I was talking more of "builds" using existing material. I don't quite understand the hatred many have for "builds from level 1 to level 20" (which often use multiple base classes and/or PrC), but then say that a published base class is great, when a base class is just somebody else's idea of a build that is codified. Just because somebody published something doesn't automatically qualify it as fitting a particular concept better, except in the minds of the publishers/designers.
The entirety of our gaming group decided that 3.5, as written, was not the best option for running the Arthurian style game we wanted to play. Rather then force his setting to fit the game, my brother modified several rules, created several classes for both DnD and d20 Modern, and every one had a blast. The problems that players had was that we had to keep modifying different rules and class features to balance different elements.
Saying that people should be satisfied with a game, as is, if it doesn't accomplish what they want is kind of silly. I know the characters I made in those games could not be made close to the way they were using reular DnD or D20 Modern, the classes my brother made did. If a game system doesn't fit the game you want to play it, change the rules. If a game company sees a need for something in there game that player's want, why not fill it.
If a game company sees a need for something in there game that player's want, why not fill it.
I assume you go to your local gaming store and see the wall of books for 4e.
That's why. That is 'bloat' (OP). So many rules and regs you don't know where to start.
As I stated before, the devs have addressed a lot of those concerns in this thread already.
|
At work I use Win 7 and MS office. At home I have a laptop with Win 7 on it, and a desktop that dual boots XP and Mint Linux (An ubuntu derivative).
The reason I used GURPS for Linux was that GURPS is a very complex system that can do anything you want, but it requires a lot more fiddling with it. While it's not 'open' like d20 is, mechanically, it's a much closer fit for Linux. Linux can do just about anything you want, but it requires more fiddling with it to get there.
I do agree with that. Reduced user-friendliness in exchange for the ability to do *anything* with enough configuration.
(I typed my previous post from a Mint Debian Edition netbook, and I'm typing this one from a dual-booting XP/Ubuntu laptop)
Though in that case I might compare GURPS to Slackware or Arch, and simplified toolkit games like FATE and BASH to Mint or Ubuntu. ( ;
Though wouldn't it be awesome if the user community or another company could fix XP and re-release it.
If a game company sees a need for something in there game that player's want, why not fill it.I assume you go to your local gaming store and see the wall of books for 4e.
That's why. That is 'bloat' (OP). So many rules and regs you don't know where to start.
As I stated before, the devs have addressed a lot of those concerns in this thread already.
4h Ed. rules bloat doesn't effect me though because I've looked at the books and decided that they don't fit my gaming style. Back when when WotC printed 3.X I didn't buy every book from them, I didn't buy everything from 3PPs, I could say no to players, and I can handle having no told to me.
Go back to your local game store and compare 4th Ed to just about any other game they sell, based on the number of books alone. I don't know of any other RPG company that has to justify its profitability to a major corperation like Hasbro. Most actually get a chance to playtest their material and aren't printing out the volume that WotC is. Paizo has proven many times already that they are dedicated to putting out a superior product then WotC, which is one of the major reasons its customer base chose them. So even if Paizo could compete with WotC in volume, chances are they wouldn't because they would likely loose their customers.
Any one know if WotC did open playtests for any of their products for 4th Ed? I honestly didn't keep up with 4th Ed beyond the first Core Set release.
Yes, the Dev.s have stated their answers and if that was enough then this thread would have dried up a long time ago.
My gaming group and I are capable of making changes to the rules to suit our style of play, but we prefer not to have to do so. We had a stint where the GM of one campaign wasn't 100% happy with the rules, so he tinkered with them constantly (how he did HP changed 4 session in a row at one time) and the rest of us are tapped out on any more tinkering.
Nothing detracts from the fun like having 30 minutes to an hour of every session devoted to the changes to the rules since last time you got together.
Wow, your group was more tolerant then mine. My brother usually saved his changes until the end of an arc and we had members have problems with that.
So many rules and regs you don't know where to start.
Considering the books are divided up by power source other than the player's handbooks, that's a laughable assertion.
Why is this still going?
I assume you go to your local gaming store and see the wall of books for 4e.
That's why. That is 'bloat' (OP). So many rules and regs you don't know where to start.
Paizo is nowhere NEAR this level.
The Pathfinder game has... let's see... the Core Rulebook, the APG, and the Bestiary? The GMG doesn't *really* count, it's full of advice and tables, but whatever. Four books, then. Five if you think the Bestiary 2 is absolutely necessary. There's ONE campaign setting, the book for which isn't a necessity, along with a handful of paperback 'close-up' books that are mostly fluff. Then you have APs, modules, and the novels.
