.... Well I guess you could rebuild Psionics as a slot system. Just Spell Slot advocates won't like the results....
Again the base cost of powers is ridiculously simple (Spell Level x 2 -1). A Spell Slot (Vancian is fire and forget Wizard/Cleric, not expender Sorcerers) Psionic caster would have a free floating pool of spell levels/slots with which to pay for powers from a highly limited selection of ones know. Augmentations work by spending more spell levels/slots then you need to on a spell.
Same basic system, extremely less detailed.
IMO, good that Paizo is staying away from Psionics. Let Dreamscarred do what they specialize in and what OGL lets them do. Hopefully by the time Paizo is even thinking about making a decision on Psionics the Dreamscarred material will have plugged that hole and it will have become an accepted default choice.
Yes spell points aren't difficult to figure out, but having to different systems in a game that accomplishes the same thing makes no sense. Why do wizards and clerics have to follow a vancian system when psions don't? It's much better to do them up all under one system from a game design prospective and then provide an alternate system that can be applied to arcane, divine, and psionic.
I remember playing in a 3.X game with psions and having some one new to D&D join the group. It was a nightmare trying to explain to some one new the differences between the two systems. One system is a lot easier for new players and less likely to be ignored as a hastily created add on which is probably full of exploits by DMs.
|
I am sure Paizo will come up with excellently written flavor or “Fluff”. May I suggest a compromise? Don’t bother calling the “Psionic” materiel “psionic”. Call it Vudrani, call it Castrovali, Just don't call it psioinics. Say it is a magical tradition they have developed over thousands of years, and is “unique” to their civilization. This way you can introduce some new materials, and avoid upsetting us vocal psionic fans.This is actually a route we are VERY strongly considering. For sure, we won't be updating the psion or the soulknife classes. First, if we change the way psionics work, those classes would have to change so much that they'd be too different. Second (and more important to me) I want our "psionic" classes to be identifiable by their names by ANYONE. You ask a fan of fantasy genre what a "soulknife" or a "wilder" is and they won't know unless they just happen to be 3.5 psionics fans. It's MUCH better to do new psionic classes that are themed on concepts that already exist in mythology or popular culture. Classes with names like "Pyrokineticist" or "Mesmerist" or "Fakir" or "Telepath" or "Telekinetic" or "Spiritualist" are MUCH stronger base class concepts to support psionic rules.
Or whatever we call them. Something like "mind magic" or whatever. Something that gets across the point that it's the same TYPE of thing as psionics, but by not calling them psionics we:
a) Avoid the stigma that its a science fiction element invading a fantasy game.
b) Don't "overwrite" the psionic concepts in 3.5's psionic rules, so that someone who wants to use those rules converted to Pathfinder RPG (perhaps using some new 3rd party supplement from the future, who knows?) they don't feel like they're some sort of rules outlaw.
James, thank you for taking the time to answer my post. I appreciate your thoughtful response.
I think the idea of doing new classes that are based on concepts that already exist in mythology or popular culture to be an excellent one. I like the idea of a “yogi” or a “fakir” or a “medium” or “spiritualist” or “mesmerist”. You have gotten me to perk my ears in curiosity while side stepping the thorny question of psionics. Perhaps “Telepath” “Telekinetic” or “ Pyrokenetic” might seem a little too Sci Fi for some people. This is a common complaint people have about the flavor of Psionics. Although I’m not sure how “magic missile” is very medieval sounding.
“Mind magic” could work.
I like having a “medieval Europe “ fantasy setting as a baseline; I have always liked expanding beyond it. I like the idea of a “middle eastern” flavored area, an “oriental” flavored area, and yes I would love to see an “Indian” flavored area.
I like the Idea of Samurai, ninjas, Wu Xia etc, and I think it would be nice to eventually see a setting book for some of these areas, with regional specific classes. That being said, I think most of these things can already be done with the base classes and just changing the flavor a little bit.
I think an Indian “Vudrani” area has lots of potential. Apart from the green ronin “mind shadows” campaign setting, not allot has been done for an Indian setting.
I seem to remember that an Ashram, is an Indian temple / monastery / school complex. Perhaps there is a Hindu word for “temple guard”. Perhaps that could be a good name for a class.
And I think it would be an excellent setting for “mind magic”.
Again thank you for taking the time to answer my post.
The easiest answer is if you like PSPs, use that system at your table. If the remake of psionics into a more "spell like" system is your thing, then run with that.
