Here's something you don't see every day; I'm with Pax. Core means in the corebook, end of story.Of course. It's in the dictionary and everything.
Too bad Paizo doesn't sell dictionaries. I guess they're not immune to misusing words.
If the RPG becomes the end in itself because of sales numbers, then a big part of what made Pathfinder RPG special in the first place will have been lost.
Huh?
Of course this is an end in itself. You don't put that sort of effort into something and make it your most expensive product if you don't want it to be great on its own.
Stories (not rules) are what made Paizo great.
Everything, not not everything is what makes Paizo great.
What I've seen from PFRPG is several flavours of awesome, all blended into one without tasting weird.
I'm really excited and impressed about PFRPG and how it improved 3e. I'd like to keep getting excited and impressed about PFRPG products.
They can make the great stories AND the great rules.
I expect that, right now, you're telling yourselves you can do both equally well, but no man can serve two masters. I'm sure it is hard to remain objective in the face of the corebook's amazing success, but please, guys...pause a moment before you do something you might regret. We don't need another WotC; one is more than enough.Huh? wotc never served two masters.
So if they did that, they'd just be another wotc.
They're going to keep 3e alive and kicking, with both stories and rules to support those stories.
I'm not sure I entirely understand your point; I'm having a bit of trouble with the punctuation.
Of course, the RPG should be the best Paizo can make it. However, it was clearly born out of a desire to keep the ruleset in print in support of their adventure and setting products. I'd hate to see Paizo's focus shift to rules rather than story, especially chasing higher profits.
I also believe that a focus on rules is mutually exclusive with a focus on story. WotC chose rules (and $$), and I think it shows in the quality (or lack thereof) of their adventures and setting products. As it happens, I think their rules are quite good (though they also need a dictionary when it comes to "core").
|
Oh what I love is how everyone rushes to assume the classes are going to be remakes of already published WotC classes.
I think Blackguard is one of the four
I'd hope beyond hope that an alchemist base class is one of the four, although I doubt they'll ever touch the awesome that was my skill based alchemist class...
As to the other two classes, I don't have any idea.
Oh what I love is how everyone rushes to assume the classes are going to be remakes of already published WotC classes.
I noticed that. It seems quite unlikely, especially since most of the classes mentioned aren't Open...
maybe they hired Monte to design 4 unique to Pathfinder classes. :)
Just saying :)
Monte is probably busy.. but I can name on Lead Designer that has the time.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Y'know, it looks ... weird not seeing the PF Beta cover shot as your face/image/icon there, Sir Bulmahn.
|
I never understood why some people seem to dislike options so much.
Mostly, it comes from learned behavior. Many of us old-school gamers have experienced this too many times. It's not that we don't "like" options - it's that it (so far) has NEVER been successful long-term.
So it's more of a fact that the concept rubs the wrong way to those who has seen previous systems continue to perpetually inflate and power creep until it crumbles down around them.
1st edition did it with the Unearthed Arcana. Then they said - SORRY WE SCREWED UP!
Enter 2nd Edition. Back to square one. 216 COMPLETE books later plus all the OPTION books.......SORRY WE SCREWED UP!
Enter 3rd edition.........COMPLETE BOOKS, Incarnum, Tome Magic etc etc - SORRY WE SCREWED UP!
Enter 4th edition......which is not progress I might add.
Paizo has fixed the 3rd edition CORE by re-balancing the classes, feats, skills and spells.
Will adding additonl "core" material by Paizo cause everything to collapse? No one is that omniscient.
But the reason for the skepticism is simply because we've paid attention to history.
Personally, I trust in Paizo. They've done a magnificent job thus far, and every product I buy from them is filled with story with the hint of crunch. It satisfies both my needs without going overboard on either, and I love it.
I felt the same way about TSR early on, and WotC early on. I definitely feel that way about Paizo in regards to their great stories and adventuress.
Until they put out something that is obviously too much crunch and not enough fluff, I don't get why people are over-worrying in advance. This is Paizo. They've done good so far. Stop throwing fits when they haven't screwed up yet.
This is the first foray into rule design - so this is new ground that's breaking.
Some of the people on here were merely voicing their concerns that in the model of game design - this type of approach has always backfired.
As for the classes:
I see a nice of Spontaneous divine caster as the only one (barring pscionics) that cannot truly be represented by a multi-class character combo in some way.