Is there something I missed? If I did, I need to know so I can give Paizo more of my money (along with a 10 page apology for not sending it sooner).
At present, from Pathfinder books, 3.5 books, and homebrewed materials, I have a total of 35-36 classes that I'm allowing players to choose from when they generate characters. I think I'll be drawing the line at those classes, unless a new one really, really wows me. But for every base class, I have to go and draw up an iconic for my campaign setting document, and that takes time, dang it.
I don't mind lots of classes, because I like lots of choices. So long as they're consistent, or interesting, or fill a niche that I feel needs filling, I'm A-Okay with them.
I was talking more of "builds" using existing material. I don't quite understand the hatred many have for "builds from level 1 to level 20" (which often use multiple base classes and/or PrC), but then say that a published base class is great, when a base class is just somebody else's idea of a build that is codified. Just because somebody published something doesn't automatically qualify it as fitting a particular concept better, except in the minds of the publishers/designers.The entirety of our gaming group decided that 3.5, as written, was not the best option for running the Arthurian style game we wanted to play. Rather then force his setting to fit the game, my brother modified several rules, created several classes for both DnD and d20 Modern, and every one had a blast. The problems that players had was that we had to keep modifying different rules and class features to balance different elements.
Saying that people should be satisfied with a game, as is, if it doesn't accomplish what they want is kind of silly. I know the characters I made in those games could not be made close to the way they were using reular DnD or D20 Modern, the classes my brother made did. If a game system doesn't fit the game you want to play it, change the rules. If a game company sees a need for something in there game that player's want, why not fill it.
I think you are talking about a bit different thing here. Reconstructing a system from the ground up is a bit more of stretch than designing a plan/build for a character to be "sneaky guy type #12".
I think you are talking about a bit different thing here. Reconstructing a system from the ground up is a bit more of stretch than designing a plan/build for a character to be "sneaky guy type #12".
Not really, as, using either rulebook, the game was very much the d20 system and easily recognizable as such. When we used DnD 3.5 changes were to lowering the overall magic level of the game, cutting out classes that did't fit, and creating 3 different knightly base classes that the group decided was appropriate for the setting. The game was not redesigned from the ground up, just heavily edited. So we had knightly guy 1, 2, and 3, the Prestige Paladin, and a few other knight PrCs (Blackguard, Green Knight, etc). All of these fit in great and the three classes couldn't have been made with other classes, save maybe the PHBII Knight which hadn't come out yet.
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.
** spoiler omitted **
MDT, I actually agree with you. I know that I can personally limit the books that are used in my own personal games. It's just that I'm trying to protect the game from what I perceive to be too much bloat.
I'm not saying options are bad, per say, just that I have never seen an edition of any game (that included rules add-ons) that didn't suffer from "TOO MUCH STUFF".
In regards to my monster book comment - I also know that you COULD fill a monster book with animals, insects, and mythology creatures, but come on. Does the game really need that?
I will admit that I have used at least a monster or two out of every MM I have ever purchased, but I just don't think that the books contain enough quality material for what you end up getting out of them. Perhaps that is just me, but that is where my threshold lies.
After about 3 books, I stop wanting to purchase them. I'm willing to bet that there are some others out there who have similar trends.
Bottom line for me is that I would rather see the core rules of the game consolidated into a few books, and spend my money on adventure oriented materials. The Pathfinder APs are excellent at adding a couple new monsters, maybe a corner case feat here and there. Niche stuff that can be added to the overall game, but is more or less applicable to the current AP.
In Legacy of Fire for instance, they had those Achievement Feats. Now that was pretty cool. Different from the norm but familiar, and a great idea that could be implemented in any game. Something new, something interesting, but would I want an entire $30 book devoted to them - eh, not really...
We haven't put a summoner in one yet, and I'm not seeing a point in the next year where one would be a logical addition. Doesn't mean we WON'T EVER do a summoner, but just because something's in the APG doesn't mean it'll automatically be in an AP.Furthermore, if in the future after we see more feedback about integrating things like witches into the AP line is something a lot of folks get angry about... we'll stop doing it. I'm not seeing a lot of that yet though.
