|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*is this thing on?*
So, let's talk bloat, release schedule and were are we going with 2PF.
I'd honestly hope that Paizo will adapt a publishing strategy that's more aggressive than D&D 5e BUT less hectic than PF1.
PF1 was supported by no less than five product lines, in order from most crunchy to least: Hardcovers, Player Companions, Campaign Setting books, APs and modules.
There's no denying that 5e is running on a very tame publishing model. Hardcovers happen once per year, and so far most of them were bestiaries. There are no monthly or even bi-monthly product lines. The flip side of this mode is obvious as well, 5e has far fewer player-side content.
Paizo's opportunity is to provide a system which has much more content, both for players and GMs, than 5e has. It's something that I see as one of major selling points of PF2 over 5E.
But Paizo's rate is too fast. The amount of bloat accumulated by PF1 towards the end of its lifecycle was obscene. Some of that bloat was welcome (monsters), some less so (grazillion feats, of which many didn't really matter).
I'd personally prefer for Paizo to adapt a more timid schedule, focus on elements which were popular in PF1 (Witch, Oracle, furry ancestries, aasimar & tielfings) while still putting out more material than 5E.
"But Gorbacz", you'll ask, "Paizo needs to make money!". Well, first of all, these days they have Starfinder, which by all indication is selling really well and sits in a rather secure market niche. Second, the new edition of PFACG is coming next year, so that's another stream of revenue.
I sincerely believe that there's a middle ground which will make us able to play that kitsune Antipaladin of Desna shortly AND not drown us with highly situational feats and racial traits which you can barely keep track of.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my ideal world, Paizo would have stopped publishing rules after Ultimate Campaign. Somewhere along there the bloat made the system just feel exhausting to me. Both as a PFS player, and just given player expectations when they find some new thing, the nominal freedom one has to ignore books isn't as simple as that. Beyond the bloat, in my experience Paizo's rules are seriously hit and miss. Most of the changes from 3.5 in the CRB are good, much of the APG was good. After that, as many were either not worth thinking about or actively bad as were worth it... and it got worse with time. I liked Ultimate Campaign, but to be honest all of Advanced Class Guide was just not necessary. It was options for the same of options, and what it brought to the game was small compared to the cognitive load of having to keep track of that many new classes, many of which were more complicated than what came before. By the time Occult came around, the classes were so complicated that, in my opinion, the book was really bad for Pathfinder as a game system. Adventures Guide sounded like a good concept, but in practice the book was extremely off-putting. Too much of it was almost-reprints... but reprints would have been better. Instead, there were changes for the sake of changes, bringing in a lot of gratuitous new complication, plus the irritation of the character you'd made no longer working.
Pathfinder 1e would have remained more fun if there were NO new classes after the Magus, and NO new features other than the occasional flavorful thing (that isn't, like 90% of the feats out there effectively a trap feat as it's not worth the opportunity cost of a feat). The Player companion line would have been better if they stayed like earlier versions, with more setting and characterization material than rules.
Where Paizo has excelled is in its world-building and its adventures. This, I believe, is a major reason people have stayed with Pathfinder. The campaign setting stuff had been very evocative, and inspirational both for mainly characters, and for GMing both existing adventures and home-grown adventures. The organized play campaign is the envy of the industry. The Adventure Paths are the gold standard for coherent campaigns.
In my ideal world, *this* is what Paizo would publish. Adventures, setting materials, bestiaries, things like the NPC Codex. Because that's what they really do well, and is what really makes Pathfinder as a game line stand out.
Alas, I suspect what sells is new options for PCs that gives players new powers. So, in our economic system, it's probably not possible to have an ongoing major RPG publisher without exactly the things that build bloat and eventually make a reboot necessary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be happy if PF2 has a similar release rate as Starfinder. An AP each month and one or two hardcovers per year seem just about right to me.
"But Gorbacz", you'll ask, "Paizo needs to make money!". Well, first of all, these days they have Starfinder, which by all indication is selling really well and sits in a rather secure market niche. Second, the new edition of PFACG is coming next year, so that's another stream of revenue.
