Personally, I like the rate at which paizo is making new classes and I think they are necessary for the game. Constantly playing games with the same classes over and over eventually gets stale. Plus, they're doing a good job of making sure that every new class is actually worth playing (unlike 3.5, where 80% of the extra classes seemed worthless). The summoner is amazing to play, one of my friends loves the inquisitor. I want to play both the magus and ninja very badly.
I think you guys are exaggerating the bloat problem. At the rate paizo is going, it will take them several years to create the number of classes that Wizards made in 2 or 3 months during 3.5. Anyway, if Paizo wasn't putting out new classes I would be using 3.5 material just so that there were more options: there's nothing I hate more than being bound by a limited system.
The oracle filled a mechanical gap, the magus (with an overly-complicated pool mechanic) patches a gap. The antipaladin squeaks through due to gaming tradition. The alchemist is at least its own niche. The cavalier, inquisitor, summoner, and witch base classes are pure bloat and should never have been published, and there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai (the last being bloat upon bloat).
So stop already.
Here is some more feedback. All those classes you listed from the APG as pure bloat are something that cannot be made using the existing core classes. A witch or cavalier are both an iconic D&D/fantasy tradition and saying they have no place in the game world is fine for your game. Mine however is richer for having them.
(Sorry if this came off as confrontational as it is not directed at anyone as a personal attack but as a point of disagreement over the subject of bloat as I feel these are not wasted space.)
I know this is going to sound utterly revolutionary, and thus will be immensely "pooh-poohed" by the vast majority here, but....
If you don't want to buy a product...don't.
If as GM/DM you don't want a particular class in your game...don't.
If as a player, you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to play that new whateveritis all nice and shiny and new, but your DM/GM wont allow it...find a new game or change your mind until next time.
Griefing the interweb to whine about something we as consumers are given the power to regulate and control anyhow is kind of silly.
Now, using your time to say...make suggestions on how to modify something...that is a much better thing.
Of course, its my 2cp.
I agree with you, and I WILL be voting with my dollars as I imagine others will be too. That being said we DO have the right to voice our opinions if we can do so in a civil manner, and Paizo should know that at least a portion of their customers are against things such as this. That being said, if enough DO want it, fair enough. All it really means is that I might have to start treating Paizo books like i do 3.5 and approve it before its used in game whereas before anything Paizo produced got an automatic pass.
|
Remember kids, two major factors that contributed to the fact that WotC bloat was hated:
1. Closed content. Almost everything beyond the core was closed content, so you had to buy the book in order to use it, not to mention 3PPs couldn't use it as well. Not a case with Paizo.
2. Lack of support. Almost nothing beyond the core was supported in other material. We'll see how it goes with Paizo, but Serpent's Skull seems to use rather a lot of APG content.
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
Agreed. :(
+1The topic of "class bloat" is (and has been for some time) something we've been wrestling with and talking about for a while now. Feedback from the playtests is certainly going to help us come to terms with the question, and more to the point, inform us as to whether or not we've hit the saturation point for full classes (be they called base, core, or alternate... it's all the same).Here's some feedback:
The oracle filled a mechanical gap, the magus (with an overly-complicated pool mechanic) patches a gap. The antipaladin squeaks through due to gaming tradition. The alchemist is at least its own niche. The cavalier, inquisitor, summoner, and witch base classes are pure bloat and should never have been published, and there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai (the last being bloat upon bloat).
So stop already.
+2
|
People who don't like new rules don't purchase new rule books.
People who do like new rules do like purchasing new rule books.
So, to make money, a gaming company will make new rules (classes, feats, races, whatever).
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. We all saw TSR bottom up when they (basically) stopped putting out new material; new rules.
This is what I hear from the 'Anti-bloat' crowd:
"Stop putting out new books that we won't buy or else we won't buy new books!"
Where is the money in people like you? (Sway me!) So far, Pathfinder Products are flying off the shelves at all of my local gaming stores so I think people sure must like new books.
