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


Product Discussion

101 to 150 of 731 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

James Jacobs wrote:
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.

James, I understand your position. It doesn't frustrate me in the least, and as I've said I'll continue to buy the majority of your producs that do meet my needs. You guys have a bigger audience to consider.

What *does* frustrate me is the sarcasm, and the (rather explicit) implication that I'm a selfish imbecile for feeling the way I do.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
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. :)

Amen Sister!

Also, I think that your own game is as bloated as you allow it to be. You (if you are the GM) control what goes into your game. If you don't like a class because you think it adds needless complexity, don't allow it. Done.


As long as they remain Open Content and many useful things besides classes show up. They can fill them to the brim with new classes. Doesn't meant that I'll use or allow them. The book itself though I still expect to be good.

Liberty's Edge

Just adding my 2c here.

a) Any new classes need to be supported by the products (like APs) BUT should also have alternatives/substitutes if you don't have the product.
An example would be to say something like if you don't have UC with a Samurai use a Fighter with the Bastard Sword specialization tree from the core rules (and maybe list the feats to be used).
Yes its a simple and under flavoured replacement but then GMs wont feel like they are forced to buy a product in order to use another product.

b) Try as much as possible to limit the number of new feats in the publication and make them specific to the milieu or classes of the product or that have no real synergy with other feats. As we all know the worst cases of Over Powering came in 3.5's inability to look at the combination of feats and classes that could lead to abuse. (The worst case was the thought exercise of Pun Pun the Kobold - look it up if you want to see true feat/class/race abuse - it really is marvelous)

c) and probably the most important - put a massive 80pt, fold out, 3 page spread which states in clear concise letters:

THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK ARE OPTIONAL RULES USABLE *ONLY* WITH THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE GAMES MASTER. DO NOT *ASSUME* THAT YOU CAN USE ANY OF THESE FEATS, CLASSES, SPELLS, OR EQUIPMENT IN HER CAMPAIGN.

(Sometimes you really have to make things obvious to some players.)


The problem I had with the 3.5 class and PrC boom was that so many of them were just bad. Some books had maybe 10 new PrCs but only 1 was really good, one or two more sort of bad and the rest stank. Others had potential that needed house ruling to make effective. So far I the new classes I have seen are better than 3.5's but the more they put out the more likely quality will start to decline.

I also agree with some of the posters that the characters could easily be made from existing classes. You want to play a light fighter? Fine, ask the DM to swap out armor and shield proficiencies for more suitable ones. Need some more skill points? taking a fighter up to 4 base points or even 6 with the right skill set shouldn't be much of an issue either, especially is the player keeps point allocation in line with the envisioned character. There is also the gestalt option. We've been using that a lot in the last few years since our group split up and there are only a couple of us.

All that said, some of the new classes do have their appeal and I might play some of them over time.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
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.

James, I understand your position. It doesn't frustrate me in the least, and as I've said I'll continue to buy the majority of your producs that do meet my needs.

What *does* frustrate me is the sarcasm, and the suggestion that I'm a selfish imbecile. :(

Bugley, I'm not suggesting anything about your mental capability, I'm just noting that you have a great deal of love for going flamethrower on threads related to publishing strategies ... We still do remember the story of your love/hate relationship with WotC/4E back in the day.

Sczarni

give me more classes, make them balanced with unique ideas and concepts but keep them coming, class bloat is only bloat if the classes are not well thought out.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Nikolaus Athas wrote:
An example would be to say something like if you don't have UC with a Samurai use a Fighter with the Bastard Sword specialization tree from the core rules (and maybe list the feats to be used).

We do also have the free PRD as an option to solve that sort of thing. (Need the witch? Look no further.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

bugleyman wrote:
What *does* frustrate me is the sarcasm, and the (rather explicit) implication that I'm a selfish imbecile for feeling the way I do.

If you mean me, I've said it twice already, but I'll say it again—I was *not* addressing your comments. (I also didn't call anyone a selfish imbecile.)


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Count me in for feeling that three more base classes for Ultimate Combat is class bloat that I'd rather not have (and I usually buy pretty much everything Paizo puts out). I don't mind the gunslinger because it does have a niche, but I'd much rather that the ninja and the samurai were smaller APG style archetypes instead of full blown class replacements.


Gorbacz wrote:
Bugley, I'm not suggesting anything about your mental capability, I'm just noting that you have a great deal of love for going flamethrower on threads related to publishing strategies ... We still do remember the story of your love/hate relationship with WotC/4E back in the day.

