of PF players clamoring for the ability to play a sorcerer/wizard that doesn't suck? If so then all I can really say is I'm more out of the loop than I thought, and then ask, is a whole new class really the best answer to that?
The arcanist? No. That one is a curveball I dont quite understand. But the bloodrager, brawler, slayer, investigator, swashbuckler, and warpriest? Yes, people have been asking for these concepts done right. And attempts to make this happen with archetypes havent been sufficient in those people's eyes. Mostly because archetypes are very limited in what they can change.
I whole heartedly agree. Which is why I neither said that, suggested it, implied it, or thought it and typed something else. Tell you what, if you'd like to discuss this, great, don't put words in my mouth to make me sound like a moron/troll and I'll treat you with the same level of respect?
I apologize if I misunderstood, but my assumption in the 'wizards' mentality was to constantly release new material. If the mentality is simply about base classes, thats a different issue. I still disagree with you, but it isnt what I picked up from your comment.
There are customers interested in a great many things. I'm sure if Paizo said they had plans to do an archer class, a two weapon fighting class, and a sword and board class in a supplement there would be people who would be knocking down their doors shoving handfuls of cash at them. There are other options that people have been asking for that Paizo has shown a continued disinterest in doing (psionics), where I just haven't seen the player interest in these particular concepts (again, it's entirely possible that it's there and I haven't seen it...and at the end of the day everything Paizo does doesn't have to be justified to me...just trying to explain where I'm coming from and why I'm not excited to see this product).
You really have missed it. There is direct interest in most of the concepts of the advanced class guide. Like I said, the arcanist is probably the one that has the biggest questionmark, and maybe the hunter as well. But the rest has been directly asked for. Many, many times.
Last I knew there was an archetype for an unarmed fighter and I swore there was a bard archetype for the skald. As for the swashbuckler, what specifically is the concept people felt wasn't being adequately represented? Cuz it seems to me there are a number of archetypes and prestige classes that fit that bill.
There was an archetype, and its terrible. It doesnt function in the game on par with a normal fighter. And thats the point in these classes. Paizo has tried to do all of them other ways, but in the end they, and many fans feel those other ways (usually archetypes or prestige classes) dont fit the bill.
Prestige classes dont work because most of the game is played at low levels, many many people do not want to wait months or years of actual time to get to play the characters they want. Some games never get to the levels (8-10) where prestige classes actually start functioning as their concept dictates.
In addition paizo has made deliberate design choices in pathfinder to make single classed characters more desirable. In 3.x it was all about multiclassing and prestige classes. Paizo has made efforts to bring back the single classed character. In doing so, they need to support the option to make concepts work in single classes.
Archetypes do some of that, but they are also a very limited design space. Even alternate classes (basically big archetypes) can only do so much. You have to trade abilities in and out, and that limits your ability to make the character 'feel' and play the way you want for the concept. For instance the gunslinger started as a fighter alternate class, but eventually became a class of its own because it deviated too far from the fighter to be a legitimate alternate class. Its that one for one trading of abilities that means for some concepts you need a fresh start. That means a base class.
My personal opinion is that base classes are the best way to add options to the game. They are self contained, they limit overall complexity of the game, and they are easy for new players to grasp. If a new player wants to play sherlock holmes. You COULD give him the rogue, multiclassed with wizard or alchemist, and 2 archetypes (one for each) across 4 different books. In the end it could be made to work mechanically and thematically. But instead, I could hand him the 5 or 6 pages of the investigator. I like that a WHOLE lot more.
New base classes are also easier to balance. Because unless you explicately state it, the options designed for other classes dont apply. It reduces the potential complexity of the option combinations for the class, and allows a designer to focus on what he or she wants the class to be able to do. If he makes an archetype, then he not only has to work on the foundation of the original class (which may or may not fit the concept), but he also has to take into account everything written for that other class that might interact with his new mechanics.
Best example is the swashbuckler. Its sort of roguey, sort of fightery. They made a rogue archetype, but it doesnt really work because you cant make balanced 1 for 1 trades of rogue abilities to make this work as a solid combatant. If you start with the fighter, then you dont have abilities to trade out to make it roguey, especially since archetypes dont change skills.
The brawler too is an archetype, but there isnt the space within the fighter to trade things out to add in the unarmed combat abilities needed to make it functional and fufill the concept. Again archetypes have to be 1for1 trades of abilities that remain balaned and functional over 20 levels. That allows for minor tweaks like a 2weapon fighter, or a daggermaster rogue. But it doesnt allow for conceptual changes, like making a rogue a primary frontline melee combatant.