Hi everybody,
at first: Sorry for my bad english, but I'll give my very best. I can only speak for my two Pathfinder Groups and a couple of guys from a roleplaying group here in a nice german City ;), but we like new classes and options as long as they bring new nice things to the gaming table. And we think that the witch, the Inquisitor and the Cavalier are good additions to the Base Classes in the Core Rulebook. Also the Alchemist, the Oracle and the Summoner brought new things to our Adventures, so I don't see a reason, why they are bloating things up. And we love to see the new APG Classes in the Adventure Paths.But, please Paizo, don't forget to tell great Storys and Adventures. The best classes are useless without great Adventures.
Btw: There are a lot of German Pathfinder Players, you did and do really a good work. Thanks a lot!
I like optional rules. New things to add diversity to the game. And I like them being optional so I can pick and choose what is right for my campaign. Heck I DM settings that have no crossbows because the time period is before they were invented. Just because something is in a book does not mean you have to allow it. And new options give DM's resources to custom tailor a setting. So I think they are good things, even if I would never use or allow them.
I don't really see the problem with saying "I don't think I'm going to get that book" and moving on. Stomping your feet about it just seems silly.
I want to cast my vote for the opposition. Customization is great, new classes are great, there have never been decent gunslinger/gun rules for D&D; I have high hopes. Paizo can't please everyone all the time, I'm glad they choose to keep exploring new ideas in what they publish.
my two cents:
If it ain't broke...don't fix it.
Some people think the system is broken because they can't figure out how to make a concept with what they have.
They need the developers to do it for them.
my two cents:
If it ain't broke...don't fix it.
Some people think the system is broken because they can't figure out how to make a concept with what they have.
They need the developers to do it for them.
Well, besides the fact the developers don't do that (they actually look to us, the consumer, for ideas and criticism, and have the community figure out the things they aren't sure about through playtesting), I don't know if you have ever actually been to the boards before, since at least 10-20% of has to be devoted to us users posting ideas for new rules, content(feats, spells, etc.), and campaigns/fluff, changes for various pre-existing content, you know, a general "hey, can i do this..." or "i thought of this..." or "look what i found...".
my two cents:
If it ain't broke...don't fix it.
Some people think the system is broken because they can't figure out how to make a concept with what they have.
They need the developers to do it for them.
No one said this system was broken. This mentality is so flawed... This sort of thinking would leave the Core Rulebook so empty. There wouldn't be any core classes, feats, or spells, let alone a bestiary or an APG.
Developers created the d20 system. They did all of that work for you, then went a step further and developed all of the aforementioned elements. Do you complain about people using the core rules?
Why is this still going?Momentum.
I think it's cathartic. People just need to get it off their chests :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering if class bloat concerns are more a player issue or DM issue. As the primary DM of my gaming group I never really cared or concerned myself with all the various classes/prestige classes in 3e/3.5. My players were having fun mixing and matching things. I only asked that they came up with good backgrounds and they limited themselves to WOTC created content - so no 3pp products were allowed. It made for some interesting parties and players were able to make all sorts of characters. I was creating the story and they were playing their PCs and there was no frustrations on my end regarding PCs being overpowered because my role is in the end a facilitator. And the group ran the spectrum from power-gamer types to story-driven types but there was never any angst regarding one player having more of the spot-light because the group as a whole wanted to succeed. If the more powerful characters helped them achieve that then it was a successful night.
Right now there is not even close to the amount of classes/feats in Pathfinder that were there in 3e. My players are really digging the archetype concepts that Paizo has implemented and so there's real variety in characters. As a DM its fun to run a group where the same base class can act and perform so differently because of the choices they have in character creation within the class. I'm assuming that will continue with new classes like ninja, samurai, magus...etc.
|
I assume you go to your local gaming store and see the wall of books for 4e.That's why. That is 'bloat' (OP). So many rules and regs you don't know where to start.
As I stated before, the devs have addressed a lot of those concerns in this thread already.
Yes I have seen the walls of books and so what? Whats your point? No one is forcing anyone player or DM to use those books. No gun is being put to your head. While you might think it's rules bloat some might want those extra rules options. I have a full shelf of Rifts products. I do not allow everything from them.
While the Devs have heard our feedback it;s up to them in the end to do wha they want. If they want to publish mopre classes or rules they will do so. The Devs as a whole said they would attempt tp keep rules bloat down not stop it completely. You cannot stop it completely. They need to publish a certain amount of books to maintain quality and profitability.