Mocking oversimplified carticatures of someone's position is generally seen as insulting.

As for me going "flamethrower" in this thread...I'm not seeing it. There is plenty of flaming going on, but not by me.

Liberty's Edge

Vic Wertz wrote:
Kortz wrote:
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.
Vic Wertz wrote:
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?

Yeah, it does. And it seems to me that Paizo is conscientious about how they go about their business, but it makes me wonder what will take the place, financially, of books like the APG, UM, and UC in 2012 and beyond.


James Jacobs wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
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 will note that support, IMO, goes considerably beyond integration into the adventure paths. Rather, it means not orphaning them in future expansion material. For example, WOTC published a Wu-Jen class in Complete Arcane. Despite publishing hundreds of futher spells afterwards, there was never any expansion of the Wu-Jen spell list to include any of these spells... There were no PRC's tailored for Wu-Jen character paths (which is an important mechanical issue given the 3.0/3.5 prolictivity to PRC'ing). There were no Wu-Jen focused magic items after that book.

In Paizo terms, for example, will the witch spell list be expanded when new spells are added (Ultimate Magic)? How about alternate class features for the inquisitor?

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kortz wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Kortz wrote:
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.
Vic Wertz wrote:
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?
Yeah, it does. And it seems to me that Paizo is conscientious about how they go about their business, but it makes me wonder what will take the place, financially, of books like the APG, UM, and UC in 2012 and beyond.

Epic levels, and maybe Psionics. That's the two rules hardbacks for 2012, on top of a World Guide (Casmaron or Garund) and Bestiary IV.

Or maybe they'll go Epic Levels, Bestiary IV, and two World Guides, just to keep at 4 hardbacks per year.


Eric Tillemans wrote:

I don't mind the gunslinger because it does have a niche, but I'd much rather that the ninja and the samurai were smaller APG style archetypes instead of full blown class replacements.

This I can agree with. The Samurai and Ninja don't need the space of a full class, which can be used for other things. (By converting two 'alternate classes' down to archtypes I believe there would be room for another base class, but more feats/combat maneuvers/optional rules would make me happy too.)


Honestly guys if a product doesn't conform to your needs then don't buy it or use the SRD to get the material that you want from your game.

Paizo has to make informed decisions on the content that they think will sell. Evidence throughout the 3.x period indicates that Crunch sells books. One of the easiest method of meeting the demands for crunch is Classes and/or PrCs (spells and feats are also big targets for crunch development). Since Paizo has IMHO rightfully decided that PrC bloat in 3.x was a major detractor from the system this probably means that base class expansion and alternate classes/archetypes will see a moderately high amount of page count.

If however people don't buy these books in the numbers that Paizo is anticipating they will be forced to go back to the drawing board like all good companies and better tailor their offerings to meet current and expected demand.

Considering the sheer number of books (APs + Golarion Fluff) that Paizo puts out in addition to Pathfinder rules I'm okay with stuffing a pretty high amount of base class/alternate class stuff into the occasional crunch book. I even accept the asian themed classes even though I'm unlikely to ever incorporate them into a game.


While I stick by everything I've said in this post, I probably should have found a different thread to post those comments in. The conversation was at a point that I was moved to chime in, but I do think that the title is a bit more provocative than I would have chosen, and probably begins already putting our Paizo friends in a certain mindset.

Sometimes context is really important, and I'm not really up for being overly antagonistic or contrary. Sorry if anything I posted looked like I might have been "dogpiling" against any specific idea. I don't expect my opinion to have any more or any less weight than any other consumer's, and I was simply registering that opinion.

Liberty's Edge

Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

(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?

There is the Pathfinder Society rule against non-evil characters. However,t here are always home games. As Cheliax has a government devoted to Asmodeus, I don't think that an anti-paladin would be welcome in the Cheliax faction -- or the country.

As for the main topic, I think that the question should be is whether a class, alternate class or archetype really helps someone build a fantasy archetype. In the end, I think that the whole point of books is to sell products that help us to have fun.

I am glad that James Jacobs mentioned that class bloat was a concern. There are limits to how complex a rule system can get before it becomes unattractive to players. Communication will be the key, and I like the fact that we can talk directly to people here at Paizo and get some feedback.

Liberty's Edge

Vic Wertz wrote:


We do also have the free PRD as an option to solve that sort of thing. (Need the witch? Look no further.)

Yes you are in fact correct sir. I had forgotten about that aspect of your company. (and what a wonderful choice you made in doing this too! Major Kudos to all your decision makers for choosing to go ahead with this.)


