|
One more thing. We are definitely making a large distinction between a rules book and a setting book. IF we end up doing something with an oriental themed book, there will be a rulebook with ninjas, samurai, etc. and a setting book detailing that part of Golarion (and probably an adventure path or adventure arc to go with the new rules and setting). The rulebook will have NONE of the Golarion stuff in it you would need to buy the setting book to get that stuff. The setting book would reference the rules for ninjas, samurai and such, but wouldn't give the details. In this way, folks who just want the rules for their home games can buy the rulebook and use the rules without knowing or using anything related to Golarion.
-Lisa
That would be pretty awesome. Similar to how the Golarion Campaign Setting hardcover and the Pathfinder Core Rulebook are separate products. It would help to make the rulebooks relevant to players of other campaign settings, and the campaign material useful to players of other systems (similar to how the adventure paths still seem pretty popular to players of 4E on these boards).
For the record, I'm also one of those disapointed by Paizo's naysaying on new races/classes. I enjoyed the race and class books WotC used to produce, and wish they'd produced more, before jumping the shark with Bo9S and 4E.
I've been playing D&D for 25 years, and although I love D&D, I've grown pretty tired of the defacto Tolkein standards. Do variant races/classes dilute the setting? Only if you let them. Used with restraint, these options enhance a campaign. You don't have to mix it all in together, but choice is not a bad thing.
But I am reminded and encouraged that:
a) Pathfinder RPG should be compatible with all our current 3.5 books without too much effort; and
b) third-party publishers will fill any creative gaps with their own offerings - the aforementioned Tome of Secrets new base classes sounds like just the stuff many who have posted above might be looking for.
I would like new base classes that are different in technique. The Warlock is a great example of that. The artificer is another. I wouldn't at this time come out with say, a scout which is basically a ranger/rogue. My choices would be a warlock, a shaman (spontaneous divine caster w/ powers based on spirits), and a gish (Monte Cook's runeblade seems very interesting)
I would like new base classes that are different in technique. The Warlock is a great example of that. The artificer is another. I wouldn't at this time come out with say, a scout which is basically a ranger/rogue. My choices would be a warlock, a shaman (spontaneous divine caster w/ powers based on spirits), and a gish (Monte Cook's runeblade seems very interesting)
I would not expect these classes to be made by Paizo, since they will already be done under the PRPG license in Tome of Secrets by Adamant Entertainment. If they need any of these classes in any of their products I think it is more likely they will refer to the Tome of Secrets version, like they have done with books like Advanced Bestiary, Tome of Horrors and so on in the past.
I would not expect these classes to be made by Paizo, since they will already be done under the PRPG license in Tome of Secrets by Adamant Entertainment. If they need any of these classes in any of their products I think it is more likely they will refer to the Tome of Secrets version, like they have done with books like Advanced Bestiary, Tome of Horrors and so on in the past.
Understood. I was expressing my desire not what I think they will announce.
As someone who:
3. Hates the idea of spellcasting assassins (sans multiclassing)
Well at least that one you should be happy about - pretty sure Assassins don't have spells anymore.
As much as I liked the Assassin base class in 1st edition (and really, it's abilities *were* very overlapped with rogues), I really *like* a prestige class assassin, that other classes can reasonable easily fulfill the requirements of. Ranger/Assassins, Monk/Assassins, and now even things like Sorcerer/Assassins (since no longer need the class skills) - these are great concepts that have benefited from the prestige class.
As for the topic... I think they'll do Hellknight (and I don't see them doing this *and* a Blackguard).
As for the topic... I think they'll do Hellknight (and I don't see them doing this *and* a Blackguard).
It's been mentioned earlier in the thread that Hellknight will be done as a PrC in PFAP #27, so I think it's unlikely that this is one of those that will be announced.
|
One more thing. We are definitely making a large distinction between a rules book and a setting book. IF we end up doing something with an oriental themed book, there will be a rulebook with ninjas, samurai, etc. and a setting book detailing that part of Golarion (and probably an adventure path or adventure arc to go with the new rules and setting). The rulebook will have NONE of the Golarion stuff in it—you would need to buy the setting book to get that stuff. The setting book would reference the rules for ninjas, samurai and such, but wouldn't give the details. In this way, folks who just want the rules for their home games can buy the rulebook and use the rules without knowing or using anything related to Golarion.