In Legacy of Fire for instance, they had those Achievement Feats. Now that was pretty cool. Different from the norm but familiar, and a great idea that could be implemented in any game. Something new, something interesting, but would I want an entire $30 book devoted to them - eh, not really...
Yes, but if they added 1 chapter expanding and refining those rules in an APG or GMG-like book, with 6 or so other optional rules, would that interest you? Not everyone who is interested in those rules is buying the adventure paths, and many people wont look at them because they want to be players. Having rules like that in the adventure paths severely limits the number of people exposed to them.
Not every idea needs a book dedicated to it, but that does not mean they don't have enough related ideas to fill out a book. They can throw in the character relationship rules from Serpent Skull in it. Likewise you can expand the kingdom building rules from kingmaker to easily fill out its own book that is completely expansion material. If these books occasionally come with additional player options, like a few new character archtypes (which is all that has been proposed for Ultimate Combat so far), is that necessarily a bad thing?
Besides, the rate at which these new rules are being introduced is slow compared to many other publishers. 4 new hardcovers a year, 2 for players, 1 for GMs, and a beastiary right now.
Why is this still going?
People think their anonymous opinions matter.
I've learned my lesson.
my two cents:
If it ain't broke...don't fix it.
Some people think the system is broken because they can't figure out how to make a concept with what they have.
They need the developers to do it for them.
I don't think these additional books are because the game is broke or needs fixed. But maybe to create something new. I would have never thought of doing a gunslinger the way paizo is doing a gunslinger, therefore I will buy it. And I commend them for their creativity on their design.
I am actually pretty good at writing my own adventures and developing my own settings. But the nuts and bolts of new classes and features I am not so good at. I appreciate a new twist on an old class. There are things in the APG that I will never use or allow. But I am glad I bought the book, the same is true for Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat. I definitely want a book focusing on subterfuge and guile.
Honest question (for those opposed to new classes). Why do you care?
I understand not liking the new classes (I don't as well) but ultimately I'm not required to acknowledge their existence. So it's very different from say a TV show where a couple of crappy new characters can ruin the overall entertainment value. So for me even though I don't like the classes I can get by just fine and if the new classes bring other people more satisfaction that's a good thing.
So I am curious why you care? Is it fear of having the game somehow ruined, does it affect the games you play in? It is just fun to debate?
So you don't think the new classes will be making any showing in any future modules or APs? As you say, crappy new characters can ruin the overall entertainment value. If they show up in those products, they can certain taint it. As well as official game play as well.
|
|
So you don't think the new classes will be making any showing in any future modules or APs? As you say, crappy new characters can ruin the overall entertainment value. If they show up in those products, they can certain taint it. As well as official game play as well.Honest question (for those opposed to new classes). Why do you care?
I understand not liking the new classes (I don't as well) but ultimately I'm not required to acknowledge their existence. So it's very different from say a TV show where a couple of crappy new characters can ruin the overall entertainment value. So for me even though I don't like the classes I can get by just fine and if the new classes bring other people more satisfaction that's a good thing.
So I am curious why you care? Is it fear of having the game somehow ruined, does it affect the games you play in? It is just fun to debate?
For me, this doesn't matter much. I no longer subscribe to the APs, and I have no interest in the modules really. If something from an AP or Module interests me enough, I'll use the bits and pieces I like, and ignore the rest.
Right now, I'm content with Core + APG. As a GM, I'm more interested in Bestiaries. A couple more templates wouldn't hurt either. *hint* Bestiary 3 *hint*
I don't think 4E is a good comparison for class or rules bloat, as Pathfinder is on equal terms with the release of APG, and other class related books to be released in the near future.
WOTC may have more book bloat, if there is such a thing. One thing to note is it takes more word count to express powers in 4E, since each one may be equivalent to the 1st level spell description in 3.5, and every class is based on powers. Magic items suffer from the same fate, but it also may be the obsession to list the above in a card format.
my personal opinion has always been that new options are a must, new classes, new feats, new spells are all a must for a RPG to grow and continue existing. and every chance i get i will also voice the fact that i feel very strongly about class fairness and what i mean about that is i feel it is very important for all class builds ( expert, priest, warrior, and caster) to be represented equally meaning for every expert class there should be a warrior class and priest class and caster class.
one of the things i had a very big problem with 3.x ed was that they put out more material and options for casters and i am a big combat player. i want to see a fair amount of information and material for combat characters as any other class build.
This thread had been dead for 10 days...