Also, I thought the new classes were actually Archtypes (or some sort of variant) so again, what is the problem? I allow guns in my games, so gunslinger is perfect, and my DM runs a Steampunk game, so it makes sense there as well. And I have we both have many players who like Anime, so that Ninja will be getting at least 2 new players of it.
I think you guys are exaggerating the bloat problem. At the rate paizo is going, it will take them several years to create the number of classes that Wizards made in 2 or 3 months during 3.5.
Just because Wizards made the mistake hugely doesn't mean it isn't still a mistake when done on a smaller scale. There's a reason I never bought a 3.5 "Complete" book or the 3.5 PHB 2. It's the same reason I didn't buy the APG until I was able to sit down with a copy and decide that the good in it was enough to justify a purchase despite the class bloat.
People who don't like new rules don't purchase new rule books.
People who do like new rules do like purchasing new rule books.
So, to make money, a gaming company will make new rules (classes, feats, races, whatever).
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. We all saw TSR bottom up when they (basically) stopped putting out new material; new rules.
This is what I hear from the 'Anti-bloat' crowd:
"Stop putting out new books that we won't buy or else we won't buy new books!"
Where is the money in people like you? (Sway me!) So far, Pathfinder Products are flying off the shelves at all of my local gaming stores so I think people sure must like new books.
Also, I thought the new classes were actually Archtypes (or some sort of variant) so again, what is the problem? I allow guns in my games, so gunslinger is perfect, and my DM runs a Steampunk game, so it makes sense there as well. And I have we both have many players who like Anime, so that Ninja will be getting at least 2 new players of it.
If that is what you hear, then you aren't listening.
I buy plenty of Pathfinder stuff. Adventures. Maps. Accessories. And I'll keep doing so, irrespective of how bad the bloat gets.
But it's more than the bloat not adding to my game. It isn't that I don't want other people to have nice things. Bloat makes organized play painful. It results in rules spread out all over the place. Most importantly, and in spite of the best intentions, it hastens the arrival of the inevitable new edition.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it is highly profitable, and so I expect it to continue. But please don't make me into a caricature.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+2+1Here's some feedback:
The oracle filled a mechanical gap, the magus (with an overly-complicated pool mechanic) patches a gap. The antipaladin squeaks through due to gaming tradition. The alchemist is at least its own niche. The cavalier, inquisitor, summoner, and witch base classes are pure bloat and should never have been published, and there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai (the last being bloat upon bloat).
So stop already.
Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.Thanks.
|
But it's more than the bloat not adding to my game. It isn't that I don't want other people to have nice things. Bloat makes organized play painful. It results in rules spread out all over the place. Most importantly, and in spite of the best intentions, it hastens the arrival of the inevitable new edition.
Them NOT printing new books hastens it even more.
+2+1Here's some feedback:
The oracle filled a mechanical gap, the magus (with an overly-complicated pool mechanic) patches a gap. The antipaladin squeaks through due to gaming tradition. The alchemist is at least its own niche. The cavalier, inquisitor, summoner, and witch base classes are pure bloat and should never have been published, and there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai (the last being bloat upon bloat).
So stop already.
Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.
+1
This is what I hear from the 'Anti-bloat' crowd:
"Stop putting out new books that we won't buy or else we won't buy new books!"
If it is actually impossible to put out new books without new classes in them, then yeah, that's what I'm saying. If, on the other hand, it's possible to put out new books without new classes in them, what I'm saying is,
"Every class you add to a book reduces the chances I'll buy it."
Bestiary 2? I bought it sight-unseen. APG? Originally decided not to buy it at all; took later exposure to the not-new-class content to decide it was worthwhile.
Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.
No.
Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke. Please stop packaging cans of Sprite in Coke 12-packs. If you want to sell Sprite, put it in packages that only have Sprite, so I don't have to evaluate each time whether there is too much Sprite in my Coke 12-packs to be worth buying.