Hopefully the announcement that power points are off the table will reduce some of the wars going on through the forums.
No, having one player use pathfinder for his fighter and the other use the combat rules form Mutants and master minds would however be the same as the psion vs wizard rules difference.
They simply do not use the same system,
All other caster use the very same system.
Wether the system used is the same, similar or different has no importance. And since nobody here is Houdini I don't think someone could pretend to define a magic system.
Each new class adds new sub-systems and mechanics, call it powers, spells, psudo-spells or X, just look at the Eidolon mechanic, the Alchemist extracts, etc.,
The point is, would be the new system easy to learn and apply? or would it be a mess? 3 Ed psionics was a mess imo, more complex than previous versions and yet the same problems, but it is just me.
I can see a hybrid happening. Vancian style casters that use a spell point system. They 'normally' cast spells at the minimum level that the spells are cast, Fireball does 5d6 even if the caster is 10th level. But you give some sort of 'pushing' mana to work with, that allows them to cast spells at a higher effective level.
That actually sounds like a very good way to handle a class similar to the sorcerer. I'll have to look in on it for play balance, don't want a nerf caster class.
Check out the HypertextD20 system (and, NO! I can't do hyperlinks. too darn old) for a system that works. I switched to it years ago and it works quite well.
One of my two biggest problems with the Canon, or 'Vancian', system is the whole 'fire and forget' mechanic. I'm into 4 decades of having to explain to people with degrees from top end schools that they somehow 'forgot' particle physics, derivative functions or electrical schematics (paraphrase, if you will), just because they used them. BTW, try to NEVER run a group where EVERY player has more degrees than you.
The other problem is more in the style of play. Canon allows the GM to tightly control the magic's usefulness. Bad GMs can render the casters useless by glancing over the spells prepared and swapping out monsters. Fire Balls? Pull the Frost Giant out and send in the Fire Giant. Once you've drawn the Fire ball, you can send in Frostie. Don't think this happens? Care to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
I much prefer players to make my game interesting and keep me off balance. Some of my best games have been derailed early, with players happily running amuck for hours.
Just my 2 cp...
Was thinking of a mana system for spells. But could also be used for Psi.
Ability bonus +1 per level.
say you use wisdom with a +2 bonus as the ability.
At 5th level you would have 7 points to spend
At 15th level you would have 17 points to spend.
1st level spell cost 1 point
3rd level spell cost 3 points
6th level spell cost 6 points.
9th level spell cost 9 points.
Advantage: Easy to cast low level spells more freely and more often
Disadvantage: Can not cast as many higher level spells as the Vatican system and if you do, you use up your points pool for the day.
So the 18th caster with 20 points, could cast 20 first level spells or 2 9th level spells & one 2nd level spell for the day.
Points are regained at: 2 points for one hour of sleep, 1 point for one hour of meditation.
Anyway just an idea i had.
|
I can see a hybrid happening. Vancian style casters that use a spell point system. They 'normally' cast spells at the minimum level that the spells are cast, Fireball does 5d6 even if the caster is 10th level. But you give some sort of 'pushing' mana to work with, that allows them to cast spells at a higher effective level.
That actually sounds like a very good way to handle a class similar to the sorcerer. I'll have to look in on it for play balance, don't want a nerf caster class.
Check out the HypertextD20 system (and, NO! I can't do hyperlinks. too darn old) for a system that works. I switched to it years ago and it works quite well.
Here's the link (Spell Points).
I used it myself in a short-lived campaign. A hassle to use when used to Vancian magic but ultimately provides more flexibility.
So it seems my original intent of this thread was lost. I didn't want a discussion of psionics and what rules they should use. Nor did I want a discussion about having multiple rule sets in one game system. I wanted people's opinions of the game mechanics themselves. As in, if ALL MAGIC (arcane, divine, psionic, prepared and spontaneous) used vancian, or mana, or spell seeds and factors (from the Epic Level handbook) or some other system from some other RPG. Which are magic systems you like and which are magic systems you dislike and why?
Though to the people who did respond with statements along the lines of "the problem with power points is that there is already a different system in place to accomplish the same thing", thank you for staying on subject. I agree, that is a problem with power points if they are tacked on to a game with a different magic system.
Which system is best depends on what you are trying to accomplish and how magic is supposed to work in that gameworld.
Some questions to ask are:1.How powerful is it?