-Lisa
Excellent approach, Lisa. Commendable.
So - with this all in mind - allow me to drop a (major-not-so-subtle) hint that another great idea that sisters the asian theme is a Viking supplement - Rules for playing in such evironment etc that is seperate from the Golarion book that can go into detail for playing in some of the countries in the north (Land of Linnorm, Mammath Lords, etc) and then of course an epic Beowulf-esque AP that synergizes with these new products!!
wink-wink-nudge-nudge-hint-hint....
Robert
|
My prediction: The new 4 base classes will NOT be psionic, nor will they be oriental-themed. Instead, they will be classes that can be easily slipped into your average fantasy campaign setting.
That's why I said Alchemist and Blackguard.
Both are pretty iconic classes in fantasy, and fill niches that currently aren't filled. (an alchemist can be a skill based non-magic controller, I've done it it worked well without being overpowered)
During the Core Rulebook design process I lobbied pretty hard to get Bulmahn to make the NPC classes actually playable classes,
Someone made a good point earlier that the warrior was an easier-to-build NPC than the fighter, and that's certainly doubly true now. Pathfinder has improved many things about 3.5e, but NPC generation and stat blocks are not one of them.
In contrast to fighters which get a bunch of extraordinary abilities, a warrior has d8 HD equal to his level, good Fort saves, two skill points, and feats equal to half (or 1/3) his level. You can rough the NPC out quickly with stats that will be pretty close to a final version. Warriors in 3.5e tended to be the fighter's weaker brother, but in PF, they have a niche.
I hope the final game boosts the NPC classes to match HD with BAB progression. Warriors would be better off with a d10 HD, and commoners would be a lot less worthless as 1-HD humanoids.
I would like to see a holy warrior not bound by alignment maybe a Templar or a Crusader
I would like new base classes that are different in technique. The Warlock is a great example of that. The artificer is another. I wouldn't at this time come out with say, a scout which is basically a ranger/rogue. My choices would be a warlock, a shaman (spontaneous divine caster w/ powers based on spirits), and a gish (Monte Cook's runeblade seems very interesting)I would not expect these classes to be made by Paizo, since they will already be done under the PRPG license in Tome of Secrets by Adamant Entertainment. If they need any of these classes in any of their products I think it is more likely they will refer to the Tome of Secrets version, like they have done with books like Advanced Bestiary, Tome of Horrors and so on in the past.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in a book called Tome of Secrets which appears to do nothing but reprint the same alternative base classes that WotC (and others) did in 3.5, likely to the point of copyright infringement?
I really hope Piazo isn't shackled to these blatantly ripped off classes which probably weren't even play tested much, if at all.
I apologize if I'm being rude. Just calling it like I see it.
Given the Paladin remained as Lawful Good, I'd like to see some sort of holy warrior avilable for the other alignments. There's Blackguard for Lawful Evil obviously.
Blackguards are evil. Not just lawful evil. Any evil.
They MIGHT have to tone down the powers if they do a full BAB, but then again they gave the monk a full BAB when they flurry and beefed up the fighter so who knows.
The monk needed that. I don't know whether the psychic warrior needs it.
Basically, we have to look at it like this:
Fighters and Psychic warriors will be pretty similar in terms of BAB, Fort save, and HP. The fighter gets more feats, bravery, and weapon/armour training (as well as exclusive feats).
Now, what the psychic warrior gets should be about in line with that.
I think if they keep the current power progression and get full BAB, they'd outperform every other warrior.
Also, I was never big on the psionic scene so ... what the hell's a Wilder anyway?
Think of it a little as the sorcerer of psionics. Read about the full class here
In brief, they have a very small selection of psionic powers (though for manifesters, a small list like that isn't quite that bad, since a lot of powers are the equivalent of several spells), but the same amount of power points as a psion. They have medium BAB.
In addition, they have a couple of abilities: They get to use a wild surge that overcharges the spell for free (but has a chance of stunning them and depleting extra power points). They also have abilities to gain a rush out of surging, getting a good touch AC, and forcing other manifesters trying to manipulate them with mind stuff to waste more power points on their manifestations.