By wizards mentality what I mean is just a constant production of material, based on making money as opposed to satisfying customer demand. I wasn't terribly clear about that.
I'll have to take your word on the desire for these concepts being there. Personally I don't get it on a lot of them (the warpriest makes no sense to me conceptually, if anything I think we needed the opposite...the cleric is a martially oriented divine caster and we need something to represent a priest that has no clue how to wear armor or what to do with martial weapons).
You make good points on why base classes are a good idea, but here's my thoughts.
The rogue and the monk were done poorly, and this has been presented and explained and argued about...Adding in NEW classes to appease people who want to make characters that should be doable with existing classes is half assed work...and I expect more out of Paizo. In my opinion they should admit those two classes are failures and fix them...not add more classes that should be played instead of them.
Archetypes already exist. If we turn every/most concept into a base class instead of an archetype, are we just going to call archetypes a failure and drop it? If not, how much redundancy are we going to deal with where people are looking at playing a skald and deciding if it's the base class, the archetype, or some combination of multiclassing they should chose?
Lastly, not every concept needs to be equally valid. I would much rather Paizo uses their time and efforts to create interesting adventure ideas than come up with a way for my goblin bard gunslinger giant slaying gene binder idea to be just as valid and playable as my friends dwarf fighter.
I will agree with Kolokotroni here...a lot of these classes were things desired by people, and, at least after playtesting, should be more effective as base level classes than as archetypes or multiclassed combos. Just because you don't want this book...doesn't mean lots of other people don't. Not every product will appeal to every person, and I don't get the mentality of people coming online just to argue X product shouldn't be made because they don't want it.
To answer the complaint about "putting out classes for money", recall that since the Advanced Players Guide, we have only gotten a sum total of 4 new classes, two of which are alternative classes. It's not like we are getting 10 new classes a year.
As for "fixing the rouge and monk", that sort of core rule book change is more appropriate for a new edition, not something that can be fixed with errata. It would require substanstial revision, which would entail redoing the page layout for the entire section, as well as render the current stock of core rulebooks pointless.
Gorbacz...There's something to be said for quality over quantity.
MMCJawa...I realize on forums it's pretty easy to lump people on one side or another of an argument, but I haven't said that this product as a whole shouldn't exist. Questioning why aspects of a product exist isn't the same as saying the whole shouldn't. The previously mentioned race book is a prime example. I'm not fond of the race creation rules, at least putting that level of design in the hands of players. It's only a small part of the book, and though I don't like that aspect of the product, I'm very happy with the product as a whole.
There's every possibility the class book will be the same way. To give some more context, I've allowed the platyest in my home game and made suggestions for several players where the concept they were going for sounded like it could be done with the new classes.
Because something hasn't happened in a while doesn't equate to that thing needing to happen this time. Also, I'm not wholly opposed to new classes, I just don't think these particular concepts are something the game needs. Purely a matter of opinion, I know, and all I'm doing is trying to express my opinion in a civil manner and possibly try to understand the opinions of others.
On the edition vs errata, I completely disagree. When someone writes a set of rules, and one aspect doesn't work properly they should work to fix that aspect and not wait until the whole thing is ready for a reboot. Being that Paizo has said (far as I remember anyways) they weren't interested in coming out with a new edition any time soon, I would think it's even more important to fix the holes instead of waiting...
I think Paizo is set up perfectly to have a more fluid rule set than what we've seen in the past. They seem very supportive of digital products in both their PDFs and their rule set being available online. Also, there is the matter that they have been amazingly successful pioneers in the industry. But no, instead of continuing that tradition their making an mmo and making MORE versions of existing material...sorry, but I don't understand how this is supposed to be seen as progress.
I'm on the side of design philosophy where there should have been fewer classes and more Archetypes.
Personally If I were to rewrite Pathfinder only Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Sorcerer, Alchemist and Shaman would exist and would look drastically different to open design space for archetypes.
But that's not where design went so I'm okay with new classes filling in gaps even if those gaps are small. Given the rate and nature of new classes I don't think we're anywhere near WotC levels of class inflation which is one reason why I don't think that Paizo is really set up to have a very fluid rules set. Not to mention that it can be argued that Pathfinder is successful because change=bad. (I don't agree with that but I do see where drastic changes to printed material is an issue. I still own all the hardcovers because they are used at the table despite most of the players owning tablets.
