Class bloat, yup it's happening and I hate it


Product Discussion

501 to 550 of 731 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

GeraintElberion wrote:

Council of Thieves Players Guide: The structure is poor, the writing on the Westcrown Environs section is really weak, there is a trait which, if a player takes the fluff seriously, excludes the player from the AP.

Relationship between RPG and Adventures: the CoT players guide was delayed due to the Core RPG putting pressure on release dates. My inference from staff comments and the quality change is that overworked staff juggling RPG and Adventure stuff chose to prioritise the RPG stuff, leaving us with a sub-standard Player's Guide.

Fundamentally Paizo has gone from being a company with the sole focus of producing awesome adventures, to a company with the split focus of producing awesome adventures and an awesome RPG.

There's a fair amount of truth in those words. That said... I hope that the APs we've done SINCE Council of Thieves have shown that we're back on track doing adventure paths that don't have as many problems... Kingmaker and Serpent's Skull certainly SEEM to be pretty popular so far.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Also... tired of the bickering, so I removed some posts. Cut it out! (You know who you are.)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some older posts.


James Jacobs wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

Council of Thieves Players Guide: The structure is poor, the writing on the Westcrown Environs section is really weak, there is a trait which, if a player takes the fluff seriously, excludes the player from the AP.

Relationship between RPG and Adventures: the CoT players guide was delayed due to the Core RPG putting pressure on release dates. My inference from staff comments and the quality change is that overworked staff juggling RPG and Adventure stuff chose to prioritise the RPG stuff, leaving us with a sub-standard Player's Guide.

Fundamentally Paizo has gone from being a company with the sole focus of producing awesome adventures, to a company with the split focus of producing awesome adventures and an awesome RPG.

There's a fair amount of truth in those words. That said... I hope that the APs we've done SINCE Council of Thieves have shown that we're back on track doing adventure paths that don't have as many problems... Kingmaker and Serpent's Skull certainly SEEM to be pretty popular so far.

I'd like to try Kingmaker but at the rate we are going, I am expecting to finish Rise of the Runelords some time in 2015.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Class bloat is a misnomer and misplaced focus. The real problem is lack of support for any new classes or mechanics introduced.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that class bloat is fully a misnomer. 3.X had 175 base classes and 782 prestige classes (yes, Cartigan, I know, some of them are redundant). That's gotta be considered bloat even if you did somehow manage to provide support to all of them.

Not inherently. If all those classes had been properly playtested, balanced to the best of the dev team's ability, and were not forgotten in future books, that just means that players have lots of options to make precisely the character they want to play.

Now the fact of the matter is, that didn't remotely happen. Classes outside core rarely saw any support beyond the books that introduced them, and if proper playtesting/balancing was going on, the Planar Shepherd would never have been printed in a million years. And it's also true that if all that balancing and support work was going on, there's a good probability that Wizards would have printed fewer classes, simply because they'd be spending significantly more time on each.

But if the class is good, then I say, print it!


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Revan wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Class bloat is a misnomer and misplaced focus. The real problem is lack of support for any new classes or mechanics introduced.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that class bloat is fully a misnomer. 3.X had 175 base classes and 782 prestige classes (yes, Cartigan, I know, some of them are redundant). That's gotta be considered bloat even if you did somehow manage to provide support to all of them.

Not inherently. If all those classes had been properly playtested, balanced to the best of the dev team's ability, and were not forgotten in future books, that just means that players have lots of options to make precisely the character they want to play.

Now the fact of the matter is, that didn't remotely happen. Classes outside core rarely saw any support beyond the books that introduced them, and if proper playtesting/balancing was going on, the Planar Shepherd would never have been printed in a million years. And it's also true that if all that balancing and support work was going on, there's a good probability that Wizards would have printed fewer classes, simply because they'd be spending significantly more time on each.

But if the class is good, then I say, print it!

I actually do agree that one of the reasons we complain about bloat, was because in the past two editions of the game (2e and 3e), more options meant more imbalance. You saw it in 2e with each new red book, jumping the power level of that class or race (except Complete Cleric that sucked, and that was fixed with Faiths and Avatars). 3e did much the same here is a new class/prestige class some are balanced some are not. We have been trained since 2nd edition (at least) to see new options and unbalancing and game breaking.

