Just curious if there has been any more words on a possible future PRPG subscription option?
Thanks!
Chief Technical Officer
|
Last we heard, there was talk, but thats all the powers that be have told us.Just curious if there has been any more words on a possible future PRPG subscription option?
Thanks!
Don't expect to hear anything official about subs until we announce more products in the line. After all, we want people to have a good idea about what a subscription might include before they sign up for it!
|
Don't expect to hear anything official about subs until we announce more products in the line. After all, we want people to have a good idea about what a subscription might include before they sign up for it!
And to threadjack slightly, when might we hear some announcement about new upcoming products?
-Skeld
Don't expect to hear anything official about subs until we announce more products in the line. After all, we want people to have a good idea about what a subscription might include before they sign up for it!Last we heard, there was talk, but thats all the powers that be have told us.Just curious if there has been any more words on a possible future PRPG subscription option?
Thanks!
Nonsense, poopie pants!
You know us devout followers will sign up for anything blindly! :D
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Don't expect to hear anything official about subs until we announce more products in the line. After all, we want people to have a good idea about what a subscription might include before they sign up for it!And to threadjack slightly, when might we hear some announcement about new upcoming products?
-Skeld
At least a couple of months.
...and while we know—and sincerely appreciate—that many customers would sign up for a subscription sight unseen, we don't want to ask you to do that.
Thanks for the head's up. *nods blindly*
|
|
Any idea how often new books will come out after the core?
With 3.5 they seemed to come every two months. I hope you won't
be throwing out splat books at this rate. It hurt the system over
time. It's impossible to keep up quality and maintain balance.
If it's more than 2-3 a year, I'll have to say "no thanks." My fun-money budget can only handle so much Paizo a month.
-Skeld
Unofficial PS: I remember Erik Mona mentioning a 2-3 release/year target a few months ago in a Tuesday night chat. I specifically asked about "subscription fatigue" and the target number of releases. All that's subject to change of course.
|
CEO
|
If it's more than 2-3 a year, I'll have to say "no thanks." My fun-money budget can only handle so much Paizo a month.
-Skeld
Unofficial PS: I remember Erik Mona mentioning a 2-3 release/year target a few months ago in a Tuesday night chat. I specifically asked about "subscription fatigue" and the target number of releases. All that's subject to change of course.
We are still in the early process of coming up with our plans, but 2-3 it right in the range that we are talking about. I really don't want to have a rule book glut for PFRPG. And besides, I want EVERYONE to buy each book. If we put out 2-3 per year, that is more likely to happen.
-Lisa
If it's more than 2-3 a year, I'll have to say "no thanks." My fun-money budget can only handle so much Paizo a month.
-Skeld
Unofficial PS: I remember Erik Mona mentioning a 2-3 release/year target a few months ago in a Tuesday night chat. I specifically asked about "subscription fatigue" and the target number of releases. All that's subject to change of course.
We are still in the early process of coming up with our plans, but 2-3 it right in the range that we are talking about. I really don't want to have a rule book glut for PFRPG. And besides, I want EVERYONE to buy each book. If we put out 2-3 per year, that is more likely to happen.
-Lisa
Makes sense. Count me as another who does not want to see rule-glut. Thanks for the head's up.
|
|
We are still in the early process of coming up with our plans, but 2-3 it right in the range that we are talking about. I really don't want to have a rule book glut for PFRPG. And besides, I want EVERYONE to buy each book. If we put out 2-3 per year, that is more likely to happen.
-Lisa
Thanks for the response, Lisa.
-Skeld
|
Creative Director
|
I'll probably make a bigger post about this elsewhere...
But what is it you like about psionics? Is it the flavor? Or is it the way the rules work?
Personally, I'm a huge fan of the flavor; psioncis powering such class options as mesmerists, mind controllers, telepaths, seers, astral travelers, etc.
I'm not a huge fan of the power point system that the game's traditionally used. If I had all the power, I'd do a psioncs book that captured the feel and flavor of mind powers but that didn't reinvent the game to make it something else; psionic characters in this book would work under mechanics similar to those used by the core classes.
I'm not interested in building class options that outshine the core 11 classes, in other words. I want new flavorful classes that work in tandem and in a non disruptive manner.
But I'm worried that the most vocal fans of psionics are more fans of the PSP/crunch mechanics of the rules as they've existed previously and not so much fans of the actual concept and idea behind psionic characters.