The Blackguard/anti-paladin idea - is definitely a great idea for an NPC class (not just a PrC) - but, like assassin, shouldn't be a PC - as i do not feel that having "EVIL" PCs as core is an appropriate approach. I would never allow such a class as a PC - but that's just me - and I admit that isn't only an opinion and preference - and my way isn't necessarily the way all players should play the game.
I'm with Krome on the front that I lost faith with WotC and TSR because of the perpetual release of more crunch that only leads to power-creep hell and thus in unnecessary for a good fun game.
I'm not stating that any such dabbling by Paizo will indeed cause a collapse - but I'm no longer optimistic having seen what it does in the past.
Long ago as DM - I made the house rule that nothing outside the CORE book is allowed - and it kept the games far more manageable and balanced - so my preferences, the extra crunch books isn't something I'd use. Sure you can say -
"Well they're just option books - so if you don't want to use them, don't; and it won't affect your game."
and you'd be right......at least it wouldn't affect it any more than the cancelling of 1st edition, 2nd edtion, and 3rd edition did.
That all being said - I think paizo hasn't lost sight of the goal, and if anyone could do it in moderation enough to make it work - I'm sure they can - because they know which side of the bread the butter is on - the stories and adventures and game world fluff - that I will be a life-long subscriber to. But I'm merely adding commentary to why you're amazed at the skepticism and backlash.
Robert
|
Ive been gaming since the days of the old red box edition of basic DnD and I have to say this about Paizo. They have re-kindled my love for this game. They have taken something and made it more incredible. They have done what Wizards should of done. They have done what Gary and Dave set out to do so many years ago in my humble opinion. Make a fantasy game that is fun and easy to learn. There is an old old old addage. KISS. Most everyone knows what it means and I think Paizo has done just that, they have kept it simple. Those that are worried about the power creep need to settle down and have faith in Jason and the rest of the team at Paizo. They know what they are doing. They love this game as much as we do. Have faith and dont borrow tomorrows problems.
Cheers
|
|
an idea for one of the new classes that I have not seen mentioned....
I think it was Kae-Yoss that vehemently pushed for the "elemental-damage-using-supernatural-barbarian" class concept.
It was hinted that this was a good idea for it's own class someday.
So I'm thinking some sort of barbarian/mystic/shaman/witch-doctor thing.
Robert
If only we knew somebody who recently had a lot of work time open up...
|
|
Spirit Binder: Just get Secrets of Pact Magic, nice book, full from cover to cover with lots of different classes (too many, I'd say, but you can pick the most interesting ones), feats, and spirits for the binder classes to use. (Dario, you owe me big cash for advertising your book ;-)
Using Binder rules to write up a voodoo-based class, or a pantheist priest that taps into the actual dieties of Golarion (channeling echoes of their power, not the actual full-on god!) would be awesome.
Can you imagine the sorts of Bindings you'd get from Rovagug or Nethys or Iomedae?
Incarnum: Never looked too closely. It's weird stuff.
The Totemist was a fascinating idea, done, IMO, exactly wrong. Instead of Magical Beasts, which have no real unifying theme other than 'weird critters with magical powers,' a Totemist who worked exclusively off of Dragon type melds, or Undead type melds, or Fey type Melds, or Outsider (elemental / genie) or Outsider (fiendish) melds would ROCK, thematically. (And, there would end up being a half dozen different classes built into this one class, as the Undead Totemist, the Dragon Totemist, the Fey Totemist and the Genie/Elemental Totemist would look almost nothing alike.)
Anywho, my 200 quatloo is on;
A Hellknight core class (not-always-evil version of the Blackguard, as Hellknights are quite commonly LN, and not required to be LE).
A Witch type class (less spells, more innate magical abilities).
A Shaman / spontaneous divine caster.
A Noble (a little bard, a little swashbuckler, a little marshal, no magic).
One priest, one warrior, one thief / skillmonkey, one caster.
I'm not sure they are ready to touch Psionics quite yet, and might be saving that for a few years down the road with a Vudran sourcebook (ditto the Asian classes and a Tien sourcebook).
Someone upthread mentioned a skill-based Alchemist class. That could be hot.
