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


Product Discussion

251 to 300 of 731 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

To whom it may concern:

Stating "if you don't like it don't buy it" is no less as irritating as "I'm taking my ball and going home", albeit more mature.

This game... *flips books shut* ...is over.

Dark Archive

Vic Wertz wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Do I understand correctly that you're saying that it's industry wisdom that most players of D&D/PFRPG 'type' games play them principally to have the experience of using a character which does mechanical things which no character that they've used before does?

Well, I wouldn't equate my own opinions with "industry wisdom," first of all.

While there are certainly people who prefer to play the same class every time they roll up a character, I do think that most gamers, when creating a new character, are more likely to go for variety.

I know for my group thats true. While most of us have certain classes we like/play more, most tend to play just about everything eventually. For me it breaks down about like.

50% - Rogue, Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Witch
About half the time I will play one of the above.

25% - Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, Cavalier, Inquisitor

15% - Bard, Oracle, Alchemist

10% - Cleric, Paladin

Then there is two classes I have never played and really have no desire to ever try.

0% - Monk, Summoner


My few cents:

I think that additional class 'Variants' like those featured in the Ultimate Combat playtest should just be printed as 'archetypes' as that is what they really are. It is awesome if they get additional flavor and art (and even some feats to bolster their variant ability).

New base classes scare me away. I honestly value the alternate class features in the APG about 100 times as much as I value the classes in it. I would also enjoy additional support for archetypes (such as feats that apply to variant abilities, like Hunter's Tricks from APG, or cool ways to combine 'similar' archetypes from different base classes).

One thing I would like to see is careful control of what feats do, and instead build those ideas into the upper levels of archetypes to encourage less multiclassing. I am scared as a DM that the game will sprawl into 3.5's bloat problem if too many classes get added (especially since Pathfinder classes tend to be much more relevant than most of those found in 3.5's complete series). I am scared as a player that too many options will present themselves and I either a) have to play an optimized character because others at my table will, meaning min maxing, taking 6 different base classes, 2 prestige classes, and 4 alternate class features to keep up, or b) The new classes will power creep to 'feel' relevant, obsoleting the old classes.

I think archetypes are the pretty much the best thing ever, and I would buy a book entirely filled with them if I could.

All that said - keep up the great work Paizo!


I searched the messageboards for "4th edition" and got over 10,000 hits. Clearly the desire for a 4th edition of Pathfinder exists.

I searched the messageboards for "death" and got over 50,000 hits. Clearly all Paizo customers want to die!

I can be glib and dismissive, too. The problem is that it really doesn't add much to the discussion. :/

Edit: In an attempt to be more constructive, what do I want to see?

1. I want to see rules elements added in the least impactful fashion. Core classes that are added should be mechanically AND thematically distinct. Ninja fails this test, as it steps on the rogue. Cavalier steps on the fighter. These should be feats or prestige classes -- the system was designed to be modular for good reason.

2. I want to see additional rules elements kept out of the Adventure Path. Both because it's better for me personally and because it keeps the barrier to entry low. I believe the longer the answer to "what do I need to buy to play this" becomes, the worse the problem of building the fanbase gets.

But I'm repeating myself. This has all be stated up thread if you're really interested in an answer.

Dark Archive

deinol wrote:

For those that are worried about rules bloat, what kind of rulebooks do you want to see?

Paizo is responding to the desires of its customers. Since Pathfinder RPG has been announced, people have asked for more options. For example, as of now searching the messageboards I get this many results:

1,254 Gunslinger
3,460 Samurai
9,412 Pirate
11,482 Ninja

Let's say that nobody used the term "Gunslinger" before the playtest. If we subtract that many uses from the others, we can see that Ninjas have still been talked about over 10k times. Clearly the desire for ninjas exist. It can be made a case that Samurai is a little more niche. On the other hand, people should be up in arms over the lack of a Pirate class!

I understand the desire for some people to have a set system that doesn't change. However, people who buy "Core" and nothing else become non-customers. Paizo is going to expand the game, because they promised to support the game they were creating. So if Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat are not the sort of expansions you want, what are you looking for in a new book?