Hmm...I suppose it could be seen as bloat, but...meh? I like some bits of the new classes. In fact, the way they appear to be handling firearms and the gunslinger has actually made me recant on my longstanding "No guns in ANY game I run!" stance. It surprised the hells out of me, but the fact is, they changed my mind. I LIKE getting new rules to look at and try. But I don't think they should stop writing one type of book just because I don't use it. I consider that to be somewhat childish, honestly, but that's my own opinion. And its worth just as much as anyone else's opinion.
I think a gunslinger is needed because as it is there's almost no way to make a viable gun based character. So if you want to have an area/setting that features them prominently you need a class that makes them worth using.
An archetype is not going to cut it. That was with the crossbow fighter and it failed miserably because the design philosophy was to balance the crossbow fighter with a base fighter trying to use a crossbow instead of a base fighter trying to be effective.
If it is actually impossible to put out new books without new classes in them, then yeah, that's what I'm saying. If, on the other hand, it's possible to put out new books without new classes in them, what I'm saying is,
"Every class you add to a book reduces the chances I'll buy it."
Bestiary 2? I bought it sight-unseen. APG? Originally decided not to buy it at all; took later exposure to the not-new-class content to decide it was worthwhile.
This sums up my experience perfectly. Sitting aside my desk right now is the PF Core, Bestiary 1/2 and APG. Soon to be GMG as well. The only one I felt any hesitancy in purchasing was the APG, specifically for fear of class bloat. UM and UC will not be joining them.
To re-iterate: "Every class you add to a book reduces the chances I'll buy it."
More archetypes however; will sway me in the other direction. That's primarily why I like the APG so much.
I understand you need to sell to your audience. The majority of your audience wants guns and more asian themed stuff. You provide that stuff. There comes a point in every product line like that. This is just my personal inflection point.
-Idle
(except the samurai has his katana scabbard upside down ;) )
Naw he's holding the scabbard, it's not tucked into his Obi.
There are no new Base classes in the book, only 3 alternate classes, which could have been represented as an archetype, but, for flavor purposes, and artwork, here are 3 "alternate" classes. It's really a step between a base class and an archetype, since there might be some little tweaks that don't work as an archetype, for example, the Anti-Paladin...wouldn't work with just having alternate class abilities since it needed to be able to be EVIL.
Why can't I play a Chelaxian Anti-Paladin in PFS anyway?
The topic of "class bloat" is (and has been for some time) something we've been wrestling with and talking about for a while now. Feedback from the playtests is certainly going to help us come to terms with the question, and more to the point, inform us as to whether or not we've hit the saturation point for full classes (be they called base, core, or alternate... it's all the same).Here's some feedback:
The oracle filled a mechanical gap, the magus (with an overly-complicated pool mechanic) patches a gap. The antipaladin squeaks through due to gaming tradition. The alchemist is at least its own niche. The cavalier, inquisitor, summoner, and witch base classes are pure bloat and should never have been published, and there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai (the last being bloat upon bloat).
So stop already.
The witch could've been an archetype or alternate class like the a-pal, the inquisitor could've been a prestige class, but not with you on the rest. While I don't like the summoner for a player class, there's no class right now that lets you customize a pet, and the cavalier is a nice non-magical addition; before there was no non-magical class that boosted others, and I often felt the need for something like it, though it was a bit underwelming in the boosting area (I would've preferred if some of the mounted focus was swappable for more boosting abilities, right now there's MOUNTED/buffer focus, I want mounted/BUFFER).
Nah, I don't really think any of the APG classes where true bloat. But yeah, the witch could've been an archetype.
|
|
... inform us as to whether or not we've hit the saturation point for full classes (be they called base, core, or alternate... it's all the same).
That, IMO, is exactly part of the problem -- too many different classes & types of class that are too similar but semi-arbitrarily separated.
There's no real difference between a core class and a base class -- it's solely a matter of which book they're published in.
The difference between a base/core class and it's alternates is that you can't multi-class between them -- in the same way that you can't multiclass as an evoker/transmuter, or as a cleric of Sarenrae/Iomedae, or similarly for witches, or oracles, or cavaliers. So clerics and wizards essentially have a different type of "core alternate" built into them that's the-same-but-different to the alternate classes they may get elsewhere. This continues in the APG with the cavalier, oracle and witch who have their own built-in alternates.
