The "too much books and bloat" argument.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 617 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Kalindlara wrote:
@Darkbridger: One correction... it would have been six Player Companions. They were put out every other month until far more recently.

Also they weren't always so crunchy.

I miss how they used to be, but I'm probably in the minority. :-)

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the new approach by and large, but I wouldn't mind seeing it swing back the other way a little. I like the idea of being able to hand out a Player Companion and say "Here's what you know about the local setting". Something like that for Westcrown would have been great. (I seem to recall the Varisia Companion being good for this.)


For that matter, a good deal of the material in the Companions has been as far as I know updated or revised in newer material - races in the Inner Sea Races for example. While it doesn't contain all the information, it does a pretty good job of giving you what you need.


knightnday wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

Knight, this is an honest question, not snark*: is Generica, the Land of I Don't Care synonymous with Golarion, or does it also include 3pp?

I'm just curious because RDM42 mentioned published settings being treated as sacrosanct as compared to homebrew settings, but I think that sort of gets it wrong, no insult to RDM. Published settings are required to include all of said publisher's material, so I see them as a lot less sacrosanct, actually. Just using Paizo material, you can play a Clint Eastwood Man with No Name type from Alkenstar who ends up adventuring alongside an Inuyasha type party in Tian Xia, but no GM should be required to do that in a homebrew setting.

*I suppose the snark would have been directed at Paizo, not you, in any case. ;)

Ah, no, not at all. Generica -- it doesn't actually have a name -- is basically a world that I don't care about, that I've invested little if any time creating backstory for and so on.

In contrast, some of my homebrew worlds have existed for going on thirty years, with ongoing stories and plots and the like, fleshed out NPCs and family trees and all that jazz.

Generica, for lack of a better name, includes none of that. I might use Greyhawk, or Golarion, or another created and published system but more often than not it would be a very generic fantasy setting world with little work put into it. The sort where the map might be drawn on a napkin with a scale that varies depending on the day.

I don't use Generica much because most of my players are looking to continue the threads they've started or heard about in the other worlds. I use Generica when people just want to bash things without worrying overly much about story, cannot agree what they want to do (half want pirates, two others want noble intrigue, and another wants to punt goblins), or for one or two off sessions where people want to create characters they don't have to care about, or introduce new people to the mechanics and general idea of the game without...

I love the name, Generica, I run tons of games like that with out a real term how to call it. I also have games where we have setting were there is history we've created.


captain yesterday wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
@Darkbridger: One correction... it would have been six Player Companions. They were put out every other month until far more recently.

Also they weren't always so crunchy.

I miss how they used to be, but I'm probably in the minority. :-)

Sorry, age is compromising the grey matter. I had to go back and look that up, but yes, it was only 6 in the beginning. I don't mind a healthy balance of crunch and fluff player books. But either way, the rules mountain continues to grow, and at an accelerated pace I guess now that I realize how the release schedule has changed. To deny that's causing problems for players and developers alike is kind of silly. It may not cause problems for a specific player, DM or table... but for the makers of the game, it's becoming a pretty big batch of stuff to keep track of. I don't envy them the task. I'm mostly here for APs anyway.

I want PF 2.0 so I can finally switch to electronic books once and for all. I've spent too long buying hard copies in the current iteration to switch over at this point. This is the same reason I am not a 5e customer... well, one of the two reasons.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I subscribe to the RPG line and up until recently was a AP subscriber.

I dont do Organized Play not since I was in an RPGA game in the late 80's early 90's and hated the quality of person that attended those few games I was at. Ever since then? Whether I'm running (which is most of the time) or playing? I screen.

I dont want to play a weekly game with strangers who have a completely different style and definition of gaming than I do. I'm not saying that their style is WRONG. I just dont want to play with people for who the game is a mechanical exercise mainly and gear their characters accordingly. If that's your main thrust? We cant hang.

I have a player like that in my group but he builds his PC's around a concept and wants them to be effective in that concept, sometimes too effective. The thing is? when he sees that and sees that it detracts from other peoples fun, including the GM? he tones down the character or makes arrangements to play something else.