Director of Game Design
|
Robert,
We are cognizant of the past and the dangerous path that we tread. That is not to say we won't make mistakes, but we have no intention of letting things get out of hand. New rules will be a part of what we do, but it is not going to be the only thing. As someone with many many bookshelves full of 3.0 and 3.5 products, I am well aware of what has been done before and we do not plan to just retread old ground.
And if we do... I am sure that I have about 20,000 active posters on these boards that will let me know.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think i am talking for many of us, saying that whatever new classes Jason and the Paizo team will bring in, i am sure they will be great.
They showed us the quality of their work.
And they showed us they care about their customer base.
So we can trust them.
Okay, follow along with me here.
Jason said they created four new classes due to the existance of conceptual and mechanical niches for them.
If you assume that the PFRPG exists to support Paizo's published adventures (HUGE asumption there), then these new base classes might be necessary to support concepts in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting.
Assuming this, Blackguard is a perfect new base; A world with Hellknights in it requires a 20 level "anti-paladin" class.
Plausible? And if it is, what other kinds of classes does the PFCS demand?
Don't let them get you down Jason. I for one, am happy with alternate (not core, but still full 20 level classes) classes. I'm also a big fan of alternate builds for full 20 level classes. I'd love to see some alternate builds as well (give up class ability A, get class ability B) to allow some builds that would be nice (I think a swashbuckler could best be done by doing this with the Fighter or Rogue classes), where it makes sense. Some niches (like spontaneous divine caster for example, or Anti-paladin) simply have to be alternate classes, it's just not easy to do them as a build (you end up with so many changes and fluff corrections it's just easier to do a new class).
Of course, that's also what I asked for on the 'Beyond the core rulebooks' threat.
EDIT : Just please, please, don't neglect them once you create them. The thing I found most annoying in the world about WoTC was them making an interesting character class (Warmage, Marshal, for example) and then never expanding them or ignoring them while boosting the powers of classes that were already overpowered (like, for example, Warlocks).
|
|
Assuming this, Blackguard is a perfect new base; A world with Hellknights in it requires a 20 level "anti-paladin" class.
Plausible? And if it is, what other kinds of classes does the PFCS demand?
See this concept I don't get, where does the Hellknight get pegged as blackguards. Yeah they wear creepy armour, and yes they can be prone to corruption. But there's nothing inherently evil about the organization. In fact Paizo staff have even commented that it's possible to have a paladin hellknight.
See this concept I don't get, where does the Hellknight get pegged as blackguards. Yeah they wear creepy armour, and yes they can be prone to corruption. But there's nothing inherently evil about the organization. In fact Paizo staff have even commented that it's possible to have a paladin hellknight.
Assuming this, Blackguard is a perfect new base; A world with Hellknights in it requires a 20 level "anti-paladin" class.
Plausible? And if it is, what other kinds of classes does the PFCS demand?
I think he was saying that you need an anti-paladin to round it out.
LG Hellknight -> Paladin
LN Hellknight -> Fighter
LE Hellknight -> Anti-Paladin
|
CEO
|
I want everyone here to know that I am one of the biggest proponents AGAINST rules creep. I don't want a ton of new classes, races, prestige classes, etc. I am the person in the meetings who is constantly saying, "do we really need that?"
That said, we do need to make some new rules to keep the game alive and growing. But I don't foresee that this will ever be the main thing that we do. Great adventures and a growing vibrant campaign setting are the core of what makes Paizo great. We will create new rules and have rulebooks come out, but my goal is that they add to the roleplaying experience and help us tell even better stories.
So rest assured, I'll be fighting against the rules bloat we've seen in previous editions. But new rules are inevitable and will happen. They just won't be our main focus. Erik has mentioned in the past that there will be around 3 rulebook releases a year, with one most likely being a bestiary of some sort. That is a far cry from the rulebook a month that plagued past editions and caused the excessive rules bloat.
-Lisa
Thank you Lisa.
That's comforting to know you are thinking this way. :)
I want everyone here to know that I am one of the biggest proponents AGAINST rules creep. I don't want a ton of new classes, races, prestige classes, etc. I am the person in the meetings who is constantly saying, "do we really need that?"
That said, we do need to make some new rules to keep the game alive and growing. But I don't foresee that this will ever be the main thing that we do. Great adventures and a growing vibrant campaign setting are the core of what makes Paizo great. We will create new rules and have rulebooks come out, but my goal is that they add to the roleplaying experience and help us tell even better stories.