Then there are archetypes, and it's perfectly possible to have mutliple archetypes of the same core class. NPC classes are weak base classes. Prestige classes are powerful classes that you don't select until high level and which depending on the PrC mix aspects of base class, archetype, and alternate.
It's all getting clumsy and unwieldly.
And essentially all of these -- whether archetypes, or alternates, or specialisations within a class, or prestige classes -- are primarily ways of bundling up a mixture of feats and class abilities, some of which are similar to other classes abilities, some of which should be feats.
A Chelish noble who dabbles with a variety of ways of summoning & controling his fiendish allies could be an: aristocrat/infernal binder(wizard(conjurer))/summoner/diabolist
an NPC class, an archetype of a specialisation of a core class, a base class and a prestige class. Or add in levels in other similar classes (sorceror, or possibly cleric) or in completely different classes (barbarian, or cavalier). But he couldn't be a conjurer/diviner. And the knight battling him can be a paladin/cavalier(star) or paladin(divine defender/hospitalar) but couldn't be a cavalier(star)/cavalier(sword).
There are too many different, incompatible ways of doing similar things -- we need one or two standardised, elegant ways of creating specialised characters.
And for half of writing this I got archetype & alternate mixed up.
And every rule they cut reduces the chances I'll buy it. Which of us is more important?
To re-iterate: "Every class you add to a book reduces the chances I'll buy it."
Probably you, because you have a much fancier name. Also because as I recall reading elsewhere, you buy products out of loyalty to the company and not necessarily out of the content inside. "This will probably be my last book", iirc was the quote.
-Idle
Remember kids, two major factors that contributed to the fact that WotC bloat was hated:
1. Closed content. Almost everything beyond the core was closed content, so you had to buy the book in order to use it, not to mention 3PPs couldn't use it as well. Not a case with Paizo.
2. Lack of support. Almost nothing beyond the core was supported in other material. We'll see how it goes with Paizo, but Serpent's Skull seems to use rather a lot of APG content.
This. New "classes" and mechanics need to not get dropped off the wagon like they were in 3.5
|
|
Probably you, because you have a much fancier name. Also because as I recall reading elsewhere, you buy products out of loyalty to the company and not necessarily out of the content inside. "This will probably be my last book", iirc was the quote.-Idle
Fancy? I pulled it out of air when I was 14. :P
Interestingly enough, I'm probably less important because i already have a huge list of houserules I use in place of Pathfinder, and I don't play in Golarion for the most part. So I have no need of new fluff and only buy new crunch for inspiration.
But my original point was, neither of us are more important than the other. The company listens to all customers equally and judges their business choices from that.
Fancy? I pulled it out of air when I was 14. :PInterestingly enough, I'm probably less important because i already have a huge list of houserules I use in place of Pathfinder, and I don't play in Golarion for the most part. So I have no need of new fluff and only buy new crunch for inspiration.
But my original point was, neither of us are more important than the other. The company listens to all customers equally and judges their business choices from that.
I'm in a similar boat to you; I mostly run E6, and play in gritty fantasy type games. The thing is, I think this premise of equality is unfounded.
Let me give you a comparison to my other hobby; competitive fighting games.The Soul Calibur series is played by skilled and unskilled players alike, but there are FAR more unskilled players out there. So while the skilled players want a more balanced game and a deeper fighting engine; the nonskilled players wants more T&A, and more single player content, character dress-up and stuff. They know some of the skilled players will buy it anyways; but without the latter stuff, the unskilled players WONT buy it; and they represent more of the market share.
In Paizo's case; more people love asian themed stuff, guns and stuff like that than detest class bloat. Imo, the choice is clear for them.
That's why the Ninja is the ninja and not the "mystic assassin".
-Idle
|
Paizo needs to publish new game content regularly in order to stay in business - that's a given. You are not allowed to turn off the outflow or you die, which helps nobody.