I am satisfied with the number of base classes as of the APG. Core had the classics and the APG has the "Paizo"-fluffed classes.
When I read that it would stop there, I was very happy.

Then came the exception of the magus, not my cup of tea, even tough I adore wizards and I won't miss the book.

I liked the way the APG handled the classes (I can't talk about the Anti-paladin, because I never play him or is LG brother).

I hope you rather make subtle modification to classes in the future. I greatly support the decision (I guess it is one) that the core classes will always be a bit better than the rest. The Presticlass insanity for wizards in 3.5 was ... well insane. (I played an alternate gnome illusionist with 3 prestige classes and an alternate feature for familiars)

What I hope to get from further books is things like seen in the unearthed arcana. Additional rules that might interest people (like a grit for everyone). More spells. Some feats (playtested well, so they don't combine too well). New skills or skill-uses.

Anyhow, that's just my cup of tea, as this thread has gotten a little more attention, I tought I should share.


William Ronald wrote:
Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

(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?

There is the Pathfinder Society rule against non-evil characters. However,t here are always home games. As Cheliax has a government devoted to Asmodeus, I don't think that an anti-paladin would be welcome in the Cheliax faction -- or the country.

As for the main topic, I think that the question should be is whether a class, alternate class or archetype really helps someone build a fantasy archetype. In the end, I think that the whole point of books is to sell products that help us to have fun.

I am glad that James Jacobs mentioned that class bloat was a concern. There are limits to how complex a rule system can get before it becomes unattractive to players.

Pathfinder is derived from D&D 3.5, and it's core game is significantly more complex than core 3.5.

I'd say PF started out at the complexity level that makes it unattractive to players that aren't looking for a complex system.

Liberty's Edge

I just want to ask if some posters dislike rules bloat so much why even bother buying Pathfinder? Paizo invsted alot of time money and resources in creating PFRP. It would insanity and financial sucide for them as a company to not improve or add anything new to it. It's like buying a new PC and telling Microsoft "don't upgrade your processors or I'm not buying". Rpgs imo are and not meant to stay static. They evolve over time. If rules bloat is such a bad thing you may have just wasted a bunch of money investing in Paizo and PFRP. Nowhere do I remember Paizo saying they would not include new rules. They said they woiuld attempt to keep the rules bloat to a minimum if they can.

Some need to remove the rose colored glasses they have sprayed painted black and realize that this is a company that has employee and bills to be paid. They need to make a profit. Where exactly do you expect the this to come from? Only from APs, their novels, and other merchandise. They need to show potential consumers not sure about buying the rpg that they are more than just a company that publishes adventures. They have an rpg too.

Every time any product that has the remote chance of having new rules their is an assumption that "BAM" Paizo will be the new Wotc and that the game system is going to hell. I'm starting to get fed up and tired of hearing about it. I do not know what it is about rpgs and an overinflated sense of entitlement. No one goes to Ford and tells them to stop coming out with new cars. No one tells Maytag to sto publishing new models. Espcially not because the new models may have newer features or add-ons.

Being told to not buy new product is pretty valid response. Your not forced to buy the new product or use the new rules. Telling a company to possibly take a loss and not support the product they spent a lot of effort and time developing good luck trying to convince anyone of the "logic" of that. I see no one complaing about the extra stuff showing up in the APs. While we are at it lets just tell Paizo "no more APs" while we are at it.

The Exchange

memorax wrote:

I just want to ask if some posters dislike rules bloat so much why even bother buying Pathfinder? Paizo invsted alot of time money and resources in creating PFRP. It would insanity and financial sucide for them as a company to not improve or add anything new to it. ...

Some need to remove the rose colored glasses they have sprayed painted black and realize that this is a company that has employee and bills to be paid. They need to make a profit. Where exactly do you expect the this to come from? ...

Every time any product that has the remote chance of having new rules their is an assumption that "BAM" Paizo will be the new Wotc and that the game system is going to hell. I'm starting to get fed up and tired of hearing about it. I do not know what it is about rpgs and an overinflated sense of entitlement. No one goes to Ford and tells them to stop coming out with new cars. No one tells Maytag to sto publishing new models. Espcially not because the new models may have newer features or add-ons.

Being told to not buy new product is pretty valid response. Your not forced to buy the new product or use the new rules. Telling a company to possibly take a loss and not support the product they spent a lot of effort and time developing good luck trying to convince anyone of the "logic" of that. I see no one complaing about the extra stuff showing up in the APs. While we are at it lets just tell Paizo "no...

a big +1

I understand people having opinions and voicing them. I support everyone's right to do so and I really enjoy reading them, even the ones I disagree with. Thankfully Paizo is tolerant and they not only let fans voice their opinion, but they have the decency to come on here and try to explain their position/reasoning. Some RPG companies would erase any non-favorable comments, lock or erase the thread and completely disregard the fans comments.