So that's why with my particular group? At first when we started playing I limited everything to core. At the time that we started only the APG was out so that wasnt too bad. But as I watched and began to see how they played and saw that they werent abusive or jerks as far as char op went I pretty much opened up everything as long as I could look at the character first.

And I guess for me that's what it all comes down to. Bloat and power creep is an issue if youre playing with jerks and people who are going to really take advantage and dont care about other people's fun. If a bad situation turns up in game I'm lucky that I have a great group of PEOPLE who are going to talk about it like adults and figure something out that will be okay with everyone. I tend to err on the side of my players even at the expense of my own fun sometimes but even I have to say sometimes "WHOA...hold the FRAK up."

If you play with people who aren't selfish jerks?

You should be okay. No matter the system. No matter the books. No matter the creep.


^^This guy's last two paragraphs. 100%


I have to admit that despise its flaws (wich are a little few yet) 5th edition is amazing, i almost want to play it instead pf or even i somekind of like the idea of buying the material but:

1 i dont want to relearn how to play the d20
2 i dont trust wotc anymore (maybe next week they will launch 5.5 or advanced 5th).

I´ll stay with PF but i wont buy any other pf book anymore: 1000+ feats, and 42 classes are enough for me (even i want to rebuild occult to reduce their number to 3). And i know how to play pf and this d20 version (i know pf is a 3rd party from wotc and now they even have a 3rd parties) but i know how to avoid the hype for buying books from both companies again and i will keep my model, if i like what i see, read and test, then i will buy it but for 5th edition is a big no from me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It gets to the point where one can't keep up with the bloat and you stop trying/buying. IN 2008 I was not ready to give up on 3.x, by 2012 I went back to AD&D and 2014 was the last time I played PF full stop.

At homes its not to bad but the PRD is around and players tend to use it. I do not like weird anthromorphic animal humanoid type races so much of the new stuff is of no interest to me whatsoever.

The number bloat doesn't help. It was refreshing to play AD&D and BECMI/clones again. A level 20 fighter gets +13 to hit from thier levels huh?

I went down the bloat rabbit warrn with 3.x (80+ books), I limited PF to 6 books +PDFs the last one I bought was Ultimate Campaigns.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

If you play with people who aren't selfish jerks?

You should be okay. No matter the system. No matter the books. No matter the creep.

Not being willing to throw out your character concept because you'll overshadow (or undershadow) someone/everyone else's characters (that are also built to a concept) doesn't seem to me to make a person a selfish jerk. Certainly there are character concepts that don't fit well into some rules sets, and they shouldn't be encouraged or expected, but when there's so many ways to make a concept that seems sensible into either a waste of space or a complete scene-stealer then it's pretty hard to blame someone for being disgruntled at being told their concept doesn't fit and needs changing.


Personally, I wait until I know what I'm making a character for and hear what the ground rules are for that game before making out a detailed character. Then I know I won't have to unmake something, plus it seems just courteous to wait and hear - to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

If you play with people who aren't selfish jerks?

You should be okay. No matter the system. No matter the books. No matter the creep.

Not being willing to throw out your character concept because you'll overshadow (or undershadow) someone/everyone else's characters (that are also built to a concept) doesn't seem to me to make a person a selfish jerk. Certainly there are character concepts that don't fit well into some rules sets, and they shouldn't be encouraged or expected, but when there's so many ways to make a concept that seems sensible into either a waste of space or a complete scene-stealer then it's pretty hard to blame someone for being disgruntled at being told their concept doesn't fit and needs changing.

Player 1 thinks: Player 2 is a selfish jerk, making an overpowered character just because he wants to hog all the glory.

Player 2 thinks: Player 1 is a selfish jerk, making an underpowered character just because he thinks that makes him a better roleplayer or something. It's like he wants to get us all TPKed.
Player 3 thinks: Players 1 & 2 are selfish jerks, always badwrongfunning other players for their perfectly valid play-styles.


