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


Product Discussion

551 to 600 of 731 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


Preposterous how?

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

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

I was just confused with how you were using preposterous given the the sentence that followed it.


I'm not gonna bother quoting all that hyperbole, mdt.

Your making presumptions on the nature of these fictitious players that I did not. My statement is that if Player B wants to walk, he's well within his rights to walk. He shouldn't be a jerk about it if he chooses to do so. If you don't like the way a game is going; you always have the right to walk.

In the example YOU supposed; if the DM and 4/5 players don't mind and the 5th player is so vehemently against it that it ruins his fun; yes he should walk- without being a dick. That is rule by group.

In another example, if 1/2 the players were opposed and the GM allowed it; it creates a different dynamic.

In another example, if 2/3 were opposed and the GM allowed it; it creaed another dynamic.

The point is; the group is always the final arbiter in essence. The game must be played with others by its very nature; so a certain level of acceptance all around must be catered to; not just to the DM. Not fair? Probably not- but it is the reality of how people function in a group activity.

-Idle


Except the group isn't the arbiter. The DM is.


Razz wrote:
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.

+1

these new rules would be great builds(except the gunslinger), but not new classes , or half-classes or alternate...whatever they are called. They could easily be built into the current game structure. A new name or framework ("Alternate Class") is not necessary.


Did I miss anything by skipping pages 2-10?

I can't really add anything to what's already been said (well, not anything *useful* that is). Vote with your dollars, vote with your GM permissions on what you allow. I like choices and support well-thought-out, well-tested. well-SUPPORTED classes. I also happen to prefer class tookboxes (if you will) so that I can tailor my class how I want (dump a Rogue's sneak-attack ability in favor of something more acrobatic or trappy, frex).

As long as Paizo turns out high quality products, I'll cheer them on and do what I can to support them, buying what I like and can use and passing on the rest. Actively seeking input from their customer-base and then delivering the highest possibly quality product is a win in my book.


Cartigan wrote:
Except the group isn't the arbiter. The DM is.

In a fantasy-land where RAW is the only rule, and human nature and other relevant factors never come into play; yes the DM is the arbiter.

-Idle


IdleMind wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Except the group isn't the arbiter. The DM is.

In a fantasy-land where RAW is the only rule, and human nature and other relevant factors never come into play; yes the DM is the arbiter.

-Idle

Apparently you play some sort of fantasy D&D where the DM is just another player instead of the guy in charge.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

There's a lot of people getting overly upset in this thread. Take a deep breath, step back from the keyboard, and re-read your posts before posting them to think about if it really needs to be said.


Cartigan wrote:
IdleMind wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Except the group isn't the arbiter. The DM is.

In a fantasy-land where RAW is the only rule, and human nature and other relevant factors never come into play; yes the DM is the arbiter.

-Idle

Apparently you play some sort of fantasy D&D where the DM is just another player instead of the guy in charge.

If you wish to continue this argument; go ahead and and start a new thread. We've sidetracked this one enough .If you do not wish to do so; my final response is "lol".

-Idle


Cartigan wrote:
Apparently you play some sort of fantasy D&D.

D&D is fantasy, dude.

Cartigan wrote:
where the DM is just another player instead of the guy in charge.

FYI - The DM is also bound by the rules, or should be. Otherwise, DM fiat and numerous house rules could dilute the game and confuse players.

This happened to me. I thought I was creating magic items according to the rules, but the DM didn't like it and informed me of how I should make the items mid-game. I had bought 3 item creation feats and the new rules put HUGE restrictions that were beyond anything written in the CRB on how I could create the items. The feats I bought became useless.

I didn't make a production out of it, as you and mdt have been alluding to, just didn't show. I continued for a while to point out what the rules and the developers said until the DM got mad. I asked to introduce a new character, but my current one was integral to the current story/narrative. I left them with my character and still talk to them over e-mail.

I just didn't like the way things played out so I just stopped going.

I think you guys are characterizing the upset party as throwing tantrums, because that is what you would likely do.

It's a psychological phenomenon called projection.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

After reading most of this thread (sorry, not all if it), I'm going to stick my neck out and give my opinion.