For the record, I'm also one of those disapointed by Paizo's naysaying on new races/classes. I enjoyed the race and class books WotC used to produce, and wish they'd produced more, before jumping the shark with Bo9S and 4E.
I must say that a lot of them didn't really deserve their own spot. Why have three rigid classes if one flexible one can cover their bases equally well?
Other classes were there to address problems PFRPG addresses on a more systemic level.
I've been playing D&D for 25 years, and although I love D&D, I've grown pretty tired of the defacto Tolkein standards. Do variant races/classes dilute the setting? Only if you let them. Used with restraint, these options enhance a campaign. You don't have to mix it all in together, but choice is not a bad thing.
At this point, it sounds like it is pretty much decided that we'll have our Asian Adventures book. That will give us options for more oriental adventures.
New classes;
Squid Wrangler / Nerf Herder / Pokemon Trainer.
Dual-Repeating Crossbow Fu Master, only the Crossbows can also be used as Axes!!11!1
Dude with Claws for Hands that. Just. Won't. Die.
Vampire Vixen from Venus, complete with her signature 15 ft. reach tongue grapple attack.
Hehe... Good ones there, only... strictly speaking? Isn't the Vixen more, well race/monster-like? ;-P
2. Doesn't use prestige classes
Doesn't need them.
3. Hates the idea of spellcasting assassins (sans multiclassing)
I loved the spellcasting assassin. A bit like a mystical ninja, who was often attributed mystical powers.
But it's gone now, apparently assassins don't deserve magic. I just hope the assassin PrC got something to make up for that loss.
5. Knows that assassins are AT LEAST as conceptually distinct from rogues as barbarians are from fighters or sorcerers from wizards
Yeah? I think the concept of the assassin is not very well defined.
Is it someone who just kills for money? Everyone can do that as well as the assassin classes out there, unless some of them have a "get paid for murdering people" class feature.
Is it a sneaky backstabber? Well, We have that one already: the rogue. A rogue can be an assassin. Or a thief. Thug. Burgler. Confidence man. Cat burgler, Pickpocket. Security specialist. Middleman. Informant. Scount. Spy. Infiltrator. Insurance salesman........
What does the assassin need that the rogue hasn't got? Can't think of anything.
6. Wonders why some folk think alternative options for the tank and arcanist roles are A-OK, but the skirmisher role must only ever be the rogue...
The rogue is so versatile that he doesn't need help. He also dislikes competition, and backstabs them to death.
I certainly don't agree that assassins are "skirmishers".
Plus, there are both rangers and rogues. Bards could qualify as well. And monks! Don't forget monks. Druids, too, probably. And fighters. Barbarians maybe.
Not every class has just one role they can play. Not in Pathfinder.
As for the topic... I think they'll do Hellknight (and I don't see them doing this *and* a Blackguard).
Open your eyes, man. I can totally see them doing hellknight and blackguard both. Two classes a bit along the line of paladins, but covering different angles. They can meet at LE, but both go in different directions: Hellknights are about law, blackguards about evil.
Director of Games
|
For the record, I'm also one of those disapointed by Paizo's naysaying on new races/classes. I enjoyed the race and class books WotC used to produce, and wish they'd produced more, before jumping the shark with Bo9S and 4E.
I don't think we are naysaying.. per se. We are going to be responsible with the amount and quality of material that we put out. There will be new options, but we want to make sure that they are worth having instead of just cranking things out as quickly as possible.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Am I the only one who sees the irony in a book called Tome of Secrets which appears to do nothing but reprint the same alternative base classes that WotC (and others) did in 3.5, likely to the point of copyright infringement?
To be fair to them, the names themselves cannot really be copyrighted, because they're just words. Words that have existed a lot longer than roleplaying games.
As for whether the classes are copies of closed-content classes from 3e and 4e has yet to be seen.
Nay say?
Per se, nay.
Responsiblé.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in a book called Tome of Secrets which appears to do nothing but reprint the same alternative base classes that WotC (and others) did in 3.5, likely to the point of copyright infringement?To be fair to them, the names themselves cannot really be copyrighted, because they're just words. Words that have existed a lot longer than roleplaying games.