So rest assured, I'll be fighting against the rules bloat we've seen in previous editions. But new rules are inevitable and will happen. They just won't be our main focus. Erik has mentioned in the past that there will be around 3 rulebook releases a year, with one most likely being a bestiary of some sort. That is a far cry from the rulebook a month that plagued past editions and caused the excessive rules bloat.
-Lisa
That's wonderful to hear, Lisa. Thank you. Shouldn't you be playing golf while plotting offshoring or something? :P
Any chance we can get the word "core" kept off of supplements? That is my only remaining concern. Or is that too specific a commitment that you're afraid might come back to bite you? Edit: Nevermind; this has been addressed as still under advisement in another thread.
See this concept I don't get, where does the Hellknight get pegged as blackguards. Yeah they wear creepy armour, and yes they can be prone to corruption. But there's nothing inherently evil about the organization. In fact Paizo staff have even commented that it's possible to have a paladin hellknight.
True, but that's why I'm excited to see this hypothetical new blackguard!
The Hellknights weren't necessarily evil, but devils supplied much of their power (equipment anyway). The new blackguard might be like the 4E warlock - selling their souls to evil for the power to adventure!
|
|
See this concept I don't get, where does the Hellknight get pegged as blackguards. Yeah they wear creepy armour, and yes they can be prone to corruption. But there's nothing inherently evil about the organization. In fact Paizo staff have even commented that it's possible to have a paladin hellknight.
Assuming this, Blackguard is a perfect new base; A world with Hellknights in it requires a 20 level "anti-paladin" class.
Plausible? And if it is, what other kinds of classes does the PFCS demand?
Uhm, they're the Hellknights. That certainly implies a greater leaning towards the dark half of the alignment spectrum, even if it's not all encompassing.
I want everyone here to know that I am one of the biggest proponents AGAINST rules creep. I don't want a ton of new classes, races, prestige classes, etc. I am the person in the meetings who is constantly saying, "do we really need that?"
*hugs*
Awesome!
Come on, Lisa, you can tell us who the trouble makers are... Wes and Sean, right?
___________________________________________________________________
Lighten up, people! We've got the book coming in a week! Woo-hoo!
|
One thing I hope for is more classes that are classes within a class. The cleric, the wizard, the sorcerer, all have very different 'paths' (Domains, Specialties, Bloodlines) that really change how the class itself plays, while still keeping a baseline.
Whatever the classes are, I hope they each have a unique path through them. Ignoring the obvious difference that different sets of feats or equipment provide, some classes just are pretty samey. A paladin is a paladin, the only real difference is whether he has a pony or a cool weapon. A sorcerer, on the other hand, could be one of a lot of different bloodlines, each of which effects their spells, supernatural abilities, feat selection, etc.
Not saying every class needs to be this way, but I definitely love classes that have a *lot* of different variety to them.
umm to reiterate a question from above... Do we really need more classes?
It was said that yes, because there are niches left out there.
If we are creating core classes to fill every niche then the multiclassing rules should just be eliminated all together. Most niches can be filled with multiclassing.
And why does this fill me with dread? Because it smells of 4E with new "core classes" and "core this" and "core that" coming out all the time until the game is bloated with "every crappy core thing you can imagine."
If it isn't in the PHB, if it isn't in the PFRPG, no matter how "core" you call it, it isn't core. You can call it applsauce and it won't change that it is not in the core books.
I think it is foolish to get held up on a single word. the could have easily meant base and not core. At least wait for the announcement to chew them out for that.
Aside from that, just because something can be done with multiclassing doesnt mean it has to be the only way. Yes if i mix rogue and fighter in a certain way i can make something vaguely swashbucklerish. But its not the same as having a dedicated class. One player may want to acheive this in their own style, but I also know players that dont have the knack for character creation, and would never get to play to those unfilled niches if they had to be done with mutliclassing.
There are those of us that like new character options. After all many of us have been playing wizard, rogue, fighter, cleric for years. It is not outrageous for us to be interested in new takes on the 4 roles. And honestly I prefer new base classes to a host of prestige classes. Many campains I have played in ended before going too deep into high levels, so I didn't get to experience much of the prestige class. I would prefer to have the 'something new' from the start.