Is there class bloat: barely, but yes. Back in the 3.5 days we got 3 new classes per complete book, the PHB II, heroes of horror, dungeonscape, Bo9S, and gods know how many others. That is class bloat. Is 1 genuinely new class and a few archetypes presented as as classes and thats it for the year bloat? I'm on the fence but leaning slightly more towards on bloat. Slightly.

Is it a bad thing: no. Do you know how many wizards/wizard-like classes and rangers I played in the 3.5 days? No, not a clue. That's pretty much all I played. Why did I only play those classes? Because they were the only ones I felt worth playing. In Pathfinder, I have yet to play the same class twice. I've played 3 different 6 level casters (which is impressive, since I think there are only 4 of them). They pathfinderized core classes and the new base classes are fun and interesting. They hold my interest and I'm able to come up with new kinds of characters than I ever had before. Its awesome. Besides, they're coming out at a slow enough rate that I can keep up with them.

Is it just the pace that makes me feel this is not a bad thing: No. The single biggest reason that I am ok with this kind of rules bloat is that I do not feel any need to allow the ninja, samari, and the gun slinger into my game. I don't care how mechanically sound they are, if my players ask, "can I play this?" I won't feel bad when I tell them "no." Why? Because I don't see any place for them in my Kingmaker game. Now if we played a game in Tan Xi, that would be a different story. There are not cavilers, only samari. Simple as that.

I don't have a problem not including certain aspects in my game and I do not feel the need to let my players play whatever they want simply because the option is there. That's the deal with me and my players. What did I say no to for Kingmaker: psionics. one of the guys there wanted to play a psionic character (before dreamscarred did their psionic release). I told them no psionics. After much discussion, we ended it off with, if he want a world with psionics in it, he should run one.

So in summary, it doesn't bother me because it won't be in my game if I choose it to not be.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

James Jacobs wrote:
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.

Just wanted to take a moment and say that I think that Kingmaker is awesome!


Monster Jack wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Apparently you play some sort of fantasy D&D.

D&D is fantasy, dude.

Cartigan wrote:
where the DM is just another player instead of the guy in charge.

FYI - The DM is also bound by the rules, or should be. Otherwise, DM fiat and numerous house rules could dilute the game and confuse players.

This happened to me. I thought I was creating magic items according to the rules, but the DM didn't like it and informed me of how I should make the items mid-game. I had bought 3 item creation feats and the new rules put HUGE restrictions that were beyond anything written in the CRB on how I could create the items. The feats I bought became useless.

I didn't make a production out of it, as you and mdt have been alluding to, just didn't show. I continued for a while to point out what the rules and the developers said until the DM got mad. I asked to introduce a new character, but my current one was integral to the current story/narrative. I left them with my character and still talk to them over e-mail.

I just didn't like the way things played out so I just stopped going.

I think you guys are characterizing the upset party as throwing tantrums, because that is what you would likely do.

It's a psychological phenomenon called projection.

I think you are missing the fact that IdleMind is saying that fellow players, not the DM, are allowed to arbitrate what you can and can't do with your character.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Cartigan wrote:
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.

I happen to agree with this, if Bob is a Player and he joined a game that has Guns in the world, he picked the wrong game if he has problems with a character actually using them. *Same opinion I have about those who don'e want Gunslinger in PFS*


Cartigan wrote:
I think you are missing the fact that IdleMind is saying that fellow players, not the DM, are allowed to arbitrate what you can and can't do with your character.

You simplify down an argument down to a half-truth in order to support your tunnel vision. From what I'm gathering, this is an "as usual" proposition. Refrain from outright lying when you misinterpret my position; please.

Again, if you wish to disagree and debate, start a new thread.

-Idle


IdleMind wrote:

You simplify down an argument down to a half-truth in order to support your tunnel vision. From what I'm gathering, this is an "as usual" proposition. Refrain from outright lying when you misinterpret my position; please.

Again, if you wish to disagree and debate, start a new thread.

-Idle

Outright lying?!

You said:

IdleMind wrote:
The point is; the group is always the final arbiter in essence.

How is his summary of your statement outright lying? It seems pretty dead on.

Also:

IdleMind wrote:

If you wish to continue this argument; go ahead and and start a new thread. We've sidetracked this one enough .If you do not wish to do so; my final response is "lol".

-Idle

Does final mean something else in your world?