My theory on class bloat is that in general, DMs don't like to see lots of new classes and new feats etc etc. A DM needs to be on top of what's available to the players so that he can keep his campaign balanced for them. New rules represent new opportunities for cool stuff to happen in game, but also represent more work, and you get to the point where you just can't cope with all the information. It's an RPG, not a PHD. On top of that, how many books can you buy?
So I (like a lot of DMs) prefer things like adventure paths, or map tiles, or flip-mats, or bestiaries, etc etc - stuff that helps us generate content more easily and quickly for the players.
The thing is, not all players run games, so a lot of players don't buy that stuff. Since players outnumber DMs, Paizo has to publish stuff aimed at them, which is all the stuff that leads to class/feat/spell bloat that DMs hate. It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing.
And by the way: based on another thread I started today, apparently there is a real need for a Dex/Int-based two-weapon melee class with full BAB progression that is simple and functional, even with a 15-point buy.
I'm not really against a lot of the content in Ultimate Magic or Ultimate Combat. I've got some qualms with some of the potential content, but I'm waiting to see how things turn out.
What I'm thinking is rubbing me the wrong way, and maybe some others, isn't even new classes/archetypes/feats/spells, etc. but rather that Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat really do seem like they could have been called Advanced Player's Guide 2 and 3 very easily.
And by the time we hit Gen Con that will effectively mean three very similar rulebooks for a very young system.
I know it wasn't in the cards, but I would have been happier if we had gotten these books with some other kind of rulebook in between. For example, an Epic Level book, which is a different kind of book than more options for a standard game.
I would have even liked an "Unearthed Arcana 3.5"-ish book of optional rules instead of having a sprinkling of optional rules in a standard book.
So I guess something more like APG/(Optional Rules Book)/Ulimate Magic (Gen Con)/Epic Level/Ultimate Combat . . . or something like that. I guess I'm still kind of gun shy (so to speak) because when the APG was announced, it was said that it was pretty much going to be like the "Complete" line, but all in one book, so as not to keep doing more "Complete" books. Except that Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat are like two more "Complete" books, and who's to say if they sell that there won't be a temptation to "Ultimate" whatever, since its "safe" and is a known seller?
Epic Level might be more of a risk, but its also actual new territory.
Keep in mind, I'm not calling into question any quality here. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of hard work going into these products. I'm not even saying I wouldn't buy these books . . . I'm just saying that we have so many similar products in a short period of time and I'm worried about that fine line between "sure seller" and "burnout."
|
|
The Soul Calibur series is played by skilled and unskilled players alike, but there are FAR more unskilled players out there. So while the skilled players want a more balanced game and a deeper fighting engine; the nonskilled players wants more T&A, and more single player content, character dress-up and stuff. They know some of the skilled players will buy it anyways; but without the latter stuff, the unskilled players WONT buy it; and they represent more of the market share.
This example supposes that you cannot do both. I don't think it fits the Paizo example.
This example supposes that you cannot do both. I don't think it fits the Paizo example.
It's not so much cannot as if you had to choose one to lean towards; appealing to the masses is the obvious default position. Also creating a game that appeals to both takes a certain level of design expertise. I'm honestly not familiar enough with Paizo's business practices as I am with Namco's to make an accurate judgement.
-Idle
Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.
That is a terrible analogy (and an unnecessarily condescending reply). Please read my subsequent post.
|
|
+2+1Here's some feedback:
The oracle filled a mechanical gap, the magus (with an overly-complicated pool mechanic) patches a gap. The antipaladin squeaks through due to gaming tradition. The alchemist is at least its own niche. The cavalier, inquisitor, summoner, and witch base classes are pure bloat and should never have been published, and there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai (the last being bloat upon bloat).
So stop already.
Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.
+100
|
|
The topic of "class bloat" is (and has been for some time) something we've been wrestling with and talking about for a while now. Feedback from the playtests is certainly going to help us come to terms with the question, and more to the point, inform us as to whether or not we've hit the saturation point for full classes (be they called base, core, or alternate... it's all the same).