I want the UM and UC books and I will be buying them. I think the race books like "Gnomes of Golarion", "Orcs of Golarion", "Humans of Golarion" are a complete waste of time. They offer nothing that I find of interest and I think they add nothing to the game, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't print them. It just means I shouldn't buy them.

Shadow Lodge

Dark_Mistress wrote:
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.

I would agree with that pace. Although I'd substitute "rule book" in place of player's option book...some might be more targeted towards GMs.


Kortz wrote:

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.

I don't think that is the point they are making. It is true however, in the end the Golden Rule is if you don't like it don't use it.

Having fun is THE most important thing about role playing if something is created to the point to which it is no longer fun for you do not include it. If there is a rule in your game you personally do not like house-rule it away or change it. These are OPTIONAL rules.

As far as class glut goes I love having lots of classes to play with I've bought the APG and will likely purchase both Ultimate guides and buy up a ton of classes from 3pp. My players choose what they want from what I have and we all have fun.

Keep up the good work Paizo, I might not like all that you publish but I do like a ton of what you put out.


Thane36425 wrote:

Fine, ask the DM to swap out armor and shield proficiencies for more suitable ones. Need some more skill points? taking a fighter up to 4 base points or even 6 with the right skill set shouldn't be much of an issue either, especially is the player keeps point allocation in line with the envisioned character.

See, people buy books because want someone else do that job for them.

I can use houserules here and there, but I prefer paizo folks ones because my job is make proteins run and see what happens, their job is make this stuff. They have more time and experience.


I might get the book for the rest of the content, but I can't see any of the classes getting used in any campaign that I am involved in (no one I know would allow one, and no one would take one) so its a bit of a waste of pages. I just hope the rest of the content is usefull.


Thomas Austin wrote:

As a DM, class bloat is much easier to deal with than feat bloat.

Of course. I just flat out don't allow any base classes aside from CRB ones in my games.


.
..
...
....
.....

I would rather more support to help us do more with what we have.

You see lots of grey face grumbling about how folks are increasingly wishing to be spoon fed but what do we then see as a result?

More spoon feeding.

Yeah, you can accommodate your clients or you can educate them

If your choose the former you don't get to greyface grumble about the clients - if you choose the latter you get a challenge.

Of course, one is considered a 'healthy' business strategy, the other.. well, less so.. :)

::

Educate? Eh?

..as in class breakdowns, behind-the-scenes guides on campaign crafting, design philosophies etc

Crib notes and all that - many of us have been playing for a fair amount of time and already see the rules as guidelines rather than gospel but for many, creative forays into fiddling with a campaign, tweaking classes and general screwing with the system is daunting.

Help folk understand what does what and why and, why ya'll wanted what to do what in the way it does what. :)

Granted, the end results could well be hideous, 'broken', terribad etc but people would learn how to handle these abominations.

Also, yes, such homebrew-kitbooks wouldn't generate content that would be considered PFS legal but hey, ya know? :)

Ah never mind.

I demand a bigger spoon.

At least it's all optional..

..tis only going to be a problem if people start seeing the rules as written as their right of play.

Doom doom doom! :)

James Jacobs wrote:


We're not only designing the game for you though. We're trying to design something that EVERYONE wants.

Give them what they need, not what they think they want! :)

I recall someone likening the APs/things to the books from which other can learn how to write their *own* books..

..so, how's about books dedicated to helping others with writing their own books?

Aaaw go on!

::

Tis a good thing the spoons are optional.

*shakes fist*

Grand Lodge

So many have mentioned time and time again in this thread about Paizo putting books and content out to make money. first and foremost, Paizo is a company in it to make money for both themselves and their employees. We as consumers of their products get the benefit of said product.

With that being said, people have mentioned the books are coming out way to fast for them and they have class bloat. Both of these simply are not true. A year apart with the APG and the Core Rules book is not to fast for one. For two 12 classes plus the Magus class, 8 months after the APG is released is STILL not to fast. The Ultimate Combat books with Three "Alternate" classes is not asking to much not to mention it is going to be another 4 months after Ultimate Magic is released. So we have 13 base classes and 3 "Alternate" classes in a matter of 3 years and some of you in this thread are complaining about class bloat.