James pointed out just some weeks ago that they have their biggest roster of developers they've ever had. They need to keep publishing at the same rate to keep them employed. I would work from that realistic assumption.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"But Gorbacz", you'll ask, "Paizo needs to make money!". Well, first of all, these days they have Starfinder, which by all indication is selling really well and sits in a rather secure market niche. Second, the new edition of PFACG is coming next year, so that's another stream of revenue.James pointed out just some weeks ago that they have their biggest roster of developers they've ever had. They need to keep publishing at the same rate to keep them employed. I would work from that realistic assumption.
I'd work from the realistic assumption that the sales of PF1 books since 5e were only going down and they represent today only a fraction of what they were pre-2014, and that you can expect PF2 sales to be significantly better (after all, if they didn't assume that, there would be no point in putting out a new edition).
Also, PFACG is coming back next year, with a new publishing format which is a major improvement over the previous one, and considering that it's universally acclaimed and was a strong sale even under a less-than-optimal publishing model, I expect the new base set and the CotCT AP to be fat little cash cows.
I'm pretty sure Paizo can afford to slow down with PF, speed up with SF (because as much as I like Starfinder being splat-lite, it could sure use some extra crunch down the road) and keep everybody around.
I'd work from the realistic assumption that the sales of PF1 books since 5e were only going down and they represent today only a fraction of what they were pre-2014, and that you can expect PF2 sales to be significantly better (after all, if they didn't assume that, there would be no point in putting out a new edition).
Also, PFACG is coming back next year, with a new publishing format which is a major improvement over the previous one, and considering that it's universally acclaimed and was a strong sale even under a less-than-optimal publishing model, I expect the new base set and the CotCT AP to be fat little cash cows.
I'm pretty sure Paizo can afford to slow down with PF, speed up with SF (because as much as I like Starfinder being splat-lite, it could sure use some extra crunch down the road) and keep everybody around.
Alright, that makes a little more sense. However, one of the most common complaints you read on the playtest forums is that character customization seems so much more restrained. I would be surprised if Paizo would not try to ameliorate that feeling by releasing slatbooks with character options as soon as possible. We'll see, I guess.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, that makes a little more sense. However, one of the most common complaints you read on the playtest forums is that character customization seems so much more restrained. I would be surprised if Paizo would not try to ameliorate that feeling by releasing slatbooks with character options as soon as possible. We'll see, I guess.I'd work from the realistic assumption that the sales of PF1 books since 5e were only going down and they represent today only a fraction of what they were pre-2014, and that you can expect PF2 sales to be significantly better (after all, if they didn't assume that, there would be no point in putting out a new edition).
Also, PFACG is coming back next year, with a new publishing format which is a major improvement over the previous one, and considering that it's universally acclaimed and was a strong sale even under a less-than-optimal publishing model, I expect the new base set and the CotCT AP to be fat little cash cows.
I'm pretty sure Paizo can afford to slow down with PF, speed up with SF (because as much as I like Starfinder being splat-lite, it could sure use some extra crunch down the road) and keep everybody around.
I think everybody, you and me included, would subscribe to the idea that having less better-curated material (Legacy of the First World, Weapon Master's Handbook) is better than having lots of wonky material. And after 10 years Paizo should have a good idea what people are after, what should be put out ASAP and what can wait a couple of years down the road.
Finding a middle road between the avalanche of feats/traits/spells in PF1 and the agonising trickle of player-side stuff in 5E is certainly doable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think everybody, you and me included, would subscribe to the idea that having less better-curated material (Legacy of the First World, Weapon Master's Handbook) is better than having lots of wonky material. And after 10 years Paizo should have a good idea what people are after, what should be put out ASAP and what can wait a couple of years down the road.
Finding a middle road between the avalanche of feats/traits/spells in PF1 and the agonising trickle of player-side stuff in 5E is certainly doable.
I certainly suscribe to the idea that new feats and magic items should be kept as much as is possible to the hardcover splatbooks like the APG, Ultimate Combat/Magic and Ultimate Equipment. The trial-by-error laboratory which were the softcover race, theme and campaign books never sat right by me, because many of those options were clearly more powerful then what you could find in the core hardcover books. That made it way more difficult to keep up and decide if it would be balanced when a player suddenly asked to include a feat chain from Toelickers of Golarion or whatever the latest softcover would turn out to be.
I'm wondering if we couldn't fuse the player's companion and campaign setting lines and fill much of the need for modules with "adventure paths broken into fully self-contained segments."