James, I would say the flavor is what I like the most. Add to that the fact that I am such a huge SciFi fan. ~grins~ Yes, yes, I know that we are dealing with Fantasy, but can't I have my cake and eat it too.
|
As someone who's never owned a Psionics book, or played a Psionic.....I like both :)
I like the flavour, and especially the way it makes games other than traditional fantasy a reality.
At the same time, I like the idea of a sorcerer that uses power points, rather than spells per day.
I guess I like the idea of a set of rules that aren't focused on one type of game, but allow everything from sword and sorcery, to Asimov style sci-fi.....
I also would like the moon; On a stick.
|
|
But I'm worried that the most vocal fans of psionics are more fans of the PSP/crunch mechanics of the rules as they've existed previously and not so much fans of the actual concept and idea behind psionic characters.
Can't a guy like both? I enjoy the flavor of psionic characters (esp. what Pathfinder has hinted at to date) and also find the XPH to offer a very elegant system that's largely analogous to the core magic system while still being different enough to foster an actual sense of difference between magic and the powers of the mind. I personally think the "nova-psion/psionics are so overpowered" argument is grossly exaggerated - regardless, a few minor tweaks to the PP-per-power limit would take care of the problem. I'm disappointed by the apparent XPH-hate among the Paizo staff. I've gobbled up most everything you guys have done and loved it, but doesn't it make more sense to let people who, you know, like psionics as they've been presented in D&D dictate the direction of the psionics book? Otherwise, it feels like pulling a WotC (ie., let's have people who hate/have no respect for 3E design Fourth Edition!)
|
I like the flavour of Psionics, and when it comes to game rules, I'm usually a huge advocate for using existing systems rather than introducing quirky new sub-systems.
For example, aligning spell levels - 1 through 9 - between Arcane, Divine and Psionic casters makes so much sense, makes you wonder why the arbitrary differences in previous editions of the game?
However, in the case of Psionics, I think the spell-point system really helps to emphasise in the minds of the players that Psionics are similar, but different to magic, and offers an alternative to the much debated Vancian magic system.
A Pathfinder Psionics book certainly offers opportunity to refine the spell-point system, and I wouldn't be too heart-broken to see Psionics re-written to work like Arcane/Divine casting. And maybe the spell-point system could instead appear in a later Pathfinder Options book as a variant for all caster types?
|
Creative Director
|
Can't a guy like both? I enjoy the flavor of psionic characters (esp. what Pathfinder has hinted at to date) and also find the XPH to offer a very elegant system that's largely analogous to the core magic system while still being different enough to foster an actual sense of difference between magic and the powers of the mind. I personally think the "nova-psion/psionics are so overpowered" argument is grossly exaggerated - regardless, a few minor tweaks to the PP-per-power limit would take care of the problem. I'm disappointed by the apparent XPH-hate among the Paizo staff. I've gobbled up most everything you guys have done and loved it, but doesn't it make more sense to let people who, you know, like psionics as they've been presented in D&D dictate the direction of the psionics book? Otherwise, it feels like pulling a WotC (ie., let's have people who hate/have no respect for 3E design Fourth Edition!)
Absolutely someone can like both. But as it works out, I do not. I like the flavor, but not the crunch. And judging by overwhelming feedback through various sources, I'm not alone in that regard. In a psionic campaign, the PSP method and rules work fine, I guess, but when you mix those rules with Core D&D you invariably get problems. And if you can't mix something with the core rules without causing problems... I call that bad design in a product that's supposed to be an expansion and not its own self-contained game.
Put another way... I don't hate the XPH. There's a lot of fun stuff in there. What I don't like about it is how it changes the game in ways that benefit the psionic character and hurt everyone else. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that the PSP system lets a psion go "nova" and blow his entire power base and resources in one encounter, which VASTLY overshadows everyone else. And then that psion is "empty." He can continue adventuring, but why should he? The option is he either continues adventuring with none of his powers available, or the party rests and the fact that he expended his powers in one super explosion is rendered a non-issue.
There are other problems I have with the XPH as well; nothing quite as huge as the "nova" problem, but enough that it taints my view on the whole thing.
And that's the crux of the problem. I like psionics, and would love to include them more in Golarion. (The Pathfinder product that has the most psionic content in it to date, Into the Darklands, was partially written by me, in fact!) BUT I'm not a fan of the unbalanced-when-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-game PSP system, and if I were to build a psionic book I would want to fix that. But then I worry that that book isn't what the psionic fans want, and presto: we have a book that non-fans are predisposed to not be interested in and fans are predisposed to be pissed off at.
It's a conundrum.
|
Creative Director
|
I enjoy the flavor of psionic characters (esp. what Pathfinder has hinted at to date) and also find the XPH to offer a very elegant system...