I know you didn't exactly ask but i am going to give my opinion on the topic of the hard back books, which is the game crunch books. First let me say I like new classes etc. Even ones I personally don't like I am in favor of, cause other might like it. Which i see as a good thing, more people that like something in the books more likely books get sold. More books sold, means more profit for paizo, which means more stuff made, which means more stuff i will like.
Ok done with my weird rambling, now on the topic of books. This is personally what I would like to see. 1 bestiary book a year, 1 Setting book a year(this can be like the upcoming Inner Sea's region, or a guide to the planes hard back etc), 1 advanced players options book(like the APG, Ultimate Magic/Combat style books) each year. i think that would be a good pace personally. One is monsters perhaps with some new possible PC races like bestiary 2 had, another a setting book which would be mostly fluff but with some crunch and the last one a crunch heavy book.
This of course is just my opinion and nothing more but I would be happy with that rate of books. Not counting all the soft cover stuff.
|
|
Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.No.
Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke. Please stop packaging cans of Sprite in Coke 12-packs. If you want to sell Sprite, put it in packages that only have Sprite, so I don't have to evaluate each time whether there is too much Sprite in my Coke 12-packs to be worth buying.
No.
Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke. I understand other people like Sprite, but I don't like seeing it in the cooler at my local market. Please only sell it in stores I don't shop at so I don't have to look at it.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Folks,
These three classes *will* appear in Ultimate Combat—that's not open for discussion. Your feedback will help us determine the exact form they take—whether they're presented as full class writeups, alternate classes, or archetypes, or perhaps even something else entirely.
After that? We honestly don't have a lot of things after that that we feel need to be treated as full classes (at least, not without being hooked up to significantly new mechanical concepts such as psionics). I'm not promising we won't *ever* do more classes after this—we certainly reserve that right—but we don't currently have concrete plans for *any* new classes after Ultimate Combat.
Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat really do seem like they could have been called Advanced Player's Guide 2 and 3 very easily.I wonder if you'll still think that after you've actually read them.
Maybe not. I'm not sure. But I hope I can convey that from the ad copy, and from the material I've seen, it seems really similar, and if I get burned out on that type of material, I may not get them to read them in the first place.
I'm not trying to be contrary. I do want to give you guys my money, trust me. I like you guys. I loved the APG. But I'm just not sure I'm ready to buy into the Ultimate line.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
That is a terrible analogy (and an unnecessarily condescending reply). Please read my subsequent post.Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.
I've read it. (You actually posted while I was writing that.)
My post was not a response to you—it was a response to somebody who *directly said* "there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai." It's a pretty darn accurate analogy to that statement.
As for your post, I think the idea that new classes hasten a new edition is nonsense. And if the new classes don't work well in Pathfinder Society, we won't allow them in Pathfinder Society. But they're going in this book, because we think they belong in this book.
|
|
That is a terrible analogy (and an unnecessarily condescending reply). Please read my subsequent post.Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.I've read it. (You actually posted while I was writing that.) And it was not a response to you—it was a response to somebody who *directly said* "there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai." It's a pretty darn accurate analogy to that statement.
I think the idea that new classes hasten a new edition is nonsense. And if the new classes don't work well in Pathfinder Society, we won't allow them in Pathfinder Society. But they're going in this book, because we think they belong in this book.
awesome reply. +1
That is a terrible analogy (and an unnecessarily condescending reply). Please read my subsequent post.Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.I've read it. (You actually posted while I was writing that.)
I think the idea that new classes hasten a new edition is nonsense. And if the new classes don't work well in Pathfinder Society, we won't allow them in Pathfinder Society. But they're going in this book, because we think they belong in this book.
Fact: APG classes are being integrated into the adventure paths. Consequently, if I wish to continue to make use of the adventure paths, I cannot ignore the APG. Can I work around it? Sure. But that's not the same thing.
Fact: If I drink Coke, I can completely ignore Sprite.
Hence your analogy is flawed.