Dragnmoon wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
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.
I happen to agree with this, if Bob is a Player and he joined a game that has Guns in the world, he picked the wrong game if he has problems with a character actually using them. *Same opinion I have about those who don'e want Gunslinger in PFS*

Bob didn't join the group with gunslinger rules.

Gunslinger rules were introduced after Bob was part of the group.

Different scenario.

IMO, guns are ok, but a class surrounding them? with feats and specific magic items for them?

Add guns and their restrictions to the game in the equipment section. If people want to use them they can. Guess this goes in the Gunslinger Discussion.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Ross Byers wrote:
There's a lot of people getting overly upset in this thread. Take a deep breath, step back from the keyboard, and re-read your posts before posting them to think about if it really needs to be said.

Oh, and I removed a post.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Raging Hobbit wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
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.
I happen to agree with this, if Bob is a Player and he joined a game that has Guns in the world, he picked the wrong game if he has problems with a character actually using them. *Same opinion I have about those who don'e want Gunslinger in PFS*

Bob didn't join the group with gunslinger rules.

Gunslinger rules were introduced after Bob was part of the group.

Different scenario.

But the DM has Guns in his worlds if he allows Gunslingers, If player has a problem with that, once again... he is in the wrong game.

Edit: Even if the DM did not have guns in his game until after Gunslinger was introduced, if the Players is going to get all pissy about it and throw a hissy fit, he is in the wrong game.

Edit Edit: And how did this get so off topic?


Raging Hobbit wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
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.
I happen to agree with this, if Bob is a Player and he joined a game that has Guns in the world, he picked the wrong game if he has problems with a character actually using them. *Same opinion I have about those who don'e want Gunslinger in PFS*

Bob didn't join the group with gunslinger rules.

Gunslinger rules were introduced after Bob was part of the group.

Different scenario.

Yes and no. It isn't Bob's right to decide, as a player, what can and cannot be introduced into the world.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
There's a lot of people getting overly upset in this thread. Take a deep breath, step back from the keyboard, and re-read your posts before posting them to think about if it really needs to be said.
Oh, and I removed a post.

remove any more posts and the fence will fall!!!

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Cartigan wrote:


Yes and no. It isn't Bob's right to decide, as a player, what can and cannot be introduced into the world.

Though he can give his opinion, he just needs to be able to live with the decision, and if he can't he has the option to walk away.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts. Let's get this discussion back on track, please.

(For the record, the implications of adding things like Ninjas and Gunslingers to an ongoing campaign with players of varying tastes is a valid subject of discussion. It is the argumentative tone that needed to stop.)


Cartigan wrote:
Different scenario.
Yes and no. It isn't Bob's right to decide, as a player, what can and cannot be introduced into the world.

But Bob can decide the game has lost its appeal and elect to not show up at the next session. It is possible to recuse yourself from a campaign without "throwing a hissy fit".

Hope that clarifies the discussion.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Raging Hobbit wrote:
Cartigan wrote:

Different scenario.

Yes and no. It isn't Bob's right to decide, as a player, what can and cannot be introduced into the world.

But Bob can decide the game has lost its appeal and elect to not show up at the next session. It is possible to recuse yourself from a campaign without "throwing a hissy fit".

Hope that clarifies the discussion.

Actually, it's quite hard to do so without it coming off as a hissy fit. It really depends on the friends and the person. Most people I have gamed with would take this as a 'it goes or I do' even if it's not said like that. Regardless of how it goes down, when someone leaves over something another player wants to play, it comes across as 'my way or I leave', which is a very bad way to handle it.


Dragnmoon wrote:
Even if the DM did not have guns in his game until after Gunslinger was introduced, if the Players is going to get all pissy about it and throw a hissy fit, he is in the wrong game.

He was in the right game, enter the thing he doesn't like, now he's in the wrong game.

If Bob doesn't like guns in the game his DM is running, he can leave.

IMHO, to get this discussion back to class bloat, the new classes are not necessary. They are good ideas that could be introduced into the current game. The "Alternate Class" idea just means they are building a new wing on to the house that is already big enough.

The ninja and samurai can just be archetypes (rogue and fighter) and the gunslinger "class" is not even necessary.


mdt wrote:
Raging Hobbit wrote:
Cartigan wrote:

Different scenario.

Yes and no. It isn't Bob's right to decide, as a player, what can and cannot be introduced into the world.