To continue picking on you (good-naturally! We're all friends here!), what about the XPH system do you like? What about it is elegant? Would you still find it likable and elegant if it didn't let a psionic character overpower his powers and blow them all out at once? Do you like the system because it lets you unleash a LOT more power than a Core Character at an equal level, even if that means you diminish your resources a lot faster than the core character?
Again, I'm not trying to be accusatory or antagonistic. I'm just trying to wrap my head around things.
As an aside: A lot of folk complain about the 15-minute adventuring day. I don't really see that much in games I play... but INVARIABLY if a game includes a psionic character, the game develops this problem immediately. The psionic character uses all his resources up too quickly, and even though the rest of the group is ready to go, we usually decide to camp anyway because that lets the psionic character recharge his batteries, and since encounters go so much more smoothly for us when we have him going nova, there's a pretty strong desire among the PCs to let the Psion do his thing.
|
|
I played a game a couple of years ago with a player who really loved psionics. The flavor of it appealed to him. The mechanics of it caused real headaches for the DM. I think the problem arose from the fact that psionics used a completely different mechanic than core magic. That invariably lead to arguments being over-powered.
I'm not a fan of the flavor, and I don't like the mechanics as they were presented in XPH. I think with the 3,5 implementation, magic and psionics were oil and water; they just don't mix well.
-Skeld
PS: The DM at the time took serious beef with overchannelling. The fact that the psionic character could expend all his power was the problem. that he could only do that once/day didn't console our DM much.
I always liked the power point system just because it was different, but I disliked many of its implementations, and found that stuff like the nova problem didn't help to differentiate the psion so much as make him annoying.
Is there a way to keep the points AND coalesce it to a simpler spell level system?
I don't think so. And I prefer the flavour. I always loved elan, maenads, and half-giants are one of my favourite non-ph race, though I'd like a totally non-psionic version of them.
Not a fan of the xeph, and dromites are so-so. Psionic enemies, and doing fully psionic versions in the book would be great.
Sweet.
And while I'm at it, Vudra before Tian-Xia for Golarion! I mean, there are zillions of oriental adventures rpg bookszzzzzzzzzzzzz ...but virtually none India-style.
My Vudrani Sorceress player just cheered you B.
|
|
I liked both the 2nd Ed Psionics system which used minor and major powers, and the 3rd Ed XPH system. Both had their appeal, 2nd Ed because it was it's own system, so felt more unique; 3rd Ed because it was more integrated with the existing spell structure. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The thing about using a common system, and avoiding quirky sub-systems, is that you can then start doing things like classes which blur the line between Arcane/Divine and Psionic, or perhaps dabble in both, much more easily. For example, a Witch class that was a hybrid caster could draw from a list of either Psionic powers or Arcane/Divine spells without having to worry about managing two allocations of spell resources (spells per day vs spell point charts) like a multi-classed character does.
I like Psionic flavour, and I'm happy to use the existing Psionic rules. Though if Paizo released Psionics rules that worked more like the current spell system, that would be the way Psionics worked in Vudra, the Darklands etc, then I'd be happy with that too.
Psionics have seen many changes over the years. There is room for choice.
I'm a big fan of the flavor of Psionics. The whole "awakening of mind powers" bit is just intrinsic to me, from Vulcans to "The Girl with the Silver Eyes" (peanut butter clusters for anyone who's read that). The dark sun trilogy(+1) "Tribe of One" was phenomenally descriptive.
That said, I do like the XPH system, and agree it's rather well implemented to complement the magic system. I even like Nova'ing, to a degree. I think it just needs some design elements to make it *really* cost. It needs a carrot and a stick - both a detriment of some kind (besides being powerpoint dead) and a loss of benefit for either keeping your power points up or using them slower.
Since PFRPG has introduced at-will abilities for the casters, psions could have at-will abilities dependent on their minimum power point pool (there's some of this in the XPH). They could have a minor refresh ability, similar to the psionic focus rule, to regain a small number of points after use (making them last much longer if you only use a few at a time). And there could be ability burn for using more than X points in Y rounds.
I think Paizo has proved its ingenuity in solving small problems like this. And we're here to help.
Other big plus - backwards compatibility.
...and while we know—and sincerely appreciate—that many customers would sign up for a subscription sight unseen, we don't want to ask you to do that.
I was talking only today about "upfront honesty" and "respect for both the customer and licensees" and looking to those that exemplify that for leadership. Examples of things like this is why Paizo is, IMO, the RPG leadership and trendsetter.
|
I enjoy both the flavor and mechanics of Psionics. A lot of people miss some of the key concepts of its rules (can't spend more power points on a power than your level, Psionic/Magic Transparency = good if they are treated as the same thing, etc.) though there are things out there that can explain it better than I.