Paizo has mentioned many times that they are going to try and keep a balance on them as much as they can but they STILL have to release products and find ways to put content in said product. Hell James Jacobs has come in this thread and said as much and people criticize him because they are not doing enough for some of you. In three years time WotC has put out way more product that Paizo has with way way to many classes in their books and yet People are still playing it. Buying their books as they are released.

The main reason I moved to Paizo is because of the fact that Paizo actually cares enough to ask our opinion and playtest and plan their products beforehand. They also do not want to move to fast without keeping us in mind when they release a book, even going so far as to push the release dates back a few months to try and make sure said product is the best it can be in their eyes. Paizo can not nor should they try and please everyone of us that buy their product and like it or not the products they have put out have pleased the majority of the people that have bought them. With that being said too, some were not happy but they are the minority. Based on the playtest forums thus far, I am guessing we are going to see 3 "Alternate" classes in the Ultimate Combat book.

BTW Whining is only whining regardless if it is a child or an adult on the internet. :)

Grand Lodge

see wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
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 is a wizard/cleric archetype...because the MT really does utterly fail at it. The inquistor is a fighter/divine...yes it has the same BAB as the cleric...but it's class abilities makes it a fighter divine archetype...without that pesky paladin LG only. The summoner is an arcane pet type...which is somewhat debatable as needed...and the cavalier is bloat...but 1 out of 6 isn't bad. Well maybe 2 of 6 if your of the idea that the summoner was un-needed. But the witch and inquistor filled MUCH needed archetypes quite nicely in my games without resorting to say...the aweful MT.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cold Napalm wrote:
see wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
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 is a wizard/cleric archetype...because the MT really does utterly fail at it. The inquistor is a fighter/divine...yes it has the same BAB as the cleric...but it's class abilities makes it a fighter divine archetype...without that pesky paladin LG only. The summoner is an arcane pet type...which is somewhat debatable as needed...and the cavalier is bloat...but 1 out of 6 isn't bad. Well maybe 2 of 6 if your of the idea that the summoner was un-needed. But the witch and inquistor filled MUCH needed archetypes quite nicely in my games without resorting to say...the aweful MT.

Cavalier is a skillmonkey Fighter that can do something else than whack people around (AND isn't supposed to be a loincloth-only raging loony). Considering the amount of "Fighters have too few skills" and "WTB Marshal/Warlord" over the years, I see Cav as a valid choice.


@ Cold Napalm: Is even more than that.

Witch is not only a Wiz/Cleric. The familiar for spells mechanic is brand new and is plenty of at-will abilities.

The inquisitor is a skillmonkey too. And a tracker.

The summoner "pet" is a new world of options by his own.

Cavalier is different from paladin. I've seen in play an Order of the Dragon one and feels like a commander in charge, not a divine defender of the weak and punisher of the wicked.

And don't understimate the 4 skill/level. The PC above is human with 14 int 7 skill/ level for a functional melee is a revolution for me.

EDIT: pretty much what Gorbacz said.

Liberty's Edge

I just find it strange that some of the posts come across with a tone as if Paizo had screwed over the fans with rules bloat. I could understand if Paizo had made a promise or try to sell PFRP with "no new rules" yet they never did. Now it seems everytime any product has any new rules some just act or pretend to act shocked that it happens. That and gamers need to understand that a company cannot only survive on the goodwill of the fanbase alone.


Dorje Sylas wrote:
I think the problem is in the presentation mostly. You could do the same thing for all the APG archetypes as was done in the UC preview. Would they feel less like new base classes if it was just the class abilites table?

I agree 100%. I rule zeroed them all all ready!

Sovereign Court

CourtFool wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
I appreciate that you aren't dismissive of my post as some posters…
It is not that I am dismissive of your post. You are just wrong. And being this is the interweb, it is my duty to inform you of just how wrong you are. :)

It's good to see that you still think that I'm talking about you when I in no way quoted or referenced you. After all courtfool you are the center of the universe in which all matter is directly influenced by your actions :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
lastknightleft wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
I appreciate that you aren't dismissive of my post as some posters…
It is not that I am dismissive of your post. You are just wrong. And being this is the interweb, it is my duty to inform you of just how wrong you are. :)
It's good to see that you still think that I'm talking about you when I in no way quoted or referenced you. After all courtfool you are the center of the universe in which all matter is directly influenced by your actions :)

I thought you were talking about me. :'(


Deanoth wrote:

So many have mentioned time and time again in this thread about Paizo putting books and content out to make money. first and foremost, Paizo is a company in it to make money for both themselves and their employees. We as consumers of their products get the benefit of said product.