But Bob can decide the game has lost its appeal and elect to not show up at the next session. It is possible to recuse yourself from a campaign without "throwing a hissy fit".

Hope that clarifies the discussion.

Actually, it's quite hard to do so without it coming off as a hissy fit. It really depends on the friends and the person. Most people I have gamed with would take this as a 'it goes or I do' even if it's not said like that. Regardless of how it goes down, when someone leaves over something another player wants to play, it comes across as 'my way or I leave', which is a very bad way to handle it.

So, what? Are you going to call someone who has lost interest in a game a crying baby if they decide to go to a movie or football game the night the group meets?

That sounds awfully dictatorial and childish. You can't strap someone in a chair and say you will play or else I'm going to think of you as a whiny brat.

I have left a group mid-campaign before. It is quite common.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Raging Hobbit wrote:


So, what? Are you going to call someone who has lost interest in a game a crying baby if they decide to go to a movie or football game the night the group meets?

That sounds awfully dictatorial and childish. You can't strap someone in a chair and say you will play or else I'm going to think of you as a whiny brat.

Aannnndddd this is why people ignore Mr. Ross about their posting on here. You try to post something calm and reasonable, about how difficult it is for someone to leave a game without it coming off as 'my way or highway' and in return you get someone posting this.

Oh well, maybe I'll just bow out now, it's obvious that while I tried to tone my rhetoric down, nobody else is, so why bother.


Raging Hobbit wrote:


IMHO, to get this discussion back to class bloat, the new classes are not necessary. They are good ideas that could be introduced into the current game. The "Alternate Class" idea just means they are building a new wing on to the house that is already big enough.

The ninja and samurai can just be archetypes (rogue and fighter) and the gunslinger "class" is not even necessary.

The question of whether or not it's "necessary" is wholly irrelevant. Of course it isn't - neither was the APG, for that matter. The game is designed in such a way that even with the Core book and Bestiary alone, I can run a full game just fine. The rest is meant to present nothing but options which, again, aren't necessary, though they can affect the game in their own way.

At this point, it becomes less of a question of necessity, and more one of flavor. All three of the newish classes are very flavorful. I have no gripe with the alternate class system, though the Samurai is the only one that seems to fit the bill.


mdt wrote:

Aannnndddd this is why people ignore Mr. Ross about their posting on here. You try to post something calm and reasonable, about how difficult it is for someone to leave a game without it coming off as 'my way or highway' and in return you get someone posting this.

Oh well, maybe I'll just bow out now, it's obvious that while I tried to tone my rhetoric down, nobody else is, so why bother.

See you proved my point: It is possible to recuse yourself from a campaign (discussion) without "throwing a hissy fit".

@Mahorfeus - I see your point. They are just options, but then so is the fighter and the rogue. And magic for that matter.

For the record, my rhetoric is fine. mdt, you're the one using foul language in your posts:

mdt wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:


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

The Googles they do nothing. While imo the MPC books were average to below average nothing and I mean nothing compares to the FF stuff. Nothing.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Doc_Outlands wrote:
Did I miss anything by skipping pages 2-10?

I'd recommend not skipping Erik Mona's post on page 9.


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

After reading most of this thread (sorry, not all if it), I'm going to stick my neck out and give my opinion.

Is there class bloat: barely, but yes. Back in the 3.5 days we got 3 new classes per complete book, the PHB II, heroes of horror, dungeonscape, Bo9S, and gods know how many others. That is class bloat. Is 1 genuinely new class and a few archetypes presented as as classes and thats it for the year bloat? I'm on the fence but leaning slightly more towards on bloat. Slightly.

Ok, I'm going to respond to one of the adults left in this thread.

Class Bloat: Erik Mona, James Jacobs, and Jason Buhlman have chimed in on this stating the Paizo is well aware of class bloat concerns.

Erik Mona wrote:
I can appreciate that it's difficult for some of you to simply take our word for it, but as Vic and James have already said in this thread, we have no current plans for new base classes in the next several hardcover releases. We _do_ have plans for lots of other cool stuff, but we feel that we've covered our bases pretty well up to this point, and we aren't planning to fill 2011-2012 with the same rate of new classes as we released this year.