I could go on, but I don't need to. Your suggestion my viewpoint is that simplistic and selfish is (1)incorrect, and (2) insulting. But please feel free to insult customers who give feedback you don't like -- that always turns out so well.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Your suggestion my viewpoint is that simplistic and selfish is (1)incorrect, and (2) insulting. But please feel free to insult customers who give feedback you don't like -- that always turns out so well.
Is your viewpoint that "there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai?" That's the viewpoint I'm replying to. If I understand your point of view correctly, you have something a little more useful than that to say. I still think it's incorrect (see my last post), but it's more useful feedback than "I don't want them so don't do them," which is the gist of the post I was replying to.
|
|
That is a terrible analogy (and an unnecessarily condescending reply). Please read my subsequent post.Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.I've read it. (You actually posted while I was writing that.)
I think the idea that new classes hasten a new edition is nonsense. And if the new classes don't work well in Pathfinder Society, we won't allow them in Pathfinder Society. But they're going in this book, because we think they belong in this book.
Fact: APG classes are being integrated into the adventure paths. Consequently, if I wish to continue to make use of the adventure paths, I cannot ignore the APG. Can I work around it? Sure. But that's not the same thing.
Fact: If I drink Coke, I can completely ignore Sprite.
Hence your analogy is flawed.
I could go on, but I don't need to. Your suggestion my viewpoint is that simplistic and selfish is (1)incorrect, and (2) insulting. But please feel free to insult customers who give feedback you don't like -- that always turns out so well.
Bugley vs. The Conspiracy of RPG Publishers, episode 35. Tonight: The Evil That Men At Paizo Do.
And the dogpiling ensues.
It's possible to disagree with someone without implying they're an egomanical simpleon. Some of you might even try it some time.
|
Creative Director
|
Fact: APG classes are being integrated into the adventure paths. Consequently, if I wish to continue to make use of the adventure paths, I cannot ignore the APG. Can I work around it? Sure. But that's not the same thing.
Fact: Not ALL APG classes are being integrated into the adventure paths.
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.
I understand that you're frustrated about some of the decisions we're making. We're not only designing the game for you though. We're trying to design something that EVERYONE wants, and that, unfortunately, more or less means that the more we produce, the more chances we'll have of producing things that someone might not like.
|
I really dislike the "Don't buy the product if you don't want to add it to your game" remarks.
That's like saying, "If you don't like people peeing in the pool, stay on your side."
And other analogies.
More to the point, though, I don't see any problematic bloat in Pathfinder yet, but sometimes I think I can hear the engines of bloat rumbling in the distance.
|
|
Bugley vs. The Conspiracy of RPG Publishers, episode 35. Tonight: The Evil That Men At Paizo Do.That is a terrible analogy (and an unnecessarily condescending reply). Please read my subsequent post.Dear Coca-Cola Company:
I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.I've read it. (You actually posted while I was writing that.)
I think the idea that new classes hasten a new edition is nonsense. And if the new classes don't work well in Pathfinder Society, we won't allow them in Pathfinder Society. But they're going in this book, because we think they belong in this book.
Fact: APG classes are being integrated into the adventure paths. Consequently, if I wish to continue to make use of the adventure paths, I cannot ignore the APG. Can I work around it? Sure. But that's not the same thing.
Fact: If I drink Coke, I can completely ignore Sprite.
Hence your analogy is flawed.
I could go on, but I don't need to. Your suggestion my viewpoint is that simplistic and selfish is (1)incorrect, and (2) insulting. But please feel free to insult customers who give feedback you don't like -- that always turns out so well.
So it's weak sauce evil? Guess we should be glad Lisa isn't doing the evil, cause everyone knows us girls are far better at it, when we put our minds to it. :)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
More to the point, though, I don't see any problematic bloat in Pathfinder yet, but sometimes I think I can hear the engines of bloat rumbling in the distance.
After that? We honestly don't have a lot of things after that that we feel need to be treated as full classes (at least, not without being hooked up to significantly new mechanical concepts such as psionics). I'm not promising we won't *ever* do more classes after this—we certainly reserve that right—but we don't currently have concrete plans for *any* new classes after Ultimate Combat.
Does that help diminish the rumbling for you?