With that being said, people have mentioned the books are coming out way to fast for them and they have class bloat. Both of these simply are not true. A year apart with the APG and the Core Rules book is not to fast for one. For two 12 classes plus the Magus class, 8 months after the APG is released is STILL not to fast. The Ultimate Combat books with Three "Alternate" classes is not asking to much not to mention it is going to be another 4 months after Ultimate Magic is released. So we have 13 base classes and 3 "Alternate" classes in a matter of 3 years and some of you in this thread are complaining about class bloat.

Paizo has mentioned many times that they are going to try and keep a balance on them as much as they can but they STILL have to release products and find ways to put content in said product. Hell James Jacobs has come in this thread and said as much and people criticize him because they are not doing enough for some of you. In three years time WotC has put out way more product that Paizo has with way way to many classes in their books and yet People are still playing it. Buying their books as they are released.

The main reason I moved to Paizo is because of the fact that Paizo actually cares enough to ask our opinion and playtest and plan their products beforehand. They also do not want to move to fast without keeping us in mind when they release a book, even going so far as to push the release dates back a few months to try and make sure said product is the best it can be in their eyes. Paizo can not nor should they try and please everyone of us that buy their product and like it or not the products they have put out have pleased the majority of the people that have bought them. With that being said...

I can see this as a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation. On the one hand you have two rather different (and i'm not sure exactly if they go together) concepts in the firearms and oriental flavored stuff both in demand (and both rather highly debated and a bit of a hot topic amongst us geeks) for the Paizo treatment. I'm kinda glad they finally did it, though I'm not sure they need whole classes, but thats another topic.

Does a game company need to produce products to survive? Absolutely. Do I want them to continue to produce great games? Absolutely. I'm a big fan of paizo, and I've lobbied hard both for my group and my FLGS to come around to the Paizo/Pathfinder bandwagon (FLGS finally did, so I'm able to get most of my stuff through them now, yay!) At first blush I'm not a big fan of this book, which is a first for me for a Paizo product and I'll admit I came off possibly a bit snarky at first. I apologize for any nerdrage ^_- .

Hopefully I'll be wrong and this will be a great book and a wonderful addition to my gaming collection. Maybe I'll be right and I'll want to slap anyone who tries to bring it to my table. Either way, in retrospect I suppose its good to get both controversial topics in one book and risk ONE bad book rather than two poor sellers. Paizo does good stuff, and I'm sure even one of their flops (if this book is one) will be better than most companies successes.

Sovereign Court

TriOmegaZero wrote:
IdleMind wrote:


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.

Which is why I wanted to voice my opinion, I love the group of posters who come on here and say. SHUT UP and don't buy it. because what paizo wants is fewer sales with no idea why fewer people picked it up, so they start ignoring things that would otherwise have been great additions to the game but because the book they premiered in had low sales for a completely unrelated reason, they pick the wrong things as the reason.

those who posted such are completely right, I should never express my opinions about products to the makers of said products in hopes that there are enough people who agree with me to sway the company, no I should just never say anything negative. (keep in mind Tri that I'm not implying by quoting your post that you are one of those people).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Not at all lkl, while I don't agree with all the people decrying the new classes, I believe they should be able to say so. However, they should not expect Paizo to do as they say anymore than the other side should. I learned that well in the original playtest.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

bugleyman,

I had to leave on a set schedule last night, so i didn't have time to respond to one of your comments in the fashion I wanted to. Now that I've got some more time...

You claim that new classes "hasten the arrival of the inevitable new edition."

I believe that exactly the opposite is true.

First of all, we need to raise the question of how Paizo will figure out when it's time to do a new edition. To be honest, right now, we don't really have the answer to that question. It's far enough in the future that it's not on anyone's radar. As far as we're concerned, we're still getting *this* edition started. However, I think there's a strong probability that one of the leading indicators that will trigger serious discussion of a new edition will be when our audience starts asking for it.

I think that if the only classes that we ever put out were the ones in the Core Rulebook, most people would start getting bored with the current edition after playing the core classes they like a time or two each. And since much of our audience had been playing 3.5 versions of those classes for years already, some folks would probably get bored after just playing the two or three classes that they though we improved the most in their Pathfinder RPG incarnations. (Frankly, I'd probably count myself in that latter group.)