Too many pages in this so not sure if this has been said on bloat. Normally, it doesn't bother me. There has been an issue recently in an AP where, instead of listing an enemy's stat block, it told the GM to look in Bestiary 4 or 5 or whatever. Well, what if someone grabbed the AP cause they thought it was neat and only had the CRB and first bestiary? They would be kinda screwed. It was Iron Gods by the way which also forced the GM to get the Technology Guide. We are aware of the SRD but we prefer owning the books. Playing the adventure paths is getting too expensive because they don't include all the information for the enemies in them all the time and thus, like I said, making it required to buy more books just to play them. You can't just subscribe to the APs and use the CRB anymore it seems.

I would love it if, and I know they can't due to company size and number of employees, they had teams that worked on worlds other than Golarian. It lets you make world specific spells, classes, etc... without cluttering and bloating one world too much. Examples are like Warforged in Ebberon, the dark powers in Ravenloft, Defilers in Dark Sun, Spell Jammer ships in spell jammer, the dragon lances in Krynn, and so on.


Jaçinto wrote:

Too many pages in this so not sure if this has been said on bloat. Normally, it doesn't bother me. There has been an issue recently in an AP where, instead of listing an enemy's stat block, it told the GM to look in Bestiary 4 or 5 or whatever. Well, what if someone grabbed the AP cause they thought it was neat and only had the CRB and first bestiary? They would be kinda screwed. It was Iron Gods by the way which also forced the GM to get the Technology Guide. We are aware of the SRD but we prefer owning the books. Playing the adventure paths is getting too expensive because they don't include all the information for the enemies in them all the time and thus, like I said, making it required to buy more books just to play them. You can't just subscribe to the APs and use the CRB anymore it seems.

I would love it if, and I know they can't due to company size and number of employees, they had teams that worked on worlds other than Golarian. It lets you make world specific spells, classes, etc... without cluttering and bloating one world too much. Examples are like Warforged in Ebberon, the dark powers in Ravenloft, Defilers in Dark Sun, Spell Jammer ships in spell jammer, the dragon lances in Krynn, and so on.

You prefer to own the book but YOU DONT NEED TO. So how are you screwed if you prefer owning the book but don't actually NEED to own the technology guide to run the adventure path?


Required to own the bestiary 4 or whatever for the enemy/monster stats, actually. We want to play legally. As in not using the srd or illegally downloaded PDFs. We support the games we play but it gets anyone when a PDF pulls the "Grats on buying this neat adventure, too bad we didn't tell you that you have to get the monster stats from a book you don't own cause we wont include it here."

For the character overshadow thing, that only bugs me in the situation of "I am making character X" Another player looks over after a session or so and says "Your character is neat. I am gonna make one that does the same stuff, same abilities and feats, but lets see if I can make it better." Goes back to "Dude, can you make your own character and not just copy mine?"


Quote:
Too many pages in this so not sure if this has been said on bloat. Normally, it doesn't bother me. There has been an issue recently in an AP where, instead of listing an enemy's stat block, it told the GM to look in Bestiary 4 or 5 or whatever. Well, what if someone grabbed the AP cause they thought it was neat and only had the CRB and first bestiary? They would be kinda screwed. It was Iron Gods by the way which also forced the GM to get the Technology Guide. We are aware of the SRD but we prefer owning the books. Playing the adventure paths is getting too expensive because they don't include all the information for the enemies in them all the time and thus, like I said, making it required to buy more books just to play them. You can't just subscribe to the APs and use the CRB anymore it seems.

So you'd rather them to go out of there way to not use the creatures they make.... Despite the fact that you acknowledge it's there for free on their website? That seems rather unfair to me.

Why should they limit their adventures to only use content from three books?


Jaçinto wrote:
Required to own the bestiary 4 or whatever for the enemy/monster stats, actually. We want to play legally. As in not using the srd or illegally downloaded PDFs.

I don't think using the SRD is illegal.


I always thought it was because it uses information from books you have to pay for, and they have had to change some names of things for copyright issues.

Edit: Milo no I am saying make an AP where, when you want to introduce the new monster, please include the stat block in there like they have for previous monsters.