As for whether the classes are copies of closed-content classes from 3e and 4e has yet to be seen.
I'm not sure where the line is but from what I've seen of the previews, they're likely right up against it if not over it.
Anyway, my main point was just pointing out the irony of a book called Tome of Secrets which reprints already existing classes updated for Pathfinder RPG.
|
Am I the only one who sees the irony in a book called Tome of Secrets which appears to do nothing but reprint the same alternative base classes that WotC (and others) did in 3.5, likely to the point of copyright infringement?To be fair to them, the names themselves cannot really be copyrighted, because they're just words. Words that have existed a lot longer than roleplaying games.
As for whether the classes are copies of closed-content classes from 3e and 4e has yet to be seen.
I'm not sure where the line is but from what I've seen of the previews, they're likely right up against it if not over it.
Anyway, my main point was just pointing out the irony of a book called Tome of Secrets which reprints already existing classes updated for Pathfinder RPG.
Copyright is supposed to serve us, the public. A 3PP should be able to take an existing creative work and update it for a new audience - especially when the original 'author' will not have any intention of doing so.
You're right about the irony in the name though.
For the record, I'm also one of those disapointed by Paizo's naysaying on new races/classes. I enjoyed the race and class books WotC used to produce, and wish they'd produced more, before jumping the shark with Bo9S and 4E.I don't think we are naysaying.. per se. We are going to be responsible with the amount and quality of material that we put out. There will be new options, but we want to make sure that they are worth having instead of just cranking things out as quickly as possible.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
But if Pathfinder RPG really takes off, you guys would be fools not to crank out as much material as the screaming masses are demanding...from a business perspective at least. I know people rant a rave about all the WotC splat books out there and how it ruined the game and power creep and blah blah blah but in the end, there's only three books that you need to play the game (well, only two now). The rest is optional.
They did in the BETA, so I can't imagine they'll take it back in the final.
Derf! The softcover has a Chapter 14! I must have read that a year ago and somehow erased it from my memory. It is a seven-page chapter in a 400-page book after all.
|
|
For the record, I'm also one of those disapointed by Paizo's naysaying on new races/classes. I enjoyed the race and class books WotC used to produce, and wish they'd produced more, before jumping the shark with Bo9S and 4E.I don't think we are naysaying.. per se. We are going to be responsible with the amount and quality of material that we put out. There will be new options, but we want to make sure that they are worth having instead of just cranking things out as quickly as possible.
This, together with Lisa's recent comments about keeping the company small and keeping a separation between 'crunch' and 'fluff' books, gives me a real happy.
Or perhaps it's the Côtes du Rhône :)
Am I the only one who sees the irony in a book called Tome of Secrets which appears to do nothing but reprint the same alternative base classes that WotC (and others) did in 3.5, likely to the point of copyright infringement?To be fair to them, the names themselves cannot really be copyrighted, because they're just words. Words that have existed a lot longer than roleplaying games.
As for whether the classes are copies of closed-content classes from 3e and 4e has yet to be seen.
I'm not sure where the line is but from what I've seen of the previews, they're likely right up against it if not over it.
Anyway, my main point was just pointing out the irony of a book called Tome of Secrets which reprints already existing classes updated for Pathfinder RPG.
WoTC doesn't have a copyright on the names Warlock, Shaman, or Artificer. Why? Because those terms are descriptors. Just like you can't have a copyright on Male, Female, Soldier, Pikeman, or Doctor. You can copyright mechanics, layout, and rules. So long as the classes the 3PP has don't have the same mechanics, layout, and rules, then there is no copyright infringement.
There is a reason why a Shadowrun Mage and a GURPS Wizard and an SRD Wizard don't copyright infringe each other. All 3 use the same name, and all 3 do basicaly the same thing (cast spells and use magic). But, they all have different rules and mechanics and layout. As long as the fluff isn't a direct or substantial copy, and the rules and layout are not the same (similar is required by the concept, identical is a violation), then the 3PP is fine.
But if Pathfinder RPG really takes off, you guys would be fools not to crank out as much material as the screaming masses are demanding...from a business perspective at least. I know people rant a rave about all the WotC splat books out there and how it ruined the game and power creep and blah blah blah but in the end, there's only three books that you need to play the game (well, only two now). The rest is optional.