I think that the classes we introduced in the APG, and the ones we're introducing in the two Ultimate books, actually serve to keep a high interest level in the current edition, because they give experienced players new textures to explore in the context of the current system. Essentially, they add to the "replay value" of the game. I personally estimate that these new classes will extend the life of the current edition for the average player by nearly two years—more for some, less for others, of course—and by the time most players are tired of those classes, we'll have released some other new options that will extend the life of the current edition even further.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

1. Myself and my five person gaming group have no problem with new gaming material that adds base classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, magic items, etc. In fact we expect it from Paizo and eagerly buy it when it comes out. We will all buy copies of both Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat when they release.

2. When I, as a DM, don't like material in a product I buy, I disallow it in my game. Currently, I don't allow PCs to take 'Craft Magic Arms and Armor', 'Craft Wondrous Item', 'Craft Ring', or 'Craft Rod'. I don't hate the feats nor do I hate the book they came in just because I don't use them. Its all part of my job as DM to review new material and determine what I want available in my game. Even if I'm not going to use it, I'll still buy the book, if only to be ready in case I see that material in an Adventure Path that I'm running.

3. Golarion was created with the idea of supporting the broadest number of play styles in mind (horror, low fantasy, epic fantasy, fire arms, psionics, underdark, etc.). Thus, its no surprise to see new material released that supports all these play styles. This goes back to #2 above, where part of my job is to filter out what doesn't fit with my campaign.

4. I like my games to be supported by a vibrant, energetic company that is actively engaged with its customer base. In the RPG world this means new content regularly, among other things.

5. Most importantly.....please give us an epic rulebook in 2012!!!

Lol, sorry, sorry, I couldn't resist that last one :P

Good gaming to all,

DJF

Sovereign Court

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Not at all lkl, while I don't agree with all the people decrying the new classes, I believe they should be able to say so. However, they should not expect Paizo to do as they say anymore than the other side should. I learned that well in the original playtest.

What's funny is that I don't have a problem with new classes per se, as I've tried to get across from the begining, I have a problem with the rate at which they've been coming. Even though they encompass three years product lines, they release in a span that is less than two years. As I said in my OP thats 10 classes in less than 2 years added to the game. I don't necessarily think that 10 classes added to the game is a problem, but if every two years 5-10 classes comes out then IMO that's bloat. By expressing my concerns now there's a higher likelyhood that the pace of new classes slows, rather then just not buying products at all.


While Samurai, Ninja and Gunslinger have no place in my Campaigns it is cool to see the thinking behind them and the fact that Paizo is giving us a chance to bang them around for free with OUT buying anything first. Unlike other unnamed Publishers, we have an insight as to whether we want these classes, which ever variation they are, in our games.

I appreciate the fact they DO listen to us, even the ones of us kicking them in the gnarly bits about stuff we don't like.

If you don't like it don't buy it caveat is not for you, all fine and dandy. Since my groups all know what flavor of game we're in and well, they've been in the same games for 15+ and 8+ years and a new one is just now getting into Golarion, we can all sit down and discuss the new stuff. It's really no biggie.

Will I buy these new books? Not sure yet, I may snag them and see if they have other nuggets of love I like and can add and then let my players know if they should snag em.

Heck, I may just buy em because I'm turning into a friggin Fanboy here and want to support a company I actually like! Meh, who knows.

Basically I'm just glad they are still trying to keep the juices flowing and giving us options to keep our games fresh.

Bloat? Glut? Target Rich environment? Beats me, I'm just glad they're still trying.

Have Fun out there!!

~ W ~


Quote:
I think that if the only classes that we ever put out were the ones in the Core Rulebook, most people would start getting bored with the current edition after playing the core classes they like a time or two each.

Even if every player played ONE of each class, that's 11 classes. Even taking the minimum time for an AP to play out (6 months), that's a period of 5.5 years!

Not to mention, now when we have archetypes, you can play really different characters while playing the same class... Don't get me started on multi-classing and prestige classes.

Quote:
Essentially, they add to the "replay value" of the game.

Archetypes and more support for base classes would do that for me.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Of course I pick the dangerous thread to post on, but I wanted to take a chance to post some of my concerns as well, and since this one is fairly well traveled and my ramblings are related, it's as good as any.

My initial gut reaction towards the new playtest was similar to much of what I've seen here: not positive. I was excited about the APG classes, and even moderately interested in the Magus (although I don't particularly like the class mechanics) because to me they felt like they filled important missing niches. When I opened the new playtest I saw one new class (the gunslinger), what felt to me like a reprint of an existing class (the Samurai), and a weird multiclass class (the ninja). Honestly I was a bit stunned that I felt that two of the three "new" classes felt like they were "tacked on" to make Asian inspired campaigns more possible rather than fitting that criteria of "filling a niche". This lead to the inevitable initial gut reaction of, "wow, even Paizo is going to fall victim to the class bloat of 3.5".