Because something hasn't happened in a while doesn't equate to that thing needing to happen this time. Also, I'm not wholly opposed to new classes, I just don't think these particular concepts are something the game needs. Purely a matter of opinion, I know, and all I'm doing is trying to express my opinion in a civil manner and possibly try to understand the opinions of others.
Something not being done for a while, doesnt mean it should be done. Something not being done for a while that a significant portion of your customers want, that probably should be done. Alot of people like new classes. Its very reasonable for after 2 years of no new classes, for those people to get new ones from paizo.
On the edition vs errata, I completely disagree. When someone writes a set of rules, and one aspect doesn't work properly they should work to fix that aspect and not wait until the whole thing is ready for a reboot. Being that Paizo has said (far as I remember anyways) they weren't interested in coming out with a new edition any time soon, I would think it's even more important to fix the holes instead of waiting...
The problem is, how do you fix those holes? Paizo has pretty much shut the door on any errata that is sufficiently different from the original so as to alter page count of books. I dont know who specifically insists on this. It seems to me that the lead devs have been interested in making more significant changes (see stealth playtest), but that idea got shut down. Whether it was a group descision, or some portion of paizo's brass insisted, the simple fact is paizo will not make any errata that will dramatically alter the word/character count of a section of the book so as to disrupt layout in the next printing. I am not saying I agree with that policy, but if thats the reality, major errata cant happen.
If you cant make major changes to original text of a class it becomes very very difficult to 'fix' a problem. In particular if that problem is a core class.
I think Paizo is set up perfectly to have a more fluid rule set than what we've seen in the past. They seem very supportive of digital products in both their PDFs and their rule set being available online. Also, there is the matter that they have been amazingly successful pioneers in the industry. But no, instead of continuing that tradition their making an mmo and making MORE versions of existing material...sorry, but I don't understand how this is supposed to be seen as progress.
Its not about progress, its their basic business practice. Print and text will look the same. There are a fair number of paizo customers that dont like digital formats. And while paizo is probably an industry leader in digital content, they cant make it so their print players and digital players are playing different games. In particualr because paizo has strong support for its organized play, where people of all stripes can sit down and play with relative ease. If the physical book one player is holding was radically different then the pdf on another players tablet, you have a big problem for organized play. So a digital solution alone is not an option.
So what does that leave us with? Honestly? What we are getting. The brawler is a combat focused unarmed combatant that can fill some of what the monk does conceptually, but actually (assuming all things go well in the playtest) function as a frontliner.
The investigator and the slayer will (again assuming all goes well) will allow people to play a variety of rogue like characters without having to signicantly struggle to function mechanically in a party. While maybe not the ideal, its really the only solution paizo can offer unless they want to make print a secondary medium, and alienate their print focused fans plus spend a significant amount of money and time on redoing the layout of those digital products that would not generate additional revenue for the company (errata is by its nature a loss for paizo, new books are not).
I was unaware they weren't willing to do significant errata...that changes things. That being the case I agree creating new classes is likely the best route, but I don't understand why they would put that sort of limitation on themselves. I wouldn't expect the PDFs and print to be different.
I was unaware they weren't willing to do significant errata...that changes things. That being the case I agree creating new classes is likely the best route, but I don't understand why they would put that sort of limitation on themselves. I wouldn't expect the PDFs and print to be different.
Basically because of how much emphasis they put on the appearance of their products. Art/Charts/Text are all carefully laid out page by page. There is no empty space besides on chapter header pages. Anywhere there is text, the page is full.
Making any significant changes is bound to change word counts of changed section and specifically change pagination (how pages are laid out). Something wont fit right anymore on that page, and that will spill over into all the other pages in that chapter. Art or charts wont fit in correctly with their related text. That would require the product being laid out again, possibly art being removed, or replaced, and that is a hastle paizo (apparently) simply doesnt want to tackle. In particular because it would be a significant portion of the work to release a new product, but without the sales figures to back it up since its errata of a product that everyone currently playing the game already has (the core rules).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, can I just say how much I hate the "quality over quantity" argument. One does not preclude the other.
MMCJawa...I realize on forums it's pretty easy to lump people on one side or another of an argument, but I haven't said that this product as a whole shouldn't exist. Questioning why aspects of a product exist isn't the same as saying the whole shouldn't. The previously mentioned race book is a prime example. I'm not fond of the race creation rules, at least putting that level of design in the hands of players. It's only a small part of the book, and though I don't like that aspect of the product, I'm very happy with the product as a whole.