1. We have no intention of producing a mountain of base classes.
I want everyone here to know that I am one of the biggest proponents AGAINST rules creep.
I have to say, I STRONGLY support and appreciate this attitude. Even three core rulebooks a year is a hair much for my taste (unless ~two~ of them are Bestiaries ;) ).
One book to rule them all!
|
|
I want everyone here to know that I am one of the biggest proponents AGAINST rules creep. I don't want a ton of new classes, races, prestige classes, etc. I am the person in the meetings who is constantly saying, "do we really need that?"
That said, we do need to make some new rules to keep the game alive and growing. But I don't foresee that this will ever be the main thing that we do. Great adventures and a growing vibrant campaign setting are the core of what makes Paizo great. We will create new rules and have rulebooks come out, but my goal is that they add to the roleplaying experience and help us tell even better stories.
So rest assured, I'll be fighting against the rules bloat we've seen in previous editions. But new rules are inevitable and will happen. They just won't be our main focus. Erik has mentioned in the past that there will be around 3 rulebook releases a year, with one most likely being a bestiary of some sort. That is a far cry from the rulebook a month that plagued past editions and caused the excessive rules bloat.
-Lisa
Marry me Lisa :) just dont tell my wife
Of course, the RPG should be the best Paizo can make it. However, it was clearly born out of a desire to keep the ruleset in print in support of their adventure and setting products. I'd hate to see Paizo's focus shift to rules rather than story, especially...
I dont think for a moment paizo's focus is going to shift away from story. But the Pathfinder RPG should be just that, an RPG. It isn't the setting, it isnt an adventure. That is what the other products are for. DM's out there write their own adventures, and use their own settings. Should paizo ignore the players of those games?
I dont think for a moment paizo's focus is going to shift away from story. But the Pathfinder RPG should be just that, an RPG. It isn't the setting, it isnt an adventure. That is what the other products are for. DM's out there write their own adventures, and use their own settings. Should paizo ignore the players of those games?
Of course, the RPG should be the best Paizo can make it. However, it was clearly born out of a desire to keep the ruleset in print in support of their adventure and setting products. I'd hate to see Paizo's focus shift to rules rather than story, especially...
DING DING DING!
We have a winner! I'd never heard of Paizo until recently. Reason? I never buy premade adventures, I make all my own. Worlds, backgrounds, history, I don't like taking someone elses, it doesn't fit my mind.
So, to me, additional fluff/crunch that's not setting specific is what I want. If the additional books turn out to be 'Oh, here's golarian stuff that works really well with out adventure series please buy it too so you can use it' then I'll cancel my RPG subscription. I want options and more of them. The world I'll handle, Paizo just needs to give my players options for what to do in the world I create.
EDIT: Which is why I didn't like Lisa's posting. No offense Lisa. I want as much fluff and crunch as possible out of Paizo that's not world/setting specific, including additional races and classes. The fact the CEO is naysaying it makes me figure I'll not be able to buy much past the core book and beastiary. I'll keep my subscription for now, but if I end up getting a lot of Golarian specific expansion books, I'm going to walk away and be sad for what could have been.
I dont think for a moment paizo's focus is going to shift away from story. But the Pathfinder RPG should be just that, an RPG. It isn't the setting, it isnt an adventure. That is what the other products are for. DM's out there write their own adventures, and use their own settings. Should paizo ignore the players of those games?
Of course, the RPG should be the best Paizo can make it. However, it was clearly born out of a desire to keep the ruleset in print in support of their adventure and setting products. I'd hate to see Paizo's focus shift to rules rather than story, especially...
I'm sorry, bugleyman can't respond right now. He's buried under a freak fallacy avalanche. :P
I don't agree that those 3 are the only niches that cannot be filled with core classes. I'd go as far as to say that other concepts need the treatment more.
There's a million concepts that can be represented through multiclassing. The core mechanic is what can't. You can't play a caster with few abilities that are all at-will. You can't play a Fighter who dabbles in arcane magic without losing some of his base attack bonus progression. You can't play a spontaneous divine spell caster. And you can't play an evil Paladin. Without going outside of core, at least, you can't play these different mechanics. That's why I feel that they are going to be the ones included. There is a reason that the Hexblade, Warlock, Favored Soul/Spirit Shaman and Blackguard are very popular despite the fact that all but maybe one of these classes totally sucks (which one depends on who you ask). It's the missing gap that it fills. Personally, I could care less if any of these classes are added. I just think that these are the most likely ones.