Overall, I do want to see the mechanics translated into PRPG, but will still be happy if they just come into being at all. Though I would hope that Paizo did its best to at least keep the feeling behind the flexibility of psionics.
|
|
Sweet.
And while I'm at it, Vudra before Tian-Xia for Golarion! I mean, there are zillions of oriental adventures rpg bookszzzzzzzzzzzzz ...but virtually none India-style.
I'd like both of these types of books and in the same order as Bagpuss.
My order would be: Vudra > Osirion > Tian-Xia
:]
I'd buy that for a dollar...
|
|
I do not allow psionics in my game. As a DM I am not interested in the whole concept. I have not played it either. I do not own any of the psionics books. If one is done for PRPG I would appreciate it being a standalone book and not mixed in with a lot of other rules.
I would also like to see a monster book a year and additional classes and other rules. 2 to 3 a year sounds reasonable to me.
I am all in with Paizo on this thing and they will be the only rule books I will be buying for D&D. I want what best supports the APs.
Actually I'd rather limit extra base classes. Too many just dilutes the game, maybe a strongly themed one here or there, like ninja's for tian xia, and something special for vudra. A thaumaturge for demons.
But keep it few and far between.
No rule glut, includes no class glut.
But I'm worried that the most vocal fans of psionics are more fans of the PSP/crunch mechanics of the rules as they've existed previously and not so much fans of the actual concept and idea behind psionic characters.
Please -- do not make a psionics system that doesn't use spell points; that's the way that psionics have worked going back to AD&D. I would much, much rather see you make a magic system that does use spell points.
Would you still find it likable and elegant if it didn't let a psionic character overpower his powers and blow them all out at once? Do you like the system because it lets you unleash a LOT more power than a Core Character at an equal level, even if that means you diminish your resources a lot faster than the core character?
Again, I'm not trying to be accusatory or antagonistic. I'm just trying to wrap my head around things.
No offense, this just sounds like trolling to me. "Would you like psionics even if it weren't overpowered?"
|
|
I'll post this on the other thread, as well.
What about the XPH system do you like? What about it is elegant? Would you still find it likable and elegant if it didn't let a psionic character overpower his powers and blow them all out at once? Do you like the system because it lets you unleash a LOT more power than a Core Character at an equal level, even if that means you diminish your resources a lot faster than the core character?
Again, I'm not trying to be accusatory or antagonistic. I'm just trying to wrap my head around things.
As an aside: A lot of folk complain about the 15-minute adventuring day. I don't really see that much in games I play... but INVARIABLY if a game includes a psionic character, the game develops this problem immediately. The psionic character uses all his resources up too quickly, and even though the rest of the group is ready to go, we usually decide to camp anyway because that lets the psionic character recharge his batteries, and since encounters go so much more smoothly for us when we have him going nova, there's a pretty strong desire among the PCs to let the Psion do his thing.
Liking the XPH system, for me, has nothing to do with power-gaming, going nova, or being "better" than core classes. I just think that (with the exception of a few problem powers or corner cases) the system is extremely well-designed and offers a versatility that provides a nice "organic" feel to a psionic character -- they are, after, beholden to no god or arcane magic system of spell-casting that limits the parameters of their powers -- they just know how to do something and can tweak effects more easily on the fly, so to speak.
I've never had an issue in my games with nova psions, partly because my groups tend to be fairly competitive with each other. So when one player a few campaigns ago experimented with "going nova," the response from the other players was, "Ok, that was cool. Have fun standing in the back plinking away with your crossbow while the rest of us continue kicking ass."
My major gripe is that critics (many of whom either have never read the XPH or simply don't understand the rules, like the PP-per-power cap) latch onto the one or two rough edges and want to toss the entire system. Instead, why not take some of the ideas expressed earlier in this thread, "Pathfinder-ize" the classes, fix the few broken/abusive powers, and preserve the core system?
If nova-ing is such an issue (I think it's far more of a DM issue than a rules issue, personally) then add some additional controls. For instance, in addition to the PP cap per power, maybe psions risk physical damage from the stress if they spend max PPs two rounds in a row. That spreads out their PP use over time and fits flavor-wise.
So, in summary, I'd like the XPH to get the same treatment the 3.5 rules did for Pathfinder - smoothing out the rough edges, but preserving the core system. I'm not interested in buying a new psionics system that scraps, rather than fixes, the OGL core.