The trick for Paizo is to break us of this thought process. ;)


Kthulhu wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Class bloat is a misnomer and misplaced focus. The real problem is lack of support for any new classes or mechanics introduced.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that class bloat is fully a misnomer. 3.X had 175 base classes and 782 prestige classes (yes, Cartigan, I know, some of them are redundant). That's gotta be considered bloat even if you did somehow manage to provide support to all of them.

Is that just the WoTC ones or does that include all the 3PP Prestige Classes.

To my Eternal Shame I must admit to owning the Mongoose Prestige Class boks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
DM Wellard wrote:
To my Eternal Shame I must admit to owning the Mongoose Prestige Class boks.

*recoils* Unclean! Unclean!


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DM Wellard wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Class bloat is a misnomer and misplaced focus. The real problem is lack of support for any new classes or mechanics introduced.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that class bloat is fully a misnomer. 3.X had 175 base classes and 782 prestige classes (yes, Cartigan, I know, some of them are redundant). That's gotta be considered bloat even if you did somehow manage to provide support to all of them.

Is that just the WoTC ones or does that include all the 3PP Prestige Classes.

To my Eternal Shame I must admit to owning the Mongoose Prestige Class boks.

I believe that is only the WotC classes.


I say bring on the classes. I love options. If I like them, I allow them. If I don't, I don't.

Shadow Lodge

Revan wrote:
Not inherently. If all those classes had been properly playtested, balanced to the best of the dev team's ability, and were not forgotten in future books, that just means that players have lots of options to make precisely the character they want to play.

With 900+ classes, that's just plain NOT POSSIBLE. Even with WotC's high output during the 3.X era, there's no way to support that many classes. 900+ classes goes beyond bloat.

As for options, I greatly prefer Paizo's approach. A couple of dozen classes, and a lot of room for options WITHIN those classes.


DM Wellard wrote:
To my Eternal Shame I must admit to owning the Mongoose Prestige Class books.

It could be worse...it could be Fast Foward. :P


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Revan wrote:
Not inherently. If all those classes had been properly playtested, balanced to the best of the dev team's ability, and were not forgotten in future books, that just means that players have lots of options to make precisely the character they want to play.

With 900+ classes, that's just plain NOT POSSIBLE. Even with WotC's high output during the 3.X era, there's no way to support that many classes. 900+ classes goes beyond bloat.

As for options, I greatly prefer Paizo's approach. A couple of dozen classes, and a lot of room for options WITHIN those classes.

Hence my admission later in the post you quoted that WotC probably wouldn't have published anywhere near that number of classes if they were actually doing the support and balance work that I called for. But in my view, class bloat, insofar as you can use the term with accuracy, is a consequence, not a cause. If Paizo keeps having good ideas and putting the proper work in on them, then I encourage them to keep publishing those ideas, be they classes, prestige classes, feats, or spells.

Dark Archive

Revan wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Revan wrote:
Not inherently. If all those classes had been properly playtested, balanced to the best of the dev team's ability, and were not forgotten in future books, that just means that players have lots of options to make precisely the character they want to play.

With 900+ classes, that's just plain NOT POSSIBLE. Even with WotC's high output during the 3.X era, there's no way to support that many classes. 900+ classes goes beyond bloat.

As for options, I greatly prefer Paizo's approach. A couple of dozen classes, and a lot of room for options WITHIN those classes.

Hence my admission later in the post you quoted that WotC probably wouldn't have published anywhere near that number of classes if they were actually doing the support and balance work that I called for. But in my view, class bloat, insofar as you can use the term with accuracy, is a consequence, not a cause. If Paizo keeps having good ideas and putting the proper work in on them, then I encourage them to keep publishing those ideas, be they classes, prestige classes, feats, or spells.

I agree with Revan, in that I don't think class bloat is a issue. IF and it's a big IF, the classes are well thought out, well play tested and fill a role or niche well and are balanced with the rest of the existing classes. So as long as Paizo keeps up a slow steady pace of new classes I am all for it.


W E Ray wrote:

I have to agree with the OP.

When I got the e-mail about the new book coming in August I shook my head and thought, Wow, something that just sounds like utter crap, something I would never buy.