2.How hard is it to become a magic user?
3.How hard is it to control magic? aka Could bad things happen such as the mishaps that can happen with a scroll in Pathfinder/D&D
4.What is the likelihood of a spell going off successfully when disturbed(stressful situation) or when at peace.
I am sure there are other factors, but all these things should be accounted for. Once you figure all of that out you select/create a system to use.
|
Since this is Paizo likely stance, I guess it's over for 3.5 psionics.
Mind magic is a crappy name. Better to use mysticism instead. I'd rather use the psionics name. In the end, I rather have the name of psionics, than the mechanic.
I couldn't be happier that 3.5 psionics is now done as a Pathfinder possibility. And I want to see the name and flavor of psionics stay much more than I want the mechanics from the old game to stick around.
Jeremy Puckett
Psychic handbook, or Pathfinder Psychic Guide both sound like a good way to keep the link to Psionics clear but call back a more pulpy and less sci-fi feel.
Mysticism is also a good name.
I'll post this here as well since these psionic threads are all seemingly heading in the same direction..
.
..
...
....
.....The pain...
...the power point system doesn't accurately represent psychic powers.
The vancian system is the best system for representing psychic powers.
Every psychic knows that you can only store a finite number of mental constructs within your mindscape before you penal gland fries.
..and every psychic knows that those not born with the mercurial mindsets required to draw forth mental constructs on the fly require time and study to prepare such mental constructs ahead of time.
..and every psychic knows that such mental constructs are layered deep within the subconscious mind, ready to be drawn forth when needed, accessed by combining the appropriate anchoring techniques.
..
I know this to be true because I do indeed have AWESOME PSYCHIC POWERS.
*shakes fist*
You could kind of combine the two.
WAIT!
See, power points let you power up spells differently, right? So say you have a pool of points that you can turn into spell slots when preparing a spell, with bigger ones costing more points. That way you could play a high level psion as a healer of the common folk who decided today he would prepare 40 castings of cure light wounds, or as a man on the edge with 5 really powerful spells but nothing else aside from some "leftover" spells.
Add a couple class abilities to allow for some limited spontaneous conversion, and we're done.
I think there are pros and cons to both systems.
I've found that the Vancian system to stretch my suspension of disbelief at times with the "forgetting cast spells" but I've been using it since the Red Box so I've gotten over that. I think that the system reguires more strategy to use for spell prep (a pro in my book at least), has the potential to out last a spell point system since you can't just keep throwing your big spells, and provides a bit more definition Spontanious and Spell Prep Casters the an SPS, IMHO. It's not as flexible and isn't as friendly to metamagic.
An SPS is closer to what I'd want to do if I had magic, though vancian is far from the bottom of that list. A SPS is more flexible, friendlier to meta magic (I think I'd always take Still and Silent Spell), and gives you other options to work with. For instance I might take out Wands but provide matrixs for storing Spell Points and Foci to reduce the cost of specific spells. On the other hand SPS tend to make certain spells your hammer and removes some of the creativity of using the spells you have memorized creatively. It also makes it easier to blow through your potential faster and I think it blurs the line between Spontaneous and Spell Prep.
Both can be useful depending on what you want your game to be like.
|
Not that I am for or against Mana vs. Vancian but here is a thought.
What if a spell cost a number of Mana points equal to the caster level required to cast the spell, then on scaling spells that use ramping caster level to increase effects you could add or subtract from the base to scale the spell? You could cast a fireball for 5 mana points and either scale it up to 10d6 by adding 5MP(10 total) to increase the damage or you could scale it back to conserve points and cast a 2d6 fireball that costs 2 MP. It would be easy to figure out points for classes by just breaking down the spells per level chart into MPs.
Then you just add in some metamagic stuff at certain costs once the feat is taken and it should be a fairly decent system....
I would still make wizzos pick a certain number of spells that they can cast a day through preparation but they could adjust them on the fly and such (like prepping a fireball but when cast you can scale it up on the fly).
Anyway just my thought and how I would go at executing it.
No, having one player use pathfinder for his fighter and the other use the combat rules form Mutants and master minds would however be the same as the psion vs wizard rules difference.
I think this statement ignores the fact that the 3.5 psionics rules were specifically written to work alongside the core casters, and in my experience do so very well.