Anyway, this one is one I feel needs not be represented at all. It's not a concept, it's a built. D&D magic isn't at will, if it were, the other classes were like that.
I think the whole thing would require a great angle for the flavour and/or some really groundbreaking and new mechanics to make it worth the paper and effort. Just saying "he gets to defy the game assumptions by casting all day long" isn't enough for me.
There are monsters and even some less common races that gain an at-will spell-like ability or two. Why does building a class around the idea unravel the universe. :)
Plus, what about bard? A lot in that direction already.
The Bard steps on everyone's toes. That's the niche they fill.
* Gish - No. Steps on the Ftr/Wiz, Ftr/Sor toesSo does the "arcane paladin" (i.e. fighter with a little bit of arcane magic).
Not unless you think that Ranger and Paladin steps on the toes of Druids and Clerics. The spells aren't a major component of their class. I personally could care less if they make one but it is something that appears to be a missing piece to go along with the Paladin and Ranger.
* Noble - Steps on the Bards toesNot really. They are similar, but fighters and barbarians are similar, too.
Similar is exactly what we don't want. Not many people want Piazo to invalidate multi-classing the WotC did by releasing new base classes for every specialization. Scout, Warmage, Beguiler, Necromancer, Ninja etc should all be relagated to PrC to advance their specialization. They're not customizable enough to be a base class and neither is a Noble IMHO. Noble could be a PrC if you wanted to apply specific abilities to it. It doesn't need 20 levels. The fact that almost any class could conceivably be a noble should be a good indicater that it's destined for PrC land (which isn't a bad thing).
As for the Barbarian, well, it's core. You can't really toss it out even though you could easily creat a "barbarian" with the Fighter class. At least it has a nice new mechanic to make it fun and different.
Just a quick add - I want these classes to cost me money!
Why? 'Cause if I'm gonna get new classes, I want new Iconics! Woohoo! Squeeze that art budget!
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
One interesting thing though... Erik says that they will reveal the next 4 core classes, and not the next 4 core base classes. Unless he just missed to write "base" this might indicate that the 4 classes are both base and prestige classes. If we also assume that the term "core" is used correctly this would also indicate that these four classes would be included under the PRPG license and thus can be used by 3rd party publishers.
Someone has no doubt clarified this already, but I should have said the next four BASE classes, not the next four CORE classes. To a lot of people that probably means the same thing, but for now we want to consider only the classes in the Core Rulebook to be "core" classes, with everything else being more or less optional.
Note that this has no impact upon what other publishers will be able to use, as we are committed to releasing all of our rules content under the OGL.
--Erik
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Artificer, Knight, Priest, Shaman, Spellblade, Swashbuckler, Warlock and Warlord.
That's not my wishlist, that's the list of classes in The Tome of Secrets. I really hope we don't get too much overlap.
Me too! Gareth's going to give me a copy of the Tome of Secrets at Gen Con, and I can't wait to look at it!
So far I can pretty safely say that I'm not too worried about crossover.
Someone has no doubt clarified this already, but I should have said the next four BASE classes, not the next four CORE classes. To a lot of people that probably means the same thing, but for now we want to consider only the classes in the Core Rulebook to be "core" classes, with everything else being more or less optional...
Awesome; thank you for clearing that up. It may seem trivial to some (many?), but it's a big relief to me. :)
Note that this has no impact upon what other publishers will be able to use, as we are committed to releasing all of our rules content under the OGL.
BTW: Kick-ass. :)
My vote is for Erik and SeanCome on, Lisa, you can tell us who the trouble makers are... Wes and Sean, right?
___________________________________________________________________
Lighten up, people! We've got the book coming in a week! Woo-hoo!
See? NOT Erik.
I'm not sure I entirely understand your point; I'm having a bit of trouble with the punctuation.
Sorry. I'm a foeigner, and this isn't my primary language. Please point out my mistakes so I may learn from them.
Of course, the RPG should be the best Paizo can make it. However, it was clearly born out of a desire to keep the ruleset in print in support of their adventure and setting products. I'd hate to see Paizo's focus shift to rules rather than story, especially chasing higher profits.