It took me several hours of reading the playtest document and looking on the boards to realize that what was presented were not base classes at all, but rather alternate classes. The fact that this was not immediately obvious to me (an experienced player) is a problem. In fact, I'm beginning to see some common themes through all my reading. This misconception or confusion over their core/base/alternate/archetype status is not a minor issue and in fact to me seems to be a bit of a driving factor over the frustration over these classes. I love the archetype system and I think a lot of us believed that this was the way of the future for Paizo products; however, seeing the playtest shift from the archetype realm while not quite reaching the niche-filling base class realm but rather falling into the alternate-class realm is where I think the frustration lies. Essentially, it feels like the whole concept was sprung on us (although I know it was not). Now I realize that the Paizo folks keep pointing back to the whole Paladin/Anti-Paladin argument. Problem is, the argument isn't working because the connection for the creation of an alternate class for the Paladin/Anti-Paladin is thematic; that is not necessarily true for the Samurai and Ninja. They feel like archetypes but are being presented as alternate classes, and I don't think players were expecting that mechanic to be expanded upon. In essence, the whole alternate-class thing feels like a new rule, or as a lot of people are referring to it - bloat.

Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I understand why Paizo needs to continue to produce new materials and present new classes, but I hope that you take a long hard look at how these new classes were received by your hard-core fans. Maybe a repackaging and representation of the same material in a different format is what is really warranted.


I would have liked if they would have prioriaticed the world guild a little more than puting out 3 splat books in a row. or even better a nice long high lvl adventure, somthing that actually reached lvl 20.


Quote:
because the connection for the creation of an alternate class for the Paladin/Anti-Paladin is thematic

And nostalgic.

Sovereign Court

MisterSlanky wrote:

Of course I pick the dangerous thread to post on, but I wanted to take a chance to post some of my concerns as well, and since this one is fairly well traveled and my ramblings are related, it's as good as any.

My initial gut reaction towards the new playtest was similar to much of what I've seen here: not positive. I was excited about the APG classes, and even moderately interested in the Magus (although I don't particularly like the class mechanics) because to me they felt like they filled important missing niches. When I opened the new playtest I saw one new class (the gunslinger), what felt to me like a reprint of an existing class (the Samurai), and a weird multiclass class (the ninja). Honestly I was a bit stunned that I felt that two of the three "new" classes felt like they were "tacked on" to make Asian inspired campaigns more possible rather than fitting that criteria of "filling a niche". This lead to the inevitable initial gut reaction of, "wow, even Paizo is going to fall victim to the class bloat of 3.5".

It took me several hours of reading the playtest document and looking on the boards to realize that what was presented were not base classes at all, but rather alternate classes. The fact that this was not immediately obvious to me (an experienced player) is a problem. In fact, I'm beginning to see some common themes through all my reading. This misconception or confusion over their core/base/alternate/archetype status is not a minor issue and in fact to me seems to be a bit of a driving factor over the frustration over these classes. I love the archetype system and I think a lot of us believed that this was the way of the future for Paizo products; however, seeing the playtest shift from the archetype realm while not quite reaching the niche-filling base class realm but rather falling into the alternate-class realm is where I think the frustration lies. Essentially, it feels like the whole concept was sprung on us (although I know it was not). Now I realize that the Paizo folks...

Just wanted to say that this is a beautifully written post. and one that explains my feelings on this "alternate class" thing quite well. As well as expressing my feeling that archtypes are the way of the future. I want to see lots of new archetypes for these newer niche classes. I guess that's another part of what bothers me about this playtest, is that I honestly have been saying for a while that ninja and samurai are perfect examples of things that should be archtypes rather than base or alternate classes.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the biggest issue we are having right now is calling them alternate classes. If you tear apart the ninja, for example, it is really just a rogue archetype with a new big ability (ninja trick).

Poison Use replaces trapfinding.
Ki Pool replaces Evasion.
No Trace replaces Trap Sense.
Ninja Trick and Master Trick replace Rogue Talents and Advanced Talents.
Hidden Master replaces Master Strike.
And the class gains Light Step.

Samurai does the same thing with the Cavalier.

It's the reason that you can't take a level of rogue and then a level of ninja. It is no different then trying to take a level of rogue(thug) and then a level of rogue(swashbuckler).

101 to 150 of 731 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.