My apologies if I mischaracterized your views, but they seemed similar to what I was arguing against. Basically there are a whole slew of playstyles, preferences, etc, and its pretty much impossible for them to produce a book that will be of equal value to everyone.
FYI, the race builder is I believe listed to be a GM tool, and not something players should assume they have access to.
Because something hasn't happened in a while doesn't equate to that thing needing to happen this time. Also, I'm not wholly opposed to new classes, I just don't think these particular concepts are something the game needs. Purely a matter of opinion, I know, and all I'm doing is trying to express my opinion in a civil manner and possibly try to understand the opinions of others.
About a month or so before the Gencon announcement, there was a pretty active thread that had been started about the lack of new class options in the last few years. While I don't believe the original poster was being quite fair, I think his views don't represent a minority necessarily. Similarly, There have been a couple of Class wishlist threads (Swashbuckler most famously), so again there are "holes" in class niche space that people have demanded to be filled.
I can see why they would go with the ACG as a Gencon release. They will be going up against DnD next (I think?) at the next gencon, and having a big shiny book of new character options is likely to be competitive, since it will likely keep at least some people tuned into Pathfinder versus distracted by the DnD release. It also shows Pathfinder to be a fully fleshed out system, whereass DnD is likely to be pretty reduced in options for the next year or so.
On the edition vs errata, I completely disagree. When someone writes a set of rules, and one aspect doesn't work properly they should work to fix that aspect and not wait until the whole thing is ready for a reboot. Being that Paizo has said (far as I remember anyways) they weren't interested in coming out with a new edition any time soon, I would think it's even more important to fix the holes instead of waiting...
I think Paizo is set up perfectly to have a more fluid rule set than what we've seen in the past. They seem very supportive of digital products in both their PDFs and their rule set being available online. Also, there is the matter that they have been amazingly successful pioneers in the industry. But no, instead of continuing that tradition their...
For starters, for what it is worth, the MMO is being developed by Goblinworks, not Paizo. It's not like the MMO is taking away time from the developers of the RPG. Kolokotroni goes through the problems with errata'ing the core rule book in better detail than me, but actually as far as editing/art/layout/writing/developing goes, PDF versus in print isn't that much different as far as tying up resources or cost. I don't think embracing digital PDF's is really going to help with incorporating fixes to the monk and rogue.
It looks like largely my priorities and Paizo's are differing. Which, sad as it is, is just the way it goes. Thanks for the discussion Koloktroni and MCCJawa. Not sure I have anything else to add to it other than, though I don't see the need and disagree with the execution, I do look forward to seeing the finished product.
Going back to why this thread was originally started, I have to agree. It feels way too much like these classes could be achieved with basic multiclassing, rather than having their own niche. Like the Summoner, Oracle, or Gunslinger. It would be really nice to see some of these classes turn in to stand-alone classes, rather than a mixmatch of two classes.
So, in other words, +1 to the OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to why this thread was originally started, I have to agree. It feels way too much like these classes could be achieved with basic multiclassing, rather than having their own niche.
The main problem with this is that Paizo and Pathfinder have done a great deal to discourage multiclassing, and thus no, you really can't achieve something like these classes with that option. Multiclass characters in Pathfinder are prone to very quickly lagging behind their straight-classed counterparts, and unlike in 3.5 Prestige Classes are not built to empower characters up to and beyond a straight-class's capability. They're very specific, very niche mechanics that you have to really, really consider if you want this more than you want the available options for staying straight class.
All of this is by intent, and working as designed. Paizo said back when Pathfinder was under development, and have said since, that they were very much interested in encouraging characters to stick with one class, and avoiding the feel of 3.5 where a character was expected to multiclass (at least into a PrC) in order to remain viable at higher levels.
Which means that any concept that, for one reason or another, can't be properly filled by a currently-existing full class or archetype will have to either settle for being sub-par compared to a straight-classed counterpart, or require a new class to achieve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to why this thread was originally started, I have to agree. It feels way too much like these classes could be achieved with basic multiclassing, rather than having their own niche.The main problem with this is that Paizo and Pathfinder have done a great deal to discourage multiclassing, and thus no, you really can't achieve something like these classes with that option. Multiclass characters in Pathfinder are prone to very quickly lagging behind their straight-classed counterparts, and unlike in 3.5 Prestige Classes are not built to empower characters up to and beyond a straight-class's capability. They're very specific, very niche mechanics that you have to really, really consider if you want this more than you want the available options for staying straight class.