I'm with Ray and the OP. When 3.5 ended, I had a bookshelf full of crap that I barely used. It was cool then, but when WotC announced 4e, I thought, "this time, I am sticking with my Pathfinder subscription and the three essential books." - Of course that was before Wizards mutilated the game I had been playing for 20+ years, and Paizo basically inherited the D&D legacy, but that is beside the point.

When Pathfinder was released, I stuck with the same philosophy. The game is better (IMO) when you are only building characters out of a couple of books. The APG was awesome, and I like the six new classes that are in it. Then there came the Magus, which kind of made me feel a little, errg... Now 3 more are announced, and I am like, really, Errg...

There comes a point when there is too many base classes, too many feats, and yes, even too many monsters (lets face it, beyond 3 monster books in any edition and you are just getting desperate for crap to fill the pages.)

Keep the game simple, and just give us good content to actually run it (adventures, locations, flip mats, minis, regional sourcebooks). I want as few rulebooks at my table as possible, and with each new release I have players showing up with more and more insane character concepts. Stuff that I have to constantly veto, (or plot to murder through unscrupulous DM practices).

I guess what I am saying is, please don't go down this road, I already have about 30 some odd books that I have been meaning to drop on ebay, none of which are Paizo (and I would like to keep it that way)...


Drawmij's_Heir wrote:
(lets face it, beyond 3 monster books in any edition and you are just getting desperate for crap to fill the pages.)

You could fill 3 books with just mundane animals, insects, and mythological creatures.

Quote:
I guess what I am saying is, please don't go down this road, I already have about 30 some odd books that I have been meaning to drop on ebay, none of which are Paizo (and I would like to keep it that way)...

If their profit margin on big rulebooks is better than odd setting specific books or APs, then you are going to NEVER stop seeing them. You people can just get over yourselves - the company is going to do whatever makes them the most money and keeps everyone working their full-time employed. And that may include inundating the market with primary rulebooks like the APG and Bestiary 2.

Quote:
Keep the game simple, and just give us good content to actually run it (adventures, locations, flip mats, minis, regional sourcebooks). I want as few rulebooks at my table as possible, and with each new release I have players showing up with more and more insane character concepts. Stuff that I have to constantly veto, (or plot to murder through unscrupulous DM practices).

Yeah, I mean god forbid if choices are provided to players that aren't overpowered.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Drawmij's_Heir wrote:


Keep the game simple, and just give us good content to actually run it (adventures, locations, flip mats, minis, regional sourcebooks). I want as few rulebooks at my table as possible, and with each new release I have players showing up with more and more insane character concepts. Stuff that I have to constantly veto, (or plot to murder through unscrupulous DM practices).

I guess what I am saying is, please don't go down this road, I already have about 30 some odd books that I have been meaning to drop on ebay, none of which are Paizo (and I would like to keep it that way)...

Wow, that's pretty darn arrogant. I had not realized that your table was the master table of all RPGdom and only your desires as GM count. Your players desires are secondary, and all the rest of us out here can go suck on rotten eggs apparently.

Wait, I have an idea! Now hold on to your socks, this is pretty radical. It might actually start a flame war when I post it, so I'm going to spoiler it to cut down on those chances. (Actually, kind of nervous to even post it at all, it's so radical).

Idea:

If you don't want anything other than the Core rule book & APG at your table, then only allow those two books at your table!

I don't understand where this @#$*@#*& idea that if it's out there, you have to allow it at your table or the world comes to an end came from. Don't want it? Don't use it. But telling the company not to publish because it will inconvenience you is pretty @#*@#$& arrogant.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drawmij's_Heir wrote:

When Pathfinder was released, I stuck with the same philosophy. The game is better (IMO) when you are only building characters out of a couple of books. The APG was awesome, and I like the six new classes that are in it. Then there came the Magus, which kind of made me feel a little, errg... Now 3 more are announced, and I am like, really, Errg...

And there are others who were saying Magus...awesome I really wanted this. Crazy I know, but lots of people who buy pathfinder material like new stuff

Quote:

There comes a point when there is too many base classes, too many feats, and yes, even too many monsters (lets face it, beyond 3 monster books in any edition and you are just getting desperate for crap to fill the pages.)

Please explain that to the company who produced the fairly popular (paizo staff reference it all the time) Tome of Horrors with around a thousand monsters in it.