IMO, good that Paizo is staying away from Psionics. Let Dreamscarred do what they specialize in and what OGL lets them do. Hopefully by the time Paizo is even thinking about making a decision on Psionics the Dreamscarred material will have plugged that hole and it will have become an accepted default choice.
Yes, this seems the best idea and the best way to keep everybody happy. Those that favour the 'vancian' system can take the Pathfinder mind-magic system, those that like the 3.5 psionics can use DSP's Pathfinder upgrade, and some will doubtless use both.
I agree with James Jacobs that the names of some of the classes in 3.5 is ... well ... crap. I think you could happily rename:
Psion = Mystic
Wilder = Savant
The soulknife and the psychic warrior are OK.
No, having one player use pathfinder for his fighter and the other use the combat rules form Mutants and master minds would however be the same as the psion vs wizard rules difference.I think this statement ignores the fact that the 3.5 psionics rules were specifically written to work alongside the core casters, and in my experience do so very well.
No it doesn't, but it does not change the fact it was a different rule set. The XPH might have well been for a different version of the d20 system. It was a d20 book but did not use all of the core d20 rules.
It was a new rule set for casters. Which is vastly different then you trying to claim 2 classes who use the very same combat rule set are using 2 different rule sets
You mean its dead in the way 3.5 is dead? <grin>
In all honesty, it's not a bad way to do it as Paizo have said, they have no experts on the psionics system on staff. DSP however make it their speciality, so yes, let them do a PP system for those that want it, and Paizo do a different magic system for their own uses.
...of psionics as a flavor of power, then I feel absolutely confident that Paizo can deliver to you a psionics solution you'll enjoy. If you're a fan of the point system, I'm confident you'll be disappointed.
Okay. Thanks for the heads-up. I love when someone has a clear vision for the product and goes for it! Unfortunately, PFRPG seems to be veering too much towards 'sameness for the sake of approachability' for me. But I understand the commercial reasons for it, as it appears that plenty of people have a preference for that.
I felt that keeping the Vancian system of magic was understandable for the initial roll-out, but was hoping that Paizo would be a little more bold as time went on. It's clear now that we have pretty much what we are going to have, and that any additions to the system will be more cosmetic (I think the term used was 'fluff') than structural going forward.
The stories are still pretty good, so I'll just have to learn to convert the mechanics in the APs once I figure out the right rule system.
I do appreciate the honesty, however. Better to start to adjust than continue to invest in a mechanics I'm not going to be happy with in the long run.
I think the appropriate song quote is "...no longer lend your strength to that which you wish to be free from."
Creative Director
|
Okay. Thanks for the heads-up. I love when someone has a clear vision for the product and goes for it! Unfortunately, PFRPG seems to be veering too much towards 'sameness for the sake of approachability' for me. But I understand the commercial reasons for it, as it appears that plenty of people have a preference for that.
It's not just a commercial reason though... it's that we at Paizo actually prefer the current Vancian system (be it prepare spells or spontaneously cast spells) for spellcasting. It's just "more fun" for us, and developing a system of rules that isn't something we're passionate about is something I'd like to see Paizo avoid. And it sounds like there's a lot of folks who agree with that opinion.
Hopefully, by using different but similar terminology (Psychic magic is one of my current favorites), we can get something worked up so that folks who prefer the 3.5 rules can still easily use those rules in a Pathfinder game. And since those 3.5 rules and Pathfinder are both open systems, if the market needs a Pathfinder version of the power point system of psionics, I'm pretty confident one will eventually appear. It just probably won't be from Paizo.
It's not just a commercial reason though... it's that we at Paizo actually prefer the current Vancian system (be it prepare spells or spontaneously cast spells) for spellcasting. It's just "more fun" for us, and developing a system of rules that isn't something we're passionate about is something I'd like to see Paizo avoid. And it sounds like there's a lot of folks who agree with that opinion.
That's cool. I have responsibility for product development at a company and have had years of evidence that developers make better products when they are personally passionate about them. So I think that makes perfect sense and is the right direction for Paizo to take.
And as I said, I think it's great that you have been up-front about where you are heading. Then there's less chance of growing frustration when unrealistic expectations aren't met. Instead, those people can enjoy all of the other very strong content and find a system that suits their personal fancies.
|
|
Hopefully, by using different but similar terminology (Psychic magic is one of my current favorites), we can get something worked up so that folks who prefer the 3.5 rules can still easily use those rules in a Pathfinder game. And since those 3.5 rules and Pathfinder are both open systems, if the market needs a Pathfinder version of the power point system of psionics, I'm pretty confident one will eventually appear. It just probably won't be from Paizo.