No disrespect Frogboy, but I think it would be harmful to "crank" anything out..
It's like a sugar rush, eventually you crash. In this case it wouldn't be Paizo's energy level, it would be their reputation. That really means a lot.
I read these boards all the time, and there is a lot of trust placed in Paizo as a publisher to deliver quality materials. I'm not going to bash WOTC to any great extent (and I buy some stuff from them too), but that continues to be a problem that haunts them.
I think don't think there is anything foolish about knowing your limitations, in the context of; "If we can't deliver a quality product within this timeframe, it's going to have to wait until we can."
I don't have any great predictions...
But I think one will be some sort of class that strongly associates itself with crafting. That's a niche that is not filled.
I don't think they'll be psionic classes, but I won't be unhappy if they are. I just haven't heard anything that sounds like they've gotten to the point of committing to psionics. Just this past Tuesday one of them was saying they'd be happy if a 3rd party did an awesome job with psionics because then they wouldn't have to.. and then added the caveat that he hoped with production quality would be good as well.
I'm ruling out any oriental classes at this time based on Lisa and James' comments.
EDIT: But you know.. I'd like it to be psionics.. sigh.
I think they'll do Psion, Psychic Warrior and Wilder, but not soulknife - that one is a feat chain disguising as a class.
With apologies for the thread derailment. . .
what do you mean by "feat chain disguising as a class"?
|
|
I don't have any great predictions...
But I think one will be some sort of class that strongly associates itself with crafting.
You mean, like an alchemist? lol sorry to harp, but the fact is if one doesn't get made then I'm just gonna have to stop pussyfooting around and release my own damn book so I can have one.
You mean, like an alchemist? lol sorry to harp, but the fact is if one doesn't get made then I'm just gonna have to stop pussyfooting around and release my own damn book so I can have one.
You know.. I did see your post and I didn't comment on it. Sorry.
I guess the alchemist would work.. I was hoping more for the magesmith (already referred to in campaign setting)..
.. But yeah, like an alchemist.
Though, what has given me pause is that now I'm hearing that these four new classes are part of a previously never before announced rulebook? (unconfirmed)
Okay, that rules out the Gamemastery Book.
It opens the door to a psionic book maybe? Dunno.
But that still doesn't fit perfectly, because psionics don't exactly 'round out' the core classes, even as base classes. I mean, I guess they could fill out a niche, but that would feel like misdirection.
Of course, everyone likes a GenCon surprise. Except us poor bastards that can't go. :P
I think they'll do Psion, Psychic Warrior and Wilder, but not soulknife - that one is a feat chain disguising as a class.With apologies for the thread derailment. . .
what do you mean by "feat chain disguising as a class"?
I mean that while the concept of a weapon made up of mental energy is really cool, it is not enough to justify being a whole class.
Look at the class: what is there, really?
Now, if you turn the mind blade into a feat that lets you manifest a, say, light martial weapon with your psionic power (would be a psionic feat), focussed on some item (let's say a crystal), and say you can treat it like a normal weapon made out of wood or metal, and can even have it enchanted by enchanting that focus crystal, you have one feat that eliminates most class features:
The only thing that doesn't quite work yet is the shape mind blade feature, and that can be solved with another faet or two.
|
|
If you look a few posts above though, you'll still see people posting and wanting expansions to be regional specific expansions within Golarian as part of the Pathfinder RPG line. If that happens, my subscription is gone.
One the other hand, if that would happen, my subscription would come. ^^
Apart from me winning a lottery this would probably be the only way that I'd subscribe to the Rules line. As far as I am concerned this line could stop with the Core Rules. Not because I don't trust in Paizo's ability to do high quality crunch but because I'm simply not interested in this stuff and it's the world and the stories in which they really excel.
It won't stop and it will be generic stuff. Which is fine by me since PAX's and bugleyman's concerns have already been adressed by Lisa, Erik and Jason so I know that this won't happen at my expense. And if it helps Paizo making the necessary money to create all the great products I've come to expect from them, I'm all for it. :)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'm not sure why anyone would ever stat out a commoner though. If they don't die, or at least fall unconcious with one hit, they probably aren't a commoner...unless they happen to be wearing a mithril shirt as in Frodo's case. I've always thought about playing one though just for the heck of it.