Statements aside, let us assume that they do intend on pumping out more classes. Let us also assume that things will proceed much as they currently are. This means roughly 10 new classes to be playtested a year. Now I wasn't here when they released the APG (still playing 3.5 then), but I do know that they seem to have an interest in getting classes publicly playtested. This actually makes sense from a business standpoint for a few reasons. First, it inspires trust from the consumers because they get to see a little bit on the inside. Second, our time is free. Third, their employees have more time to do other things and still produce a proper product. Public playtests have a significant downside, they take a while to get decent results. This means for them to meet a 10 classes a year, they would have to effectively turn the public playtests into a farce. A company can weather the occasional screw up if it happens behind closed doors, but one that's sitting out there in the vastness of the internet can be deadly to one that doesn't have the monolithic structure of the Hasborg. Also consider the fact that public playtests lets people react to the product months in advance. This way we whine about class bloat before they're in the middle of designing 5 more. So with a nontrivial portion of the people writing the books on here, reading and posting in this thread; I think it is fair to say that this strong of a reaction will certainly be taken into consideration. 20 odds classes isn't much in the way of bloat, 100+ is. The fear that this pace will continue will likely be alleviated within a year. If we see another APG next year then I might be a little sympathetic.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Doc_Outlands wrote:
Did I miss anything by skipping pages 2-10?
I'd recommend not skipping Erik Mona's post on page 9.

Since I gave myself a time out and spent the whole weekend at a gaming convention, I wanted to thank Erik for taking the time to post that.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Doc_Outlands wrote:
Did I miss anything by skipping pages 2-10?
I'd recommend not skipping Erik Mona's post on page 9.

Interesting observation - I saw this:

"2 people marked this as FAQ candidate"

when I went back to that post (that I have read previously). Is this something exclusive to employees to flag the post as such?

/threadjack


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Urizen wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Doc_Outlands wrote:
Did I miss anything by skipping pages 2-10?
I'd recommend not skipping Erik Mona's post on page 9.

Interesting observation - I saw this:

"2 people marked this as FAQ candidate"

when I went back to that post (that I have read previously). Is this something exclusive to employees to flag the post as such?

/threadjack

Nope, anyone can FAQ something. The more people that FAQ it, theoretically, the more likely it'll end up in the FAQ.

However, they have no warm bodies to put on the FAQ, so it's pretty much languishing in the desert. They've said they'll have people on it after UM is sent off to printers, but...


Consider that this is merely my humble opinion, and that I don't post as frequently to the boards as some others do...

I see all these alternate classes as a sort of how-to class. It's Paizo saying "Someone in your campaign wants to try a samurai? Here's how we'd do it using the pre-existing rules and NOT adding a new class." I like this idea. it shows me how the mechanics work and spurs on ideas of my own. It's not "class glut" if all they're saying is change these three things and you can play an entirely differently themed class without being forced to introduce a new class that only two people may play ever.

Some changes need a little more explanation, so they take up a little more space. Big deal? No, not really. Show me how you did it and perhaps you'll inspire me to do my own switches. Or perhaps I'll find a better way to make it work.

You don't want guns in your game? Fine. Play a game that doesn't have them. Don't want the oriental classes? Leave them out. It's that simple. Do you live in a town where only seven people game and they're all conspiring against you to add these things in? Perhaps the problem isn't them. Or, teach granny's bridge club the game and run it yourself.

I personally think these ideas are good ones. I think Paizo is going about this the right way. I'll reserve my thoughts on whether the classes are built the right way for another board. Which is where I'm headed to now.

Like it or not. Buy it or don't. It's your choice. it's all optional and instead of whining about what you don't like or want, how about you praise what you do like and tell these great people who are actually willing to listen what you DO want?

My two cents


I love Paizo for "saving" D&D, because I wouldn't play 4th if you paid me.

I enjoy supporting there product, and have bought more books/pdf's from them than I expected.

With that said I will be buying the NPC guide as that is next on my wish list, but I don't think I will be getting (or allowing in my games) the next 2 books because I don't see the need for them in my campaign world.

What would I have bought, or will buy?

1. Beastiary III (I own I+II)
2. Spell Compendium (or similar, with no extra classes, archetypes would be ok)
3. Game Mastery Guide II (most likely, especially if it is more advanced)

And as someone else said, if these new books coming out had been spread out with some other stuff between I would be a lot happier and more inclined to purchase. I am one of the people who likes having all, or I stop purchasing something, especially with roleplaying games. But why you might ask...