There has been no indication whatsoever that they'll slow down those product lines that are chock-full with great stories and flavour. They will just be supplemented with another great product line, one which gives us great rules to go with the great stories.
I also believe that a focus on rules is mutually exclusive with a focus on story.
They don't have to focus on anything to be good at.
It's a fact that their stories are top notch.
It's all but certain that the rules they come up with are also top notch.
They are introducing a new product line. I'm sure the other lines won't suffer. There will still be monthly pathfinder AP's, and either a pathfinder module or a companion. And on top of that, we will get Chronicles books. I don't think they will neglect anything just because they also have a rules line now.
They started with just the APs and irregular GM modules. Since then, they added a novel line (though it is not writing novels), a line of books for their Campaign Setting, another line geared towards players, and gamers gimmicks like maps and cards. And some more stuff like an organised play league with scenario modules.
Through all that "expansion", I haven't seen a drop in quality.
They might hire another couple of guys or have more freelancers. They will cut corners. At least I'd be really surprised if they did.
|
|
That's the other argument I don't get. The "we don't need more base classes since we can just multiclass our current ones" argument. That sounds fine in theory, but if you go back a bit it doesn't hold much water.
Bard = Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer
Paladin = Cleric/Fighter
Ranger = Druid/Fighter
Obviously, it doesn't work that way, because these classes are very different from a multi-classed version. That's really the point. At their core, this is what they are. A Ranger is part fighter and part nature lover (they get divine spells, kind of an animal companion, etc.). A Paladin was a warrior priest, and the jack of all trades was a lot of classes.
They are so iconic and different now because they were made base classes and expanded on. Similarly, other concepts could arise as well. Some people argue that a Fighter/Wizard base class is unnecessary since, hey, you could just multi-class.
I plan to wait and see. I am willing to bet that if they do a Swashbuckler or a "Gish" or something else that could be 'multiclassed' then it will be unique, have a lot of abilities that could not be acquired otherwise, and will hold its own ground.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Other classes listed are bad choices for base classes IMO.* Scout - No. Steps on the Rangers toes
Agreed.
* Gish - No. Steps on the Ftr/Wiz, Ftr/Sor toes
Mostly agreed, but I am willing to be convinced.
* Noble - Steps on the Bards toes
During the Core Rulebook design process I lobbied pretty hard to get Bulmahn to make the NPC classes actually playable classes, arguing that Frodo was essentially a high-level commoner and that high-level aristocrats are all over fantasy literature. Jason won that argument, so we get the same old boring aristocrat we've always had. Which frankly doesn't bode well for a "noble" base class.
* Marshal - God, I hope not
Me neither!
* Swashbuckler - Steps on the Ftr/Rog, Ftr/Brd toes
I am inclined to agree, though I know some feel strongly about this.
* Assassin - Steps on Rogues toes
Plus it's already a prestige class.
* Samurai, Shaman, Wu Jen, Shugenja - No. Oriental Adventures
* Psion, Psychic Warrior, Wilder, Soulknife - Could be if they are just getting everyone excited about what new classes are coming just to announce that they are going to do Psionics.
Most of these would be shoe-ins for an Asian or Psionics book. Is that what we're announcing at Gen Con? Show up and find out! :)
I think it was Kae-Yoss that vehemently pushed for the "elemental-damage-using-supernatural-barbarian" class concept.
It's Kae'Yoss. Or KaeYoss. no - in there.
I didn't vehemently push it. I pushed options in general. It's the 3e way: Tools, not rules. Do not restrict. Not in the books. The GM will keep out what doesn't fit to his world or game, but just because some people don't like race X or class Y or option Z doesn't mean no one should have them. If you design by exclusion, sooner or later you'll exclude your whole fan base.
That's not a class idea, though. It's more options for an existing class. Incorporate more barbarian rage powers. Same class, more options for a part of the class that already presents options. I'll gladly have more rogue talents or sorcerer bloodlines as well.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Any chance we can get the word "core" kept off of supplements? That is my only remaining concern. Or is that too specific a commitment that you're afraid might come back to bite you? Edit: Nevermind; this has been addressed as still under advisement in another thread.
I can assure you that we will be a lot more careful with the word "core" than I was last night going forward. :)
--Erik