My idea was to build in death-averting powers for higher-level commoners such as "dumb luck" or "destined" or something, but nobody really bit on it. Jason's contention that the classes should be easy for GMs to use on the fly ultimately won the day, and it frankly wasn't even that difficult of a fight.
|
|
Okay for my two coppers...
I am not going make predictions on what is coming up but I WOULD like to give my "wish list" as far as niches to fill.
I would like l to see:
- A spotaneous spell divine caster that it to the cleric what the sorcerer is to the wizard.
- An Arcane Fighter that is an answer to the Paladin and Ranger (just not the "Hex Blade" becasue.
Okay those are the only two that I can think of for the "4 Next PFRPG Core Classes".
As for my other hopes, I'd like to see thoer other four (4) "extreme" aliginments have paladins of some kind. The Unearthed Arcana (Third Edition version I am talking about here) had Paladins that stood for Tyranny (LE) Slaughter (CE) and Liberty (CG). I would also like one that represented "Balance" (True Neutral) which accounts for my sayng four "extreme" alignments.
Okay I will stop now!
No disrespect Frogboy, but I think it would be harmful to "crank" anything out..
It's like a sugar rush, eventually you crash. In this case it wouldn't be Paizo's energy level, it would be their reputation. That really means a lot.
I read these boards all the time, and there is a lot of trust placed in Paizo as a publisher to deliver quality materials. I'm not going to bash WOTC to any great extent (and I buy some stuff from them too), but that continues to be a problem that haunts them.
I think don't think there is anything foolish about knowing your limitations, in the context of; "If we can't deliver a quality product within this timeframe, it's going to have to wait until we can."
Okay, how about half-crank then? Dedication and respect for the game is very admirable but there's nothing wrong with making money either. It's not like they have to spit out crap. They only plan three PFRPG books a year but if demand is high, I'm sure that they can put out more without destroying their reputation. If WotC was still putting out 3.5 books, most of us would probably still be buying them and PFRPG may never have been realized. The only thing that really disenchanted us with WotC was the fact that they created a new edition (about three years too soon) and most of us don't really care for it.
I'm not sure why anyone would ever stat out a commoner though. If they don't die, or at least fall unconcious with one hit, they probably aren't a commoner...unless they happen to be wearing a mithril shirt as in Frodo's case. I've always thought about playing one though just for the heck of it.My idea was to build in death-averting powers for higher-level commoners such as "dumb luck" or "destined" or something, but nobody really bit on it. Jason's contention that the classes should be easy for GMs to use on the fly ultimately won the day, and it frankly wasn't even that difficult of a fight.
How about "Where the heck did that come from!"? It could do something cool when you roll a crit. :)
Building a playable commoner class. Sounds like an interesting exercise.
I'm not sure why anyone would ever stat out a commoner though. If they don't die, or at least fall unconcious with one hit, they probably aren't a commoner...unless they happen to be wearing a mithril shirt as in Frodo's case. I've always thought about playing one though just for the heck of it.My idea was to build in death-averting powers for higher-level commoners such as "dumb luck" or "destined" or something, but nobody really bit on it. Jason's contention that the classes should be easy for GMs to use on the fly ultimately won the day, and it frankly wasn't even that difficult of a fight.How about "Where the heck did that come from!"? It could do something cool when you roll a crit. :)
Building a playable commoner class. Sounds like an interesting exercise.
"Peasant Hero" ... although I kind of agree with Bulmahn. A commoner that becomes a hero has (in certain interpretations of game terms) long since left his Commoner level behind and become something else instead.
In most cases, it seems generally perceived that one transitions from Commoner to [core class/base class] at the beginning of play, subsuming one's peon roots.
|
Warlock is an OPTION but it would be kind of tricky to introduce them I think. How do you make them interesting and not straight up copy the base off of what wizards did?
Give them the ability to choose a bloodline at first level? From Wayfinder: Shadow and Ancestral could work. Then there is Draconic, Abysal, Infernal, Destined, Undead, any really.
My 2cp.