Well if I buy book 7 and the class in it needs a feat from book 5, or 6 to be more than ok, but good to great? I only have books 1-4 and 7 what can I do? Not much accept purchase the book 5 or 6 I need, or borrow it.

For example once I got Core+Completes+Spell Comp. in 3.5 I stopped purchasing books because they were getting crazy with the builds that could be made and it's easier to say "there books allowed only" than to say no when a player wants a 3-4 class character.

So once I start missing books, I am a lot less likely to look at purchasing future books. Sadly that just seems to be the way it works for me.

Now with that said I will look over the books when I get a chance and decide. I wasn't much for the APG when it came out, but I think it has a lot of flavor for making interesting characters for NPCs.

But I know I won't be allowing gunslingers, or Ninja's so there is no attraction there, maybe the Magus and some of the other stuff will make it worth buying but I honestly doubt it.

Why couldn't you release a steam punk specific book, or a oriental specific book instead of placings characters that don't fit most peoples settings (or at least my settings) in with stuff that might, or will fit the setting?

I just hope Paizo keeps to there statements and stops releasing classes and expands things like the above, Epic handbook, etc.. I (and my group) doesn't need anymore classes after APG to enjoy things.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think we've beat this topic to death.

We have made Paizo aware of our concerns and they are listening. All of the Paizo luminaries have commented on this issue and it seems they will take the corrective action that is necessary.

We just have to sit and wait it out. If there is anything that I;ve noticed on these boards is that the company is sensitive to its fans.

I'm sure they wont let us down.

Lets just get back to the table and start playing again. If you dont like some of the classes (myself included) DM fiat these things and move on.


@Vic - THANK YOU for taking the time to make sure I didn't miss that!

@Erik - THANK YOU for a well-thought-out, classy, relevant post "from the belly of the beast," as it were. I hated the lack of support for oddball casters like the Warlock in 3.5 and like seeing Paizo working to get all the classes put in early, so that follow-on products don't end up shorting classes that haven't been published yet.

Stuff like this is why you guys (& gals, Lisa) get first shot at my gaming $$. You guys may do stuff I'm not interested in, but you do everything with the same style, class, care, and consideration.

To everyone else - thank YOU for caring enough about the game to worry about it and to voice your concerns. Just remember to play nicely. ;)

Grand Lodge

Vic Wertz wrote:
Doc_Outlands wrote:
Did I miss anything by skipping pages 2-10?
I'd recommend not skipping Erik Mona's post on page 9.

What he said...

+1

I think Erik summed everything up perfectly and once again gave me faith that Paizo knows what they're doing.


Hay guys! I'm getting tax returns next week, and I'm gonna buy PAIZO STUFF, because I want new rules and mechanics at my table.

I can't wait for Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat to come out so that me and my peeps can bust out some awesome new characters and stuff! Bring on t3h bloatz! I has monies!

I'm finally gonna get Kingmaker! :D

Edit: Also, +1 to Erik's post on page 9.


mdt wrote:

Nope, anyone can FAQ something. The more people that FAQ it, theoretically, the more likely it'll end up in the FAQ.

However, they have no warm bodies to put on the FAQ, so it's pretty much languishing in the desert. They've said they'll have people on it after UM is sent off to printers, but...

D'oh! I've ignored that all this time. I thought it was just an extension of how to use messageboard content. *facepalm*


lastknightleft wrote:
Really, with archtypes I was really hoping we would see less of the glut of base classes that 3.5 had. But nope, ultimate combat comes with 3 more classes. ultimate magic with 1, advance players guide with 6. I was excited about advanced players guide because I thought okay this book will have new base classes and that'll be it at least for a while, but no, in the two years you've been making rulebooks we see the release of 10 new base classes. Well, I can say I'm dissapointed. Odds are I will not be picking up ultimate combat, or ultimate magic (which bugs me because I liked words of power) because I just can't bring myself to support this kind of class bloat, which is the exact kind of thing that started wearing on me in 3.5

Well then don't buy it. When I pay money I want content....but I don't have to use it if I don't want too. If you don't like it don't get it.

551 to 600 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.