I've said it before. I will say it again. I would love to see psionics covered as "just another branch of magic" and then later a "how to do magic using power points" book. That way, mages can use power points too, and the people who hate Vance can drop the spell preparation, and Psionics still fits either way.
Desna knows how you'd balance it though ;)
It's not just a commercial reason though... it's that we at Paizo actually prefer the current Vancian system (be it prepare spells or spontaneously cast spells) for spellcasting. It's just "more fun" for us, and developing a system of rules that isn't something we're passionate about is something I'd like to see Paizo avoid. And it sounds like there's a lot of folks who agree with that opinion.
Definitely there is no bigger way of annoying people and making a hash of something they are passionate about than if you aren't, in that respect.
Hopefully, by using different but similar terminology (Psychic magic is one of my current favorites), we can get something worked up so that folks who prefer the 3.5 rules can still easily use those rules in a Pathfinder game. And since those 3.5 rules and Pathfinder are both open systems, if the market needs a Pathfinder version of the power point system of psionics, I'm pretty confident one will eventually appear. It just probably won't be from Paizo.
This definitely the best of both worlds as far as I am concerned. Dreamscarred are passionate about psionics, and their work is pretty good so far from what I have seen and been involved with. My only regret is that there will not a be a place for that system in Golarian unless it is made by the DM, but on the plus side there are a LOT of settings like Eberron that are 'psionics friendly' and for which there is a wealth of material, so I can hardly complain!
I think you guys have made the best decision in that respect - not the least because it lays to rest a contentious issue on these boards ;)
|
|
Just a thought im throwing out there. There is a lot of talk of dislike of certain aspects of pnp games as being "to video gamey" for their tastes. The power point/mana system is by far the most common system used in video games dealing with magic. Discuss.
I don't think that power points is too "video gamey" simply because it didn't arise specifically due to video games, it arose because it is simply the most intuitive way to represent a magic user getting tired as they cast spells.
To me the vancian system feels extremely artificial. Instead of being an artist who directs force as they need it, it's like a soldier with different types of grenades and a belt that can only hold 5. Sure, the latter does have plausible explanations, but the former is much more interesting as a game system and (to me) more accurately models the common vision of a magician. I simply can't see merlin saying "Sorry, I only prepared polymorph 3 times today."
Which system works definitely varies based on your vision of how magic works in the setting, which is why I'm not so much opposed to vancian magic as I am preferring point systems.
That said, I'm still working on making a power point system that actually works without unbalancing the game :)
I am sure Paizo will come up with excellently written flavor or “Fluff”. May I suggest a compromise? Don’t bother calling the “Psionic” materiel “psionic”. Call it Vudrani, call it Castrovali, Just don't call it psioinics. Say it is a magical tradition they have developed over thousands of years, and is “unique” to their civilization. This way you can introduce some new materials, and avoid upsetting us vocal psionic fans.This is actually a route we are VERY strongly considering. For sure, we won't be updating the psion or the soulknife classes. First, if we change the way psionics work, those classes would have to change so much that they'd be too different. Second (and more important to me) I want our "psionic" classes to be identifiable by their names by ANYONE. You ask a fan of fantasy genre what a "soulknife" or a "wilder" is and they won't know unless they just happen to be 3.5 psionics fans. It's MUCH better to do new psionic classes that are themed on concepts that already exist in mythology or popular culture. Classes with names like "Pyrokineticist" or "Mesmerist" or "Fakir" or "Telepath" or "Telekinetic" or "Spiritualist" are MUCH stronger base class concepts to support psionic rules.
Or whatever we call them. Something like "mind magic" or whatever. Something that gets across the point that it's the same TYPE of thing as psionics, but by not calling them psionics we:
a) Avoid the stigma that its a science fiction element invading a fantasy game.
b) Don't "overwrite" the psionic concepts in 3.5's psionic rules, so that someone who wants to use those rules converted to Pathfinder RPG (perhaps using some new 3rd party supplement from the future, who knows?) they don't feel like they're some sort of rules outlaw.
Now right there I find real troubling because then psionics just becomes a form of magic and not a biological ability. Psionics has it's roots in science fiction and often it was explained as a biological ability instead of a supernatural one.