Nooooo! I love the splats! Some of the best stuff has come from the most random Player Companions!
Campaign Setting could be a bit better if they actually covered some new areas rather than getting Taldor and Qadira 3 times each.
Or you could, you know, just not buy the stuff that you consider to be bloat.
Or you could, you know, just not buy the stuff that you consider to be bloat.I don't have to buy them. D20PFSRD and Archives of Nethys got me covered.
So what is the problem? Just don't use the content that you dislike.
I personally would prefer (hardcover wise) one "DM friendly" and one "player friendly" hardcover a year, at least once the initial "required" books are out.
Alternatively, now that setting material is being integrated into the rules material, there is a potential to merge material in such a way that you have a busy release schedule, while also having less bloat. Just look at books like Planar Adventures, that includes a lot of setting material, while also having monsters/DM material, new races, and other player material. Something like that could probably maintain a high publication rate without leading to option overload.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nooooo! I love the splats! Some of the best stuff has come from the most random Player Companions!
Campaign Setting could be a bit better if they actually covered some new areas rather than getting Taldor and Qadira 3 times each.
I like off-the-wall ideas as well, but I'd simply feel more comfortable if they were concentrated in a few books rather than spread out over a mess of dozens and dozens of softcover books.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what is the problem? Just don't use the content that you dislike.Or you could, you know, just not buy the stuff that you consider to be bloat.I don't have to buy them. D20PFSRD and Archives of Nethys got me covered.
This sounds perfectly fine on paper, except it requires me actually reading the content. Do you realize how much time does it take to read with comprehension every rule element put out by Paizo in 10 years?
My argument is about quantity. The current quantity makes it virtually impossible to encompass the entire material. You can't exercise quality control without checking the quality first and worst of all, a feat A may look innocent, but coupled with feat B and item X it might become your headache (goz mask + eversmoking bottle).
Sure, you can drop an atomic bomb and say "well my games are core + APG only", but this robs players of options and smells heavily of "I am a lazy bum and I like casters", because arguably casters walk away from PF1 CRB far ahead of martials.
I'd much rather have the kitchen sink and then I decide what I should and shouldn't allow in my games. More options are good.
I accept I can't have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything, nor all the permutations thereof. All my games have a proviso that if a rules element, or combination of elements, I allow in turns out to be unfun or overpowered it gets pulled. It's that simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd much rather have the kitchen sink and then I decide what I should and shouldn't allow in my games. More options are good.
Except when it's not. More options is not better if the options are bad, poorly written, or just bloat for the sake of having more. Take a look at a restraurant menu. 47 pages of items is not better than 2. It's far, far worse for business.
5e has a pretty tame release schedule and yet they're selling what they put out really effectively. Almost like the market doesn't have infinite dollars and if you do 10 releases a year instead of 2, you're just spreading that money out over more development/publishing/distribution cost and also making the game more complicated. At this point a new player can't understand most of what their options in PF1 even are, let alone which ones are good. So they wind up ignoring most of those books or consulting a build guide instead.
APs are something of an exception to that, but the idea that we need 50 splatbooks again because "options" is just not true.
The Player Companion line should be dropped because the quality control is really bad without adult supervision from the core line developers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Player Companion line should be dropped because the quality control is really bad without supervision from the core line developers.
I think it's more that the playerbase go in expecting the Player Companion additions to the rules to be on equal footing with rules which come out in a hardcover, even though they're of qualitatively different character.
It's pretty clear from talking to Paizo designers that the rules systems and options released via the Player Companion books are less constrained by considerations of balance and are more geared towards fitting whichever thematic niche is being explored.
I think people's reliance on the various online rules databases masks this distinction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love there to be more campaign setting books, more maps and more adventures. I could definitely do with a slowdown in player options and rules hardcovers.
Having said that, my guess is that the profitability is exactly inverse to my preferences. I'm sure there were commercial reasons for the Player Companions coming out monthly and the Campaign Setting books dropping in frequency (and the modules withering away to nothing).
Well I like character options and buying books with feats and class options if your point is that you would rather have 1-2 quality options then 30 bad options that I can agree with.
Also I'm disappointed in anyone that just uses online resources and doesn't purchase the books or at least the PDFs!
I'd love there to be more campaign setting books, more maps and more adventures. I could definitely do with a slowdown in player options and rules hardcovers.