All of this is by intent, and working as designed. Paizo said back when Pathfinder was under development, and have said since, that they were very much interested in encouraging characters to stick with one class, and avoiding the feel of 3.5 where a character was expected to multiclass (at least into a PrC) in order to remain viable at higher levels.
Which means that any concept that, for one reason or another, can't be properly filled by a currently-existing full class or archetype will have to either settle for being sub-par compared to a straight-classed counterpart, or require a new class to achieve.
That's been the complete opposite of my experience as someone who basically builds characters for a living. Sure, if you try to make a 5th level Wizard/5th level Fighter the character will be sub-par and less specialized than to a 10th level version of either (and I personally prefer it that way), but I've found that as often as not, a two level dip here or a 1 level dip there makes a dramatic difference both in the feel and the effectiveness of the original character.
I've got a Brawler (Fighter archetype) with a two level dip in Master of Many Styles that I would put against the new Brawler any day of the week. An Invulnerable Rager with a single level dip in Unbreakable Fighter which puts him over the top into one of the most potent martial characters I've ever seen. A fanatical Theologian with a two level dip in Wild Rager that makes for an incredibly potent and fun to play character. A Summoner with a single level dip into Dragoon, an Arcane Duelist with two levels of Divine Hunter, an Archeologist with a couple of levels of Lore Warden and on and on it goes.
Almost anything you want to achieve right now can be done with the nearly infinite combinations of archetypes already available, and if not, there's always room for more archetypes... it is my opinion (and just that) that these additional classes are superfulous. It was always my attitude that more options were by definition better, but 3.5 taught me the lesson of that... at the moment we have 22 base, core and alternate classes already - are we really planning on eventually adding 400-500 'advanced classes' to cover every possible combination, especially when often times a dip and a little clever character building can already accomplish what you're looking for.
Want a classic Bard? We have a classic Bard. Want a healing Bard, we have a Songhealer. Want a combat Bard, we have the Dervishes and the Arcane Duelist. Want a rogue-type Bard, we have the Archeologist and on and on it goes - and that's not even counting the aforementioned dips. I just think the advanced classes are excess, gratuituous additions that don't fill any particular need.
Having said that, I'm not against the concept of excess in and of itself...
It simplifies the process though for people less skilled than you at constructing these niche classes.
Just as its easier for someone to go to the shop and buy a cake, rather than buy flour, eggs, sugar, etc. and try and make one themselves.
If a Fighter 1/Cleric 9 is better at being a Warpriest than a Warpriest 10, that's a serious problem. I'm all for interesting, fun new classes to play with: When we complain "These classes would be better implemented by multiclassing" what we mean is "These classes aren't interesting enough."
I had an argument with my sister-in-law about which was better, Magus or Eldritch Knight. I was in for the Magus, she was in for EK. My argument was in two points,
1) The fact that the Magus exists makes it possible to explore more than just 'the gish' concept but tangents that that concept brings up.
2) I get to be a EK at level 1 and not necessarily have to pre-plan my character for several levels and read three different classes.
For me, design space, ease of use and style were more important than full 9 levels of spells or which was stronger.
Despite what I see as flaws in the Magus I think it works as a hybrid class and I think there are a lot of Magus fans that agree. So I think we need to ask ourselves what worked there and what can change about these new classes that achieves the same results.
If a Fighter 1/Cleric 9 is better at being a Warpriest than a Warpriest 10, that's a serious problem. I'm all for interesting, fun new classes to play with: When we complain "These classes would be better implemented by multiclassing" what we mean is "These classes aren't interesting enough."It simplifies the process though for people less skilled than you at constructing these niche classes.
Just as its easier for someone to go to the shop and buy a cake, rather than buy flour, eggs, sugar, etc. and try and make one themselves.
I think Jeven makes a fair point in that this may go a fair ways for those who lack any degree of system mastery (though I'm not sure how that makes them 'advanced classes') but I think you make a good point as well. If we're going to introduce something that's new, let's make it worth our while by being truly new. Gunslingers (which I don't care for), Witches, Summoners, Alchemists... all of these options introduced a completely new dynamic into the game that was utterly unachievable by any existing class or archetype.