Necromancer on the deck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Necro this thread.
I think people have a reason to be worried, especially if you take all archetypes into consideration, but mostly when you look at the quality of the new classes and why they have been released.
I don’t mind new classes, nor do I mind Paizo doing Psionics, but the ACG is problematic and so are the Ninja, Gunslinger and Summoner. The number of the Archetypes is also a kind of bloat.
The quality is declining and some of the new classes are just there to fix the old classes. The Ninja, Investigator and Slayer are there to fix the rogue and Swashbuckler is a dex fighter fix. Brawler is a monk fix, etc.
I also think lack of support for new classes or mechanics introduced is problematic, and by new classes I also mean archetypes.
Bloat is happening and you should be concerned.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun fact: the OP of this thread was recently seen rocking an Arcanist, which is something he should totally not be doing if he was to take his own concerns seriously.
Fun fact 2: ACG is almost sold out, so I guess that until the sales of player-oriented hardcovers pummel, the care box for this thread will remain quite empty.
Vote with your wallets! Stop buying Paizo books! Burn the ones you have! Print out the PDFs, and burn them too! Youtube it! Make sure you tell your community! Be a real capitalist!
I don't necessarily mind new classes, but the ACG threw out a lot at once. And while I'm sure I will eventually partake in a class or two from it, some of them were pretty superfluous.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me the new classes are a mixed blessing and I'm mostly on the side of "meh, I'll stick with the Core"
My problem is not that the new classes/concepts/archetypes are bad. Nononono, a lot of them introduce some awesome mechanics and interesting ideas, I have for example pretty much decided to replace the cleric & druid with the oracle for my homegames because I think it does it better.
And there lies the first problem: some of the new classes are "better" than the old ones, or may seem so to me at least. People here keep mentioning that the slayer is "the rogue done right" and other similiar opinions - and in many cases it IS right: the new classes have abilities and powers that outshine the "old guard" in some cases.
Another "problem" I've noticed lately is that a lot of the ne stuff is more complicated rules-wise to understand and use.
this is bad because:
1. some players have a limit to their rules mastery.
2. it makes me as a player "game" more, and "play" less - if that description makes any sense. by that I mean that I see players sitting with their nose in one or more books throughout the session, franticly reading and rereading on their modular/shiftable/X-perday/pick X ability from this list of XX - instead of following the story or the jokes or having fun. because there are suddenly so many smal gears and cogs to keep track of and things that have to be stacked and special conciderations to be made that determines if that character does something amazing/awesome/heroic/iconic/memorable/fun ... or if he stays in the back with a ranged weapon looking a mixture between bored and afraid.
more time reading rules then playing the actual game<--bad design.
If I could magically snap my fingers I would reduce the amount of classes down to where they were when the core came out (or maybe some more, yeah ) but each class would be more thematicly coherent and balanced.
the fighter would have martial versatility as a core ability from the first level (Yes, I know about that archetype - I consider it almost an insult)
There would be waaaay less animal companions/eidelons/etc available (hell, maybe there would be only 1 class that could ever get them!)
The whole spontaneous/learned, arcane/divine, buff&debuff/blaster and all similiar divisons would be reduced to a handful of classes that could be customized to one or the other (not both! sorry mack, you can't have it all!)
there would probably not be any spellcasters that could pick from a list or learn anything given time and money ( like the cleric/druid & wizard) because again: you have to choose - and for me that is more fun.
In this magical book, skills would be done better and the designated class(/es) that were good at skills would have something to contribute both in and out of combat.
but I can't, so I houserule lightly and pick the things my group likes, we make it up as we go along
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necro this thread.I think people have a reason to be worried, especially if you take all archetypes into consideration, but mostly when you look at the quality of the new classes and why they have been released.
I don’t mind new classes, nor do I mind Paizo doing Psionics, but the ACG is problematic and so are the Ninja, Gunslinger and Summoner. The number of the Archetypes is also a kind of bloat.
The quality is declining and some of the new classes are just there to fix the old classes. The Ninja, Investigator and Slayer are there to fix the rogue and Swashbuckler is a dex fighter fix. Brawler is a monk fix, etc.
I also think lack of support for new classes or mechanics introduced is problematic, and by new classes I also mean archetypes.
Bloat is happening and you should be concerned.
Why should I be concerned because of number? If there is too much, simply trim the undesirable options.
Quality is certainly a problem but that's a matter of poor design, not bloat.