Quote:

Keep the game simple, and just give us good content to actually run it (adventures, locations, flip mats, minis, regional sourcebooks). I want as few rulebooks at my table as possible, and with each new release I have players showing up with more and more insane character concepts. Stuff that I have to constantly veto, (or plot to murder through unscrupulous DM practices).

That would require paizo to ignore a signficant portion of their fanbase that do not use golarion, or dont use it extensively, or write their own adventures. A large portion of the pathfinder rpg community WANT new rulebooks. Just because you have a conflict of style at your table doesnt mean that other members of the community shouldnt get products they want.

Quote:

I guess what I am saying is, please don't go down this road, I already have about 30 some odd books that I have been meaning to drop on ebay, none of which are Paizo (and I would like to keep it that way)...

And what I am saying is learn to respect what other people want and not just what you want. Just because it isn't something you want doesnt mean it shouldn't exist. And if new rulebooks cause conflict at your table then its about time to have a conversation about play style and what you want out of your game with your players, and you know come to some kind of consensus as a group and as friends. If you cant do that, it isnt the new rulebooks that is the problem.


Kolokotroni wrote:


Please explain that to the company who produced the fairly popular (paizo staff reference it all the time) Tome of Horrors with around a thousand monsters in it.

You know, I'm pretty sure I could fill a bestiary with just animals. Maybe pad it with extinct ones if necessary. Then another with just mythological creatures - not including classic made up D&D creatures like Owlbears.

That's two books where I didn't make anything up right there.


mdt wrote:

If you don't want anything other than the Core rule book & APG at your table, then only allow those two books at your table!

I don't understand where this @#$*@#*& idea that if it's out there, you have to allow it at your table or the world comes to an end came from. Don't want it? Don't use it. But telling the company not to publish because it will inconvenience you is pretty @#*@#$& arrogant.

Oh, somebody's cranky.

Maybe you need a nap.

I agree that people shouldn't get combative about added material, but if you voice an opinion with an OP like this it is completely ok.

Also, I think people are always looking at this from the eyes of the DM. Look at from the player's perspective.

What's that? We are going to introduce these new rules into the current campaign that we've invested 6 weeks of gaming on? John is going to multiclass his 5th level monk into a Gunslinger because he likes the class?

If the player thinks that guns ruin the fantasy part of paladins and dragons he is out of luck and may lose interest in the game, at which point he may withdraw. Our DM withdrew because the rules got too complicated. We are now trying to continue the same campaign with another DM.

Try to open your eyes to the player's perspective too.


Raging Hobbit wrote:

Oh, somebody's cranky.

Maybe you need a nap.

I agree that people shouldn't get combative about added material, but if you voice an opinion with an OP like this it is completely ok.

Also, I think people are always looking at this from the eyes of the DM. Look at from the player's perspective.

What's that? We are going to introduce these new rules into the current campaign that we've invested 6 weeks of gaming on? John is going to multiclass his 5th level monk into a Gunslinger because he likes the class?

If the player thinks that guns ruin the fantasy part of paladins and dragons he is out of luck and may lose interest in the game, at which point he may withdraw. Our DM withdrew because the rules got too complicated. We are now trying to continue the same campaign with another DM.

Try to open your eyes to the player's perspective too.

Lolwhat? Another player QUITS THE GAME because a DIFFERENT PLAYER decides to use rules of the game Player A doesn't like? Good riddance then. I doubt Players B, C, and D want to play with drama queen control freak A.


I often wonder how many people who posit theorems on group interaction on these boards are ACTUALLY PLAYING IN A GAME. in a group of people, in real life, as a collaborative effort.

Yes, people will leave games over immersion breaking reasons. It is not a group of prima-donnas who indulge in their own adolescent power fantasies smashed together for no apparent reason; it's a group of people working together for a group enjoyment. This requires cohesion. The more random elements you introduce into that; in the form of new rules and options; the more difficult it will be to achieve that cohesion.

Opting to not use those rules can also produce problems for players with a sense of entitlement of purchase; which has been addressed before.

On top of that, as a basic design principle in anything; variety is the natural enemy of balance. There comes a point in any system where an acceptable equilibrium is reached for any given individual in that regard. The backlash that seems to be going on; in my opinion is rooted in the perception this goes beyond their personal equilibrium.