Quote:

Required to own the bestiary 4 or whatever for the enemy/monster stats, actually. We want to play legally. As in not using the srd or illegally downloaded PDFs. We support the games we play but it gets anyone when a PDF pulls the "Grats on buying this neat adventure, too bad we didn't tell you that you have to get the monster stats from a book you don't own cause we wont include it here."

The PRD is owned and maintained by Paizo.... It's not illegal. It exists specifically because they know not everyone has the books.

Quote:
I always thought it was because it uses information from books you have to pay for, and they have had to change some names of things for copyright issues.

The PFSRD has to change names specific to golarion because those are copyright, the mechanics are not. Also, the PRD uses all the names and everything.


I said SRD. I will have to check the PRD then. Thanks.


You aren't required to own the book to legally use the stats from the srd.

I have yet to find an AP that you had to buy an additional book to be able to run

Buying the extra book, however, may ENHANCE your run, but by no means necessary.


Jaçinto wrote:
I always thought it was because it uses information from books you have to pay for, and they have had to change some names of things for copyright issues.

It's not illegal - it's used under license (the OGL).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:

Required to own the bestiary 4 or whatever for the enemy/monster stats, actually. We want to play legally. As in not using the srd or illegally downloaded PDFs. We support the games we play but it gets anyone when a PDF pulls the "Grats on buying this neat adventure, too bad we didn't tell you that you have to get the monster stats from a book you don't own cause we wont include it here."

For the character overshadow thing, that only bugs me in the situation of "I am making character X" Another player looks over after a session or so and says "Your character is neat. I am gonna make one that does the same stuff, same abilities and feats, but lets see if I can make it better." Goes back to "Dude, can you make your own character and not just copy mine?"

Using the SRD is legal. If you prefer not to use it, that's fine, but it's your problem not Paizo's.

I don't think any publisher has ever included complete stats in all its modules. You would have had the same problem back in the old AD&D days, except that there was no SRD (or PDF), so you actually would have had to buy the physical book.

Now, if there was no srd and the monster was only given stats in some obscure previous module, I can see the complaint, but otherwise?
Imagine the pagecount used to give full stats for every monster in every adventure.

Silver Crusade Contributor

I was just going to mention pagecount! It's brutal. If I were writing an adventure, I'd leap at the chance to reference a hardcover book - that's 500-1000 words (or more) of adventure content, story, etc., that I can fit in.

Also... buying the content is a noble impulse, it really is. But I suspect that if Paizo didn't want you to use the SRD, they wouldn't spend valuable company resources hosting, maintaining, and updating it. ^_^


I thought Paizo only hosted the PRD and not the SRD were other people. But yeah I will tell my GM if he can't afford the books, use the PRD.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Sorry, yes, PRD. I got confused there for a minute. ^_^

In my experience, Paizo only leaves statistics out when they appear in an RPG-line hardcover (and thus, the PRD). When they're referencing a more obscure source, they reprint the full stat block. I'm trying to remember a good example of them doing so...

The Exchange

The great thing about having so many table top RPGs out there, you can choose to play different systems and love them all. I went from 3.5 in 2013 (fighting giving up DnD3.5 for Pathfinder). I am glad I did. I love the content, rich ideas and overall good framework. Yes, there are the typos and yes some things can be improved on. But then, that is true of all table top RPGs.

The adventure paths are a huge plus. I love that Paizo puts so much emphasis there and then adds 1-2 core or campaign books per year. It give me enough new content and it gives me plenty of places to explore.

I also love the campaign books that laser point into topics or areas of the world. I know not everyone uses the world, but the content allows you to adapt it.

Keep up the great work Paizo team!


Zardnaar wrote:

It gets to the point where one can't keep up with the bloat and you stop trying/buying. IN 2008 I was not ready to give up on 3.x, by 2012 I went back to AD&D and 2014 was the last time I played PF full stop.

At homes its not to bad but the PRD is around and players tend to use it. I do not like weird anthromorphic animal humanoid type races so much of the new stuff is of no interest to me whatsoever.

The number bloat doesn't help. It was refreshing to play AD&D and BECMI/clones again. A level 20 fighter gets +13 to hit from thier levels huh?