Having said that, my guess is that the profitability is exactly inverse to my preferences. I'm sure there were commercial reasons for the Player Companions coming out monthly and the Campaign Setting books dropping in frequency (and the modules withering away to nothing).
I mean, that's not shocking is it? Campaign settings really only appeal to GMs, and players outnumber GMs at least 4 to 1. (More most likely, as there are probably more players who can't find a GM than there are GMs who can't find players.)
It is hard for me to say no to more options because that is what made me like Pathfinder so much in the first place. It is also hard not say I'd like it if bloat was cut down a little and options were better balanced.
I mean, that's not shocking is it? Campaign settings really only appeal to GMs, and players outnumber GMs at least 4 to 1. (More most likely, as there are probably more players who can't find a GM than there are GMs who can't find players.)I'd love there to be more campaign setting books, more maps and more adventures. I could definitely do with a slowdown in player options and rules hardcovers.
Having said that, my guess is that the profitability is exactly inverse to my preferences. I'm sure there were commercial reasons for the Player Companions coming out monthly and the Campaign Setting books dropping in frequency (and the modules withering away to nothing).
It's the exact opposite of shocking.
I'd be shocked if Campaign Setting books and modules were more profitable than player companions.
It's always a reminder to me how idiosyncratic our group is. The correlation between investment and player/DM is nonexistent in our group. Rather one person will get enthused by a game (and buy everything) and the rest will rely on that person's collection.
It doesn't matter who the DM is - I've bought more APs that I've played in than that I've DMed.
It is hard for me to say no to more options because that is what made me like Pathfinder so much in the first place. It is also hard not say I'd like it if bloat was cut down a little and options were better balanced.
I'm similar - I don't object to lots of options but there is something that bugs me in the way they are released in PF1.
I think I'd prefer it if the divide wasn't player/DM but was rather crunch/flavor.
I think it's more that the playerbase go in expecting the Player Companion additions to the rules to be on equal footing with rules which come out in a hardcover, even though they're of qualitatively different character.
It's pretty clear from talking to Paizo designers that the rules systems and options released via the Player Companion books are less constrained by considerations of balance and are more geared towards fitting whichever thematic niche is being explored.
I think people's reliance on the various online rules databases masks this distinction.
See, the overwhelming majority of players never talk to Paizo's designers. They have no way to know that. They see a product on the shelf with Paizo's name on it, they assume a certain level of quality in that release.
If Paizo ignores that and just throws stuff out the door they know isn't as good but assume people will somehow figure that out, what actually happens is people's impression of the entire brand goes down.
What "masks the distinction" is that none of the Companions say that on the cover. To most of the market, there is no distinction.
I think it's more that the playerbase go in expecting the Player Companion additions to the rules to be on equal footing with rules which come out in a hardcover, even though they're of qualitatively different character.
It's pretty clear from talking to Paizo designers that the rules systems and options released via the Player Companion books are less constrained by considerations of balance and are more geared towards fitting whichever thematic niche is being explored.
I think people's reliance on the various online rules databases masks this distinction.
See, the overwhelming majority of players never talk to Paizo's designers. They have no way to know that. They see a product on the shelf with Paizo's name on it, they assume a certain level of quality in that release.
If Paizo ignores that and just throws stuff out the door they know isn't as good but assume people will somehow figure that out, what actually happens is people's impression of the entire brand goes down.
What "masks the distinction" is that none of the Companions say that on the cover. To most of the market, there is no distinction.
I'm not suggesting those who aren't aware are doing anything wrong, nor that Paizo are assuming anything. I just think it's a fact worth understanding. Whether people are aware of the distinction or not, I think it's a real thing - that's not an attack on anyone who is unaware of it (or who thinks I'm wrong and that all rules are designed with similar design goals in mind).
FWIW, I reject the idea that the player companion stuff "isn't as good". I think rules published in the player companion line are serving a different purpose than rules published in the hardcovers. (And it doesn't make sense to measure something designed for one purpose according to how well it fulfills some other).