-Idle


Cartigan wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


Please explain that to the company who produced the fairly popular (paizo staff reference it all the time) Tome of Horrors with around a thousand monsters in it.

You know, I'm pretty sure I could fill a bestiary with just animals. Maybe pad it with extinct ones if necessary. Then another with just mythological creatures - not including classic made up D&D creatures like Owlbears.

That's two books where I didn't make anything up right there.

I think that think to fill a single bok only with the creatures of all mythologies is preposterous.

This making even more yur point, 'though.


IdleMind wrote:


Yes, people will leave games over immersion breaking reasons. It is not a group of prima-donnas who indulge in their own adolescent power fantasies smashed together for no apparent reason; it's a group of people working together for a group enjoyment. This requires cohesion. The more random elements you introduce into that; in the form of new rules and options; the more difficult it will be to achieve that cohesion.

Opting to not use those rules can also produce problems for players with a sense of entitlement of purchase; which has been addressed before.

Really? People who want to play characters that they want to play how they want to play them with DM blessing have entitlement issues. But people who want OTHER people to play characters according to THEIR OWN personal whimsy are NOT prima donnas nor any other sort of problematic player?

So how many games have you left because other players wouldn't bow to your demands?


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


Please explain that to the company who produced the fairly popular (paizo staff reference it all the time) Tome of Horrors with around a thousand monsters in it.

You know, I'm pretty sure I could fill a bestiary with just animals. Maybe pad it with extinct ones if necessary. Then another with just mythological creatures - not including classic made up D&D creatures like Owlbears.

That's two books where I didn't make anything up right there.

I think that think to fill a single bok only with the creatures of all mythologies is preposterous.

This making even more yur point, 'though.

Preposterous how?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cartigan wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


Please explain that to the company who produced the fairly popular (paizo staff reference it all the time) Tome of Horrors with around a thousand monsters in it.

You know, I'm pretty sure I could fill a bestiary with just animals. Maybe pad it with extinct ones if necessary. Then another with just mythological creatures - not including classic made up D&D creatures like Owlbears.

That's two books where I didn't make anything up right there.

I think that think to fill a single bok only with the creatures of all mythologies is preposterous.

This making even more yur point, 'though.

Preposterous how?

I believe he meant it wouldnt all fit in a single book.


Cartigan wrote:


Really? People who want to play characters that they want to play how they want to play them with DM blessing have entitlement issues. But people who want OTHER people to play characters according to THEIR OWN personal whimsy are NOT prima donnas nor any other sort of problematic player?

So how many games have you left because other players wouldn't bow to your demands?

The problem here is you see to think that the players vision of what he wants is the be-all end all factor in having playing the game. This also implies that is how the game is "fun".

I'm sorry, it's a group activity.

When I play in games; I try to figure out what the aesthetic the group is going for is; and conceptualize a character within that framework. Blasphemy; I know. I should salivating while fantasizing to some idea of what *I* want to play without consideration to the other X number of people playing in the game. Me Me Me Me Me!!!!

-Idle


Kolokotroni wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


Please explain that to the company who produced the fairly popular (paizo staff reference it all the time) Tome of Horrors with around a thousand monsters in it.

You know, I'm pretty sure I could fill a bestiary with just animals. Maybe pad it with extinct ones if necessary. Then another with just mythological creatures - not including classic made up D&D creatures like Owlbears.

That's two books where I didn't make anything up right there.

I think that think to fill a single bok only with the creatures of all mythologies is preposterous.

This making even more yur point, 'though.

Preposterous how?
I believe he meant it wouldnt all fit in a single book.

Then I could, definitively, fill a book with it.

Dark Archive

I don't know, imo more option/choices really doesn't seem that bad to me. Even if I don't care for them. I just hope they are balanced and are fun to play for whom ever decides to play them.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Cartigan wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


Please explain that to the company who produced the fairly popular (paizo staff reference it all the time) Tome of Horrors with around a thousand monsters in it.

You know, I'm pretty sure I could fill a bestiary with just animals. Maybe pad it with extinct ones if necessary. Then another with just mythological creatures - not including classic made up D&D creatures like Owlbears.

That's two books where I didn't make anything up right there.

I think that think to fill a single bok only with the creatures of all mythologies is preposterous.