I went down the bloat rabbit warrn with 3.x (80+ books), I limited PF to 6 books +PDFs the last one I bought was Ultimate Campaigns.

AD&D i tried some months ago but changing the modifiers and was perfect, as always, but better :3

Sad your last book was Ultimate Campaign, i bought that one thinking it will be helpful kinda dungeon master guide... but no, the book stinks


Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:

It gets to the point where one can't keep up with the bloat and you stop trying/buying. IN 2008 I was not ready to give up on 3.x, by 2012 I went back to AD&D and 2014 was the last time I played PF full stop.

At homes its not to bad but the PRD is around and players tend to use it. I do not like weird anthromorphic animal humanoid type races so much of the new stuff is of no interest to me whatsoever.

The number bloat doesn't help. It was refreshing to play AD&D and BECMI/clones again. A level 20 fighter gets +13 to hit from thier levels huh?

I went down the bloat rabbit warrn with 3.x (80+ books), I limited PF to 6 books +PDFs the last one I bought was Ultimate Campaigns.

AD&D i tried some months ago but changing the modifiers and was perfect, as always, but better :3

Sad your last book was Ultimate Campaign, i bought that one thinking it will be helpful kinda dungeon master guide... but no, the book stinks

We used ascending ACs and BAB instead of THACO for 2E. MIght try out this OD&D boxed set I own sometime.

Dark Archive

Quote:
I had some hope for PF early on because their original business model was adventures & settings. I am however not surprised that a 3.5 clone took the route it did.

The funny part is everyone can agree 3.5 had bloat......yet pathfinder which has produced more products it's being argued does not have bloat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
carmachu wrote:
The funny part is everyone can agree 3.5 had bloat......yet pathfinder which has produced more products it's being argued does not have bloat.

*Shrug* 3.5e didn't have bloat to me. I just didn't buy everything they sold.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder doesn't have the rep, because it's products aren't as unbalanced, with a clearer understanding of what they want to do, 3.5 was all over the place with hardly any balance or consistency.


Have they really produced overall more RULES product?


carmachu wrote:
Quote:
I had some hope for PF early on because their original business model was adventures & settings. I am however not surprised that a 3.5 clone took the route it did.
The funny part is everyone can agree 3.5 had bloat......yet pathfinder which has produced more products it's being argued does not have bloat.

I felt that there was too much material (often sub-par) in 3.5, when compared to Pathfinder, but that's just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plus the later stuff in 3.5 suffered from late game power creep. Abjurant Champion was strictly better in every way than Eldrich Knight, for example.

Core Wizard still trumps in PF.


captain yesterday wrote:
Pathfinder doesn't have the rep, because it's products aren't as unbalanced, with a clearer understanding of what they want to do, 3.5 was all over the place with hardly any balance or consistency.

This absolutely totally false, pathfinder balance is totally crazy and very inconsistent

example: sacred geometry

I'm not sure if this has been posted but I don't care about releasing new feats and classes, I care when they release feats and classes that are absolute garbage.

If paizo only released fun powerful archetypes it would be great but most of what they release is filler to increase page count


That's a dubious argument.


I can only discuss the RPG-Line because I don't purchase campaign setting stuff from 3.5e or PF, but in my experience balance in ridiculously better than 3.5e had. The Paizo team is actually pretty conservative when it comes to balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Pathfinder doesn't have the rep, because it's products aren't as unbalanced, with a clearer understanding of what they want to do, 3.5 was all over the place with hardly any balance or consistency.

This absolutely totally false, pathfinder balance is totally crazy and very inconsistent

example: sacred geometry

I'm not sure if this has been posted but I don't care about releasing new feats and classes, I care when they release feats and classes that are absolute garbage.

If paizo only released fun powerful archetypes it would be great but most of what they release is filler to increase page count

One example doesn't make a case. It makes an outlier.

Consistency is the key. 3.5 consistently put out more powerful options as time went on, purposefully, to sell newer books.