I've long been a fan of green/amber/red rating (or similar) for class options, feats and so forth. I think that would resolve a lot of the issues people have. If green options were designed around the core rules and on the assumption of being equal powered, amber options were niche options - only useful in very specific situations or similar and red options were "Warning! Not balanced! Use at your own risk!" kind of thing. That kind of system needs to be baked in early on though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the goals of 2e's design seems to be to enable more character options within the core classes rather than as classes in their own right. A lot of the extra classes that appeared in 1e's later rulebooks should no longer be necessary.
So for that to be taken seriously, 2e's will need to focus on character options more than on new classes. This used to mean both new classes and lots of archetypes for each of the classes; now it means bloodlines/domains/etc, ancestries and backgrounds, feats, spells, and a mix of archetypes both general and specific.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the goals of 2e's design seems to be to enable more character options within the core classes rather than as classes in their own right. A lot of the extra classes that appeared in 1e's later rulebooks should no longer be necessary.
So for that to be taken seriously, 2e's will need to focus on character options more than on new classes. This used to mean both new classes and lots of archetypes for each of the classes; now it means bloodlines/domains/etc, ancestries and backgrounds, feats, spells, and a mix of archetypes both general and specific.
This is one of the few things about PF2 I'm really keen on. My heart always sank when a new class was released - a whole bunch of finnicky new rules and subsystems that nine times out of ten seemed to me could have been reproduced by building off a pre-existing class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the few things about PF2 I'm really keen on. My heart always sank when a new class was released - a whole bunch of finnicky new rules and subsystems that nine times out of ten seemed to me could have been reproduced by building off a pre-existing class.One of the goals of 2e's design seems to be to enable more character options within the core classes rather than as classes in their own right. A lot of the extra classes that appeared in 1e's later rulebooks should no longer be necessary.
So for that to be taken seriously, 2e's will need to focus on character options more than on new classes. This used to mean both new classes and lots of archetypes for each of the classes; now it means bloodlines/domains/etc, ancestries and backgrounds, feats, spells, and a mix of archetypes both general and specific.
It also helps to tie the game closer into the classic D&D history, which is helpful if you want to encourage players from other systems to try it.
If you bring a Pathfinder player, a D&D 5e player and a D&D 3e player together, they'll all understand what you mean when you say you're playing a Bard or a Druid. But what's a Skald? What's an Inquisitor? What's a Vigilante?
We want each class in 2e to have a lot of freedom in how it can be played, so that you're playing YOUR interpretation of a Bard. But we also want the core flavour of the class to be recognisable. A player coming to Pathfinder 2e from another system needs to learn the rules, but they don't need to learn what it means to be a Bard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've long been a fan of green/amber/red rating (or similar) for class options, feats and so forth. I think that would resolve a lot of the issues...
While not exactly the same, I think the rarity mechanics may serve a similar purpose. For example, a certain spell or feat might be perfectly balanced (and even necessary) in a particular AP, and will serve as a good reward there, so it is labeled rare or unique. But it might not be appropriate for the game at large. This also serves to cut down on bloat for player and GM purposes-- you only need to sort through/approve common options by default.
I'm not as clear on how rarity mechanics would interact with player companions, which are by definition meant to be usable resources to players, right? So gating stuff in them feels inappropriate, unless they are maybe uncommon by and easier to gain access to from your GM.
I think there's definitely going to be some market for player's handbooks though, particularly for class specific options.
I've long been a fan of green/amber/red rating (or similar) for class options, feats and so forth. I think that would resolve a lot of the issues...
While not exactly the same, I think the rarity mechanics may serve a similar purpose. For example, a certain spell or feat might be perfectly balanced (and even necessary) in a particular AP, and will serve as a good reward there, so it is labeled rare or unique. But it might not be appropriate for the game at large. This also serves to cut down on bloat for player and GM purposes-- you only need to sort through/approve common options by default.
I'm not as clear on how rarity mechanics would interact with player companions, which are by definition meant to be usable resources to players, right? So gating stuff in them feels inappropriate, unless they are maybe uncommon by and easier to gain access to from your GM.
I think there's definitely going to be some market for player's handbooks though, particularly for class specific options.
Thoroughly good post. I hadn’t considered the rarity nomenclature, that would work well.
Fwiw, I don’t consider the green/Amber/red thing to necessarily imply increasing power. I figure a feat which boosts your social combat abilities would be Amber meaning “only going to be worth it in some campaigns”. I’d label a lot of weak thing red (separatist cleric archetype, for example).