This making even more yur point, 'though.

Preposterous how?

That it would ONLY take a single book to fill it was preposterous; which is why he said "This making even more yur [sic] point" - that is, that you were not only right about how many mythological monsters there were, but even more right than you were stating.


IdleMind wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


Really? People who want to play characters that they want to play how they want to play them with DM blessing have entitlement issues. But people who want OTHER people to play characters according to THEIR OWN personal whimsy are NOT prima donnas nor any other sort of problematic player?

So how many games have you left because other players wouldn't bow to your demands?

The problem here is you see to think that the players vision of what he wants is the be-all end all factor in having playing the game. This also implies that is how the game is "fun".

I'm sorry, it's a group activity.

When I play in games; I try to figure out what the aesthetic the group is going for is; and conceptualize a character within that framework. Blasphemy; I know. I should salivating while fantasizing to some idea of what *I* want to play without consideration to the other X number of people playing in the game. Me Me Me Me Me!!!!

-Idle

Player A wants to play X. X was approved by DM. Player B whines and doesn't want X in "his" game. DM already approved it and won't pull it for B and A wants to play it. B quits in a huff.

Jerk, according to IdleMind: Player A

You will excuse me, of course, if I think Player B is the asshat in that scenario. Perhaps you, I mean, Player B shouldn't sit around and demand your interests and wants be met above and beyond anyone else's and if you, I mean, B doesn't like how that group plays, you, I mean, B should find a new group and be thankful no one in his old group actively asked you, I mean, B to leave.


Cartigan wrote:

Player A wants to play X. X was approved by DM. Player B whines and doesn't want X in "his" game. DM already approved it and won't pull it for B and A wants to play it. B quits in a huff.

Jerk, according to IdleMind: Player A

You will excuse me, of course, if I think Player B is the asshat in that scenario. Perhaps you, I mean, Player B shouldn't sit around and demand your interests and wants be met above and beyond anyone else's and if you, I mean, B doesn't like how that group plays, you, I mean, B should find a new group and be thankful no one in his old group actively asked you, I mean, B to leave.

Obviously; if you don't like the aesthetic turns a game takes, you should leave, and I have. You can feel free to imply there was alot of screaming and crying involved if it makes you feel better.

Nobody ever implied that Player B should demand anything; but he is well within his rights to say "this sucks for me, I'll be bowing out."

Also, Poster C, I mean you, feel free to evade the idea that a purchase of an item does not at all correlate in any way to a players desire to see that material used regardless of DM's campaign; and this in and of itself can cause group upheval similar to aesthetic admixtures which put players off due to the constant arrival of "more stuff".


My opinion, and I don't pretend that my opinion is the absolute best, is that class bloat isn't the problem. The problem arises when it becomes power creep. Balanced classes are fine. New classes that have the majority of players screaming to play it instead of whatever it replaces are overpowered. A few players is not overpowered. It is when everybody thinks they need to play it is overpowered.

@Cartigan: Do you ever agree with anybody? Beleive it or not, I am not trying to be argumentative. I am curious. I get the feeling from your posts that you think that the game should be run your way and only your way. So far I haven't seen any posts on any threads that doesn't show this attitude.


IdleMind wrote:
Cartigan wrote:

Player A wants to play X. X was approved by DM. Player B whines and doesn't want X in "his" game. DM already approved it and won't pull it for B and A wants to play it. B quits in a huff.

Jerk, according to IdleMind: Player A

You will excuse me, of course, if I think Player B is the asshat in that scenario. Perhaps you, I mean, Player B shouldn't sit around and demand your interests and wants be met above and beyond anyone else's and if you, I mean, B doesn't like how that group plays, you, I mean, B should find a new group and be thankful no one in his old group actively asked you, I mean, B to leave.

Obviously; if you don't like the aesthetic turns a game takes, you should leave, and I have. You can feel free to imply there was alot of screaming and crying involved if it makes you feel better.

Nobody ever implied that Player B should demand anything; but he is well within his rights to say "this sucks for me, I'll be bowing out."

I am hardly suggesting player B not be allowed to gracefully leave if he doesn't like the game. What I AM arguing against is your repeated assertion that the person who wants to play something that he wants to play and the DM AGREED TO LET HIM PLAY is the selfish jerk and not the player who wants other people to play the game HIS way regardless of anything the DM allows.