In most of the classic science fiction books where Espers originally got their start only a few individuals would get the power and then it was really random on how it would manifest it's self. Often the power was just as dangerous to themselves as to others because it was very hard to control.
In the movie Scanners they gave a lovely explanation about how the mind powers of the Scanners had to deal with with the nervous system and how they could arc their nerve impulses over a great distance. If anyone is a follower of the history of Nikola Tesla you would see the logic in how this would be plausible.
Personally I would like to see it more like wild talents in which you only have a chance to have some kind of psionic ability because you are born with it.
In AD&D you either had psionic ability or you didn't. Only some creatures had it at all and it was a feared ability. In Dark Sun it was a means to help the players versus environment versus everything else in a world of low magic and technology.
By saying it is a supernatural ability you are just creating another form of magic. I would find this insulting to the history of psionics or also known as ESP because this is where it started. It would also open up a new can of worms because if it caught on that psionics was magic instead of biology then this would cause future arguments in the future.
I find the questions regarding Dreamscarred's products and if DMs will "allow" it to be odd. Or rather, I find it odd that DMs would just deny third party products, since Pathfinder isn't exactly WotC material to begin with ;p
I find the questions regarding Dreamscarred's products and if DMs will "allow" it to be odd. Or rather, I find it odd that DMs would just deny third party products, since Pathfinder isn't exactly WotC material to begin with ;p
What does WotC have to do with this?
I find it odd that some random guy on an Internet message board is concerned about how some anonymous GM some where in the world is running his game.
Don't knock it, you may end up in a game with someone you have never met before at some time - people move around, after all, and there are games here on the boards people join.
As a DM I was always wary of 3pps, because you never quite knew what you were getting. There is a lot of stuff out there, and some is very good ... and some really isn't. I have to admit, though, that since I was dragged over to Paizo I have become a lot more open-minded - my only concern is the sheer volume of material out there.
I find the questions regarding Dreamscarred's products and if DMs will "allow" it to be odd. Or rather, I find it odd that DMs would just deny third party products, since Pathfinder isn't exactly WotC material to begin with ;p
It does happen, believe me. Moreover, you can't use DSP's book in PFS, so...yeah...
I find the questions regarding Dreamscarred's products and if DMs will "allow" it to be odd. Or rather, I find it odd that DMs would just deny third party products, since Pathfinder isn't exactly WotC material to begin with ;p
I would not allow the DSP book. I have allowed the XPH and may still do so in some games but will not be allowing the DSP book.
I normly do not allow 33P books in pathfinder games, nor do I allow just anything Paizo makes. I am careful in what I allow in and I dislike the DSP stuff so will not be allowing it.
I would not allow the DSP book. I have allowed the XPH and may still do so in some games but will not be allowing the DSP book.
I normly do not allow 33P books in pathfinder games, nor do I allow just anything Paizo makes. I am careful in what I allow in and I dislike the DSP stuff so will not be allowing it.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm as supportive of a GM allowing a book as I am of a GM banning a book. Whether or not it's 3pp isn't a factor.
These are both fair comments - any DM has the right of refusing any material they choose, even core material. I for one will be glad to have a book I can hold up and ask the question of, and know that it won't clash with 'official' material.
I find the questions regarding Dreamscarred's products and if DMs will "allow" it to be odd. Or rather, I find it odd that DMs would just deny third party products, since Pathfinder isn't exactly WotC material to begin with ;pWhat does WotC have to do with this?
Much - if not all - of the backlash against 3rd party was that they weren't "official" WotC products.
Ironically, most of the truly overpowered stuff was completely "official."
I just find it odd that people carry that belief of "3rd party = bad" into Pathfinder - since Paizo was 3rd party themselves.
I find the questions regarding Dreamscarred's products and if DMs will "allow" it to be odd. Or rather, I find it odd that DMs would just deny third party products, since Pathfinder isn't exactly WotC material to begin with ;pWhat does WotC have to do with this?Much - if not all - of the backlash against 3rd party was that they weren't "official" WotC products.
Ironically, most of the truly overpowered stuff was completely "official."
I just find it odd that people carry that belief of "3rd party = bad" into Pathfinder - since Paizo was 3rd party themselves.
Yeah but a lot of Pathfinder's player base are presumably folks who jumped WoTC's ship when 4th ed came out and now Paizo is the new WoTC.
WotC used to be kind of 3rd party as well until they bought out D&D from TSR, who was the former "big kid" on the block.