Pathfinder tries at least to keep it balanced. You put aside one obscure feat, which, by the way, doesn't even measure up to Leadership, which is core. One slip doesn't mean power creep. I could, if I had time and inclination, name dozens of examples on 3.5, like the Fochluchan Lyricist and Arcane Heirophant prestige classes, any Book of Nine Sword stuff, all strictly better in every conceivable ways than their earlier counterparts.


I've never even heard of that feat, so I don't think it'll bother me overly much. :-D


To be fair, cap, in other threads you've mentioned there's a LOT of books and sources you don't use...


I don't think pathfinder tries at all to be balanced!

Do you want more examples? How many examples do I need before they stop being "outliers".

Pathfinder has things that were never in 3.5, such as dazing spell. Dazing spell is super brokenly good, BTW.


Anyway that is a side note to the real point, which is 90% of the content Paizo produces in splat books are unpickable garbage. That is what really makes me sad.


I did a count of what I have.
23 player companions.
45 campaign setting.


For the record I think a lot of the extra material and including some of archetypes and feats labelled 'traps' are there for DMs creating NPCs that use that flavour and style. NPCs not needing the same balancing as PCs.

For instance I wouldn't personally play a pesh addict but I think it would make for a very characterful NPC. Just because something is a available to a PC as a general principal that doesn't mean you need to compare and contrast it to every other feat/archetype. It also doesn't mean it is useless to DMs just because you don't want to take it.


Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
To be fair, cap, in other threads you've mentioned there's a LOT of books and sources you don't use...

Just because he doesn't use it doesn't make it a crap option or filler it just makes it an option he doesn't use.


RDM42 wrote:
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
To be fair, cap, in other threads you've mentioned there's a LOT of books and sources you don't use...
Just because he doesn't use it doesn't make it a crap option or filler it just makes it an option he doesn't use.

I know. But he mentioned having not heard of Sacred Geometry, and he and I have had discussions in the past where he informed me there were many books he doesn't buy and won't use and doesn't even care to look up, because he doesn't want to use any of the website collections. So, thus the comment...If he hasnt heard of it doesn't mean it's not abused.

Seriously, as a player, though, I wouldn't want to use S.G. Even as the most abusable option that exists, even if I were playing in the grittiest game ever with a Gygaxian death GM, even with a party full of minmaxers, I wouldn't take it.

Did you read that feat? It will grind a turn to a halt faster than a Master Summoner with Augment Summoning and Evolved Summons for every other feat he takes. We all need to, what, twiddle our thumbs while you finish a homework assignment? Better show your work, because anyone who chooses that feat probably isn't above fudging their math, so you can't trust them when they say "and the math work out go sacred geometry."


Oh, it's not a feat I would personally use no. Definitely not.


Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
To be fair, cap, in other threads you've mentioned there's a LOT of books and sources you don't use...
Just because he doesn't use it doesn't make it a crap option or filler it just makes it an option he doesn't use.

I know. But he mentioned having not heard of Sacred Geometry, and he and I have had discussions in the past where he informed me there were many books he doesn't buy and won't use and doesn't even care to look up, because he doesn't want to use any of the website collections. So, thus the comment...If he hasnt heard of it doesn't mean it's not abused.

Seriously, as a player, though, I wouldn't want to use S.G. Even as the most abusable option that exists, even if I were playing in the grittiest game ever with a Gygaxian death GM, even with a party full of minmaxers, I wouldn't take it.

Did you read that feat? It will grind a turn to a halt faster than a Master Summoner with Augment Summoning and Evolved Summons for every other feat he takes. We all need to, what, twiddle our thumbs while you finish a homework assignment? Better show your work, because anyone who chooses that feat probably isn't above fudging their math, so you can't trust them when they say "and the math work out go sacred geometry."

Honestly, other than maybe really early on, the math will always work and it'll only take 30 seconds or so once you've figured out the basic tricks.

If by "show your work" you mean write it all out neatly with all the steps, that'll likely take longer than actually doing it.
A good part of the reason it's such a bad feat is that the limitation it imposes really isn't a limitation at all. Just a player level hassle - which is horrid game design.

501 to 550 of 617 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The "too much books and bloat" argument. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.