I’m quite taken with the rarity idea though. Cheers!
This is one of the few things about PF2 I'm really keen on. My heart always sank when a new class was released - a whole bunch of finnicky new rules and subsystems that nine times out of ten seemed to me could have been reproduced by building off a pre-existing class.One of the goals of 2e's design seems to be to enable more character options within the core classes rather than as classes in their own right. A lot of the extra classes that appeared in 1e's later rulebooks should no longer be necessary.
So for that to be taken seriously, 2e's will need to focus on character options more than on new classes. This used to mean both new classes and lots of archetypes for each of the classes; now it means bloodlines/domains/etc, ancestries and backgrounds, feats, spells, and a mix of archetypes both general and specific.
It also helps to tie the game closer into the classic D&D history, which is helpful if you want to encourage players from other systems to try it.
If you bring a Pathfinder player, a D&D 5e player and a D&D 3e player together, they'll all understand what you mean when you say you're playing a Bard or a Druid. But what's a Skald? What's an Inquisitor? What's a Vigilante?
We want each class in 2e to have a lot of freedom in how it can be played, so that you're playing YOUR interpretation of a Bard. But we also want the core flavour of the class to be recognisable. A player coming to Pathfinder 2e from another system needs to learn the rules, but they don't need to learn what it means to be a Bard.
Also a good point.
I've long been a fan of green/amber/red rating (or similar) for class options, feats and so forth. I think that would resolve a lot of the issues...
While not exactly the same, I think the rarity mechanics may serve a similar purpose. For example, a certain spell or feat might be perfectly balanced (and even necessary) in a particular AP, and will serve as a good reward there, so it is labeled rare or unique. But it might not be appropriate for the game at large. This also serves to cut down on bloat for player and GM purposes-- you only need to sort through/approve common options by default.
I'm not as clear on how rarity mechanics would interact with player companions, which are by definition meant to be usable resources to players, right? So gating stuff in them feels inappropriate, unless they are maybe uncommon by and easier to gain access to from your GM.
I think there's definitely going to be some market for player's handbooks though, particularly for class specific options.
Thoroughly good post. I hadn’t considered the rarity nomenclature, that would work well.
Fwiw, I don’t consider the green/Amber/red thing to necessarily imply increasing power. I figure a feat which boosts your social combat abilities would be Amber meaning “only going to be worth it in some campaigns”. I’d label a lot of weak thing red (separatist cleric archetype, for example).
I’m quite taken with the rarity idea though. Cheers!
Yeah, I agree on the power level stuff. Using rarity to weed out niche/amber options is actually kind of brilliant. Say you make most of them uncommon. Out of fiction, you've essentially excised a huge chunk of bloat for the newer player to sort through and left them with the list of more generally useful options to pick from. Hopefully you can do this by not having completely separate lists for different rarity levels. (Which isn't the case for the playtest, and may not be practical in a CRB, but is definitely doable with splat books and online databases.)
However, players who like weeding through all those options or building really specific characters can still do so, and low powered uncommon options should be an easy ask of their GMs. It also makes sense in fiction for spells and what have you with a much narrower use would have be a niche market, which would not be as widely taught or sold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what is the problem? Just don't use the content that you dislike.Or you could, you know, just not buy the stuff that you consider to be bloat.I don't have to buy them. D20PFSRD and Archives of Nethys got me covered.This sounds perfectly fine on paper, except it requires me actually reading the content. Do you realize how much time does it take to read with comprehension every rule element put out by Paizo in 10 years?
My argument is about quantity. The current quantity makes it virtually impossible to encompass the entire material. You can't exercise quality control without checking the quality first and worst of all, a feat A may look innocent, but coupled with feat B and item X it might become your headache (goz mask + eversmoking bottle).
Sure, you can drop an atomic bomb and say "well my games are core + APG only", but this robs players of options and smells heavily of "I am a lazy bum and I like casters", because arguably casters walk away from PF1 CRB far ahead of martials.
What works or doesn't work for you and your players isn't necessarily the same for everyone.
I'd much rather you need to rob your players of options than to rob everyone else who plays the game of options, simply because you don't feel you have the time to read and evaluate the content.
Now if you wanted to discuss the amount of quality control and evaluation that should be performed on new options before they are published, I am sure that would slow down the rate of release a bit, and I would be all for that.