Hell, I welcome "Replacement Classes" for ones that suck. I feel like I could safely ban Rogue at my table if I wanted to now and not feel like I was shutting down anybody's character concept. That's a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather have a bloat for base classes and archetypes than for prestige classes TBH. Hell, I even think that some PrCs should have been archetypes to begin with.
The base classes offer much more than just alternate features; they have their own sets of rules. They cannot be compacted into an archetype or a PrC that easily.
The ACG classes also offer something that compensates for a rule that a dread a lot, multiclassing. All 10 classes have something that make the combo much more interesting and less limited than if you would have simply multiclassed with those two classes normally. Why isn't the Swashbuckler proficient with firearms is beyond me, but that's beside the point.
The Occult classes have their own set of rules and flair, why would they become simple archetypes or PrCs, possibly with ridiculous requirements?
You guys call for bloat everytimes a new book comes out... If they ever announce Bestiary 5, you'll still call for bloat for too many monsters when we ALL know that it's never gonna be a problem.
Classes are simply options for players, the more the better. Add archetypes and multclassing to the mix and you can create some of the most unique characters ever in D&D.
I'm actually relieved that Paizo kept the PrC number quite low compared to what WotC did with D&D. Seriously, they went overboard with washout concepts back in 3.5.
|
For me the new classes are a mixed blessing and I'm mostly on the side of "meh, I'll stick with the Core"
My problem is not that the new classes/concepts/archetypes are bad. Nononono, a lot of them introduce some awesome mechanics and interesting ideas, I have for example pretty much decided to replace the cleric & druid with the oracle for my homegames because I think it does it better.
On one hand you say you'll stick with the core but in the next breath you say Oracle is better than Cleric and Druid???
I'm sorry, but I have two things to say:
1) Maybe you're just "meh" about the new ones because you haven't tried them or fully explored them? or are you "meh" because they appear to be a collection of old class features mixed all together and just recycled under a new class name? If it's the latter, I'm with you on this, because that's how they appear to me after my first reading. They're literally in some case, over a 20 level build, just a multiclass of 2 core classes, albeit slightly more powerful (i.e. a rogue 10 / something 10 would have 5d6 sneak at level 20, but a slayer 20 is at 6d6 with more HP/BAB/saves and additional damage pumping capacity... for someone who might lack imagination yes slayer is AMAZING but I'll take a rogue10/somethingelse10 over slayer20 any day)
2) If you've replaced clerics with oracles, then I'm utterly not with you. I find oracles lacking in every department, and the only good ones suffer for overspecialization problems. Give me a cleric with scribe scroll feat any day over that sad excuse for a "healer" that is the oracle. Oracles of nature are pretty good when you compare with druids, but they suffer from the same problem: give me a druid with scribe scroll any day!! the druid spell selection, once you include all the Paizo hardcovers, is just so huge and FUN, that there's no way you should pigeon hole yourself in the tiny spell selection granted by the oracle. Oracle is the "dip sauce" per excellence but if you want something over the long haul, i.e. high levels 14+, you can't beat a full fledged druid with some oracle. To a similar extent: high level wizards beat the crap out of high level sorcerers. Sure casting on the fly sounds nice, but you can basically do the same thing with a reserve of scrolls, wands, staves and various magic items (note that a wizard can use all his DC boosting and SR beating feats with staves...) I don't care what "bloodline" you pick: sorcerers are also one level behind in terms of spell level. So put two 15th level against each other: the sorcerer will be wishing for that 8th level spell the wizard just flung at him...
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
Yep, done with it. Everything I do going forward is core/APG/Ultimates. Anything after that is non-grata.
|
|
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 3.5Yep, done with it. Everything I do going forward is core/APG/Ultimates. Anything after that is non-grata.
I have a similar first reaction with new stuff... out of my 4 players, 3 of them always go for core, then there's the 4th guy (I call him the early adopter) who ALWAYS show up with a class from the book that came out last night... I wouldn't care so much if it was just occasionally, and driven by story concept, but the pattern has repeated itself over the last few years. Not that it's wrong: I accept anything Pathfinder as long as it's not 3rd party or beta. But it *does* come across as a constant attempt to throw me, the DM, off-balance... and sometimes it comes across as Drizzt Envy Syndrome (i.e. always playing something weird, either brand new class or custom race made via advanced race book... I hate that book...)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do we need two copies of this thread on the same forum at the same time?