Quote:
Also, Poster C, I mean you, feel free to evade the idea that a purchase of an item does not at all correlate in any way to a players desire to see that material used regardless of DM's campaign; and this in and of itself can cause group upheval similar to aesthetic admixtures which put players off due to the constant arrival of "more stuff".

Believe it or not, in EVERY post I made I made the point of saying that the DM allowed Player A to play the something. Player B is NOT THE DM. The DM ALREADY AUTHORIZED Player A's character additions. If Player B was NOT A PLAYER and instead was the DM, then it wouldn't matter. But if it's not his game, he doesn't have the right to piss and moan about what OTHER people are playing.

Shadow Lodge

xorial,

You'll find that there are a handful of people around here that, when you do happen to agree with them, you feel like you need to take a shower. :P


xorial wrote:
@Cartigan: Do you ever agree with anybody? Beleive it or not, I am not trying to be argumentative. I am curious. I get the feeling from your posts that you think that the game should be run your way and only your way.

Really? Because THAT is the exact same impression I got from IdleMind saying that players should all play the way any given player THINKS they should play REGARDLESS of what the DM agrees to.

Presumably, every game all the players will draw straws and whoever gets the longest gets to dictate how everyone else plays that day.

PS. "Believe it or not" I've said this multiple times:

Quote:
My opinion, and I don't pretend that my opinion is the absolute best, is that class bloat isn't the problem. The problem arises when it becomes power creep. Balanced classes are fine.

The rest of that paragraph I don't know where you went with.


Kthulhu wrote:

xorial,

You'll find that there are a handful of people around here that, when you do happen to agree with them, you feel like you need to take a shower. :P

I support gamers of all walks of life showering on a regular basis, not just when something miraculous or unexpected happens.


Cartigan wrote:


I am hardly suggesting player B not be allowed to gracefully leave if he doesn't like the game. What I AM arguing against is your repeated assertion that the person who wants to play something that he wants to play and the DM AGREED TO LET HIM PLAY is the selfish jerk and not the player who wants other people to play the game HIS way regardless of anything the DM allows.

To be completely honest; this may be outside your personal realm of experience but to me that player (and every player) should consider the effect on the group as a whole before making that choice; even when allowed.

I repeat: this is a group activity. We have all these threads about "how to alter the rules to suit group cohesion" and "filling out party roles". Choices you make about your character, believe it or not; have an effect that goes beyond the mechanical on a group.

I'm sure your response will be something of the effect of "I SHOULDNT HAVE TO ASK OTHER PLAYERS PERMISSION WHEN I HAVE THE DMS PERMISSION!" and then you would be completely avoiding the point and reading it how you want to.

Read: Group Activity.

The same reason that in some games we have established characters who have an angle, we discourage other players from treading on it/ruining it with their character choices. The same reason we tend to lean towards a balanced group of players and options, the same reason we think it sucks that rogues get outshined by wizards- because these things are detrimental to the GROUP part of the game.

If your really into the whole "I have permission, screw what the other players think" mentality; your playing the wrong game. Maybe you should play a game that has absolutes in how you win and lose.

-Idle


It being a group activity does not make me beholden to the rest of the group for character creation or development.
Joining the group and being a loner and refusing to fight fights with the group or go along with tactics is being a bad group member. Using a gun when Bob thinks guns don't fit in the game does not make me a bad group member. It makes Bob a drama queen control freak if he gets up and leaves because of it.


Cartigan wrote:
It being a group activity does not make me beholden to the rest of the group for character creation or development.

Were just going to have to agree to disagree then, because clearly we believe different things about how the process works, specifically, this key point.

-Idle


IdleMind wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
It being a group activity does not make me beholden to the rest of the group for character creation or development.

Were just going to have to agree to disagree then, because clearly we believe different things about how the process works, specifically, this key point.

-Idle

Most obviously.


Perhaps it would be worthwhile to create a thread about "should the other players have a direct say about what a new player can play?" and continue there.

I was glad that this thread was more or less constructive at the beginning, but now it seems that it has run its course.

My opinion in "your" debate: it's the GM's (no longer DM ;-) ) job to manage new player character creation. Of course he should take into account what the players want, but they shouldn't directly try to forbid a new player a choice.

So if Player X leaves because player Y plays a class he doesn't like, he should find the fault with the GM, not player Y. If anyone leaves, that's his business. Anger is never good. And as a moderator said "don't post angry", I guess the same counts for leaving a group.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
IdleMind wrote:

To be completely honest; this may be outside your personal realm of experience but to me that player (and every player) should consider the effect on the group as a whole before making that choice; even when allowed.

I repeat: this is a group activity. We have all these threads about "how to alter the rules to suit group cohesion" and "filling out party roles". Choices you make about your character, believe it or not; have an effect that goes beyond the mechanical on a group.

...

If your really into the whole "I have permission, screw what the other players think" mentality; your playing the wrong game. Maybe you should play a game that has absolutes in how you win and lose.

The problem with your supposition is, you're not acting as if it were a group activity. Player A and GM both like the character and are jazzed about it. Player B does not. Your argument is, it's a group activity, A should not play his character.

It is a group activity. However, in your example, it's not. It's B's game. B is unhappy with A and GM, and expects them to change. That's not a group activity.

A group would be :

GM : Ok, A wants to play a Widget, and I as the GM am ok with it. It's new though, so any issues anyone see?

A : Woot! Comeon guys! I really like this Widget class.
B : Gah, f*** me, that's the worst piece of tripe ever, I hate it, don't want it, go f**** yourselves if you want it in the game.
C : Meh, I don't care, it's not my thing, but it's not like I gotta sleep with the Widget or anything.
D : Huh? Nah, I'm fine with it. Chill out B.
E : Who cares, let him play whatever he wants.

GM : Sorry B, looks like Widgets are in.

B : Ah h***, just don't ask me to like it. Ok, where's this Wondrous Widget supposed to show up?

Your example is :

GM : Ok, A wants to play a Widget, and I as the GM am ok with it. It's new though, so any issues anyone see?

A : Woot! Comeon guys! I really like this Widget class.
B : Gah, f*** me, that's the worst piece of tripe ever, I hate it, don't want it, go f**** yourselves if you want it in the game.
C : Meh, I don't care, it's not my thing, but it's not like I gotta sleep with the Widget or anything.
D : Huh? Nah, I'm fine with it. Chill out B.
E : Who cares, let him play whatever he wants.

GM : Sorry B, looks like Widgets are in.

B : If he play's a Widget, I walk, so make your choice, his widget or me.
C : Hey, I don't want to break up the group over this, I'll change my vote against Widgets.
D : Man, why do we have to do this every time something new comes out?
E : I need a new game.
A : Man... I never get to play anything but the cleric...


mdt, I like how you sum it up, it makes me laugh.


lastknightleft wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
But they aren't base classes. You can't make a Rogue/Ninja or a Cavalier/Samurai.
I'm seeing the difference now, between an alternate class and a base class, and why their so similar to existing classes. I still don't like it. alternate class is still a base class, just one that is eerily similar to another class. I still say they should just make them archtypes instead of full 20 level progression "alternates"

The only thing I agree with on this thread. I don't care for Alternate Classes, as I've called them before, they're "half-ass classes". Either go full class or go archetype, I hate this middle-ground crap.

I personally believe the 3 SHOULD be new classes, though, because I love new classes. I also love new prestige classes which is a sentiment, sadly, that Paizo doesn't share :(


From how the current Samurai is written, it could be an archetype. But I think the Ninja is being pigeonholed and the Gunslinger.. I just don't know about the Gunslinger.


I think what it all boils down to is when a campaign, or adventure path begins, everyone needs to decide what rule books you are going to allow, including monsters and classes. Afterwards, everyone will need to agree on how to address new content, and be honest with the group if you must buy everything that is released and expect to use it, or if you refuse to accept new material.

The only other downside to new monsters or classes, is if an adventure is released that includes a new one, which may force you to buy a new book. But that is expected in order for a company to continue to sell new products.

I think those are the lessons everyone learned from 3.5. Why would it change with any other game?


Cartigan wrote:


Preposterous how?

Other people already explained. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Or, Cartigan, you weren't prepared at the idea of me agreeing with you?:D

501 to 550 of 731 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Class bloat, yup it's happening and I hate it All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.