I certainly hope that the future holds Psionics, Epic levels, Divine levels, and Monstrous Races.

Yeah, where the hell IS my Pirate class darnit? I want it now, they best be working on a 500 page Pirates of Golarion book next...

Ok I am only half kidding with that. :)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Yeah, where the hell IS my Pirate class darnit? I want it now, they best be working on a 500 page Pirates of Golarion book next...

I would purchase a 32-page Player Companion with that title.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:

I searched the messageboards for "4th edition" and got over 10,000 hits. Clearly the desire for a 4th edition of Pathfinder exists.

I searched the messageboards for "death" and got over 50,000 hits. Clearly all Paizo customers want to die!

Ah, the time honored tradition of getting numbers to lie for you. :)


I'm reserving final judgement on the products until I can actually see them, but I have to say I don't have a problem with the extra classes. While the possibility exists that PFRPG might end up jumping the shark like 3.X did or, from what I've been told by formarly hardcore 4th ed players, 4th Ed did; Paizo still has my trust as I've enjoyed a majority of their work.

I can see the market for Ninja and Samurai, and I've thrown my support behind those who want those classes before even though I'll generally stick with the Legend of the Five Rings for that fix. Gunslinger actually seems like a good way to support rules for firearms, which is another thing people have wanted and I have no problem with that. Honestly the idea that they are just Alternate classes rather then Core classes already makes me hopeful too. Still if Ultimate Combat offers up ideas like this, which are good from what I've seen, but not things I'd use; I won't buy it. So far the only places I see to fear bloat from PFRPG is from Feats and Spells which is a lot easier to fall into by their very nature.

I also can't fault Paizo for producing more books like this as it will generate sales. Paizo doesn't get money from me or 95% of the gamers I know from publishing modules and supplements like that, because we always make our own adventures. Chances are that at least some of us will buy Ultimate Magic and Combat though. This means Paizo targets my group that it doesn't get when they target those who want more advantures and less rules.

So to players I say: keep an open mind, look at it, and use what you can that you like or don't buy it if there is nothing you can use.

To Paizo: I don't think I've ever heard people really complain about monster bloat :).

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I searched the messageboards for "4th edition" and got over 10,000 hits. Clearly the desire for a 4th edition of Pathfinder exists.

I searched the messageboards for "death" and got over 50,000 hits. Clearly all Paizo customers want to die!

Ah, the time honored tradition of getting numbers to lie for you. :)

Numbers don't lie, numbers are used as weapons to beat your foes into submissions. Least that's what the internet has taught me. :)


Yes please Paizo - use the same presentation you used for archetypes (even if it means slightly longer word count for those new archetypes).

Why?

First, it's easy to understand the relation between an archetype and it's class and the effect on multiclassing.

Second, it reduces the page count, making the book cheaper or leaving room for other things - we already have the progression tables - do not print them again.

Finally, the less concepts you introduce into the game, the easier it is for us to introduce the game to new players. As today, we only have classes and archetypes to explain - do we really need to add alternate classes to the lot? The game is already concept heavy, keep the count as low as possible, please!

Thanks a lot!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CunningMongoose wrote:

Yes please Paizo - use the same presentation you used for archetypes (even if it means slightly longer word count for those new archetypes).

Why?

First, it's easy to understand the relation between an archetype and it's class and the effect on multiclassing.

Second, it reduces the page count, making the book cheaper or leaving room for other things - we already have the progression tables - do not print them again.

The problem now is that I suspect they've already allotted X number of pages for each of these three classes in the book. If they suddenly changed them in some large degree that altered the number of pages they occupy, but reducing them to archetype size, or by removing them entirely, they've suddenly got a 30 page hole in the book and nothing to put there.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Do I understand correctly that you're saying that it's industry wisdom that most players of D&D/PFRPG 'type' games play them principally to have the experience of using a character which does mechanical things which no character that they've used before does?

Well, I wouldn't equate my own opinions with "industry wisdom," first of all.

While there are certainly people who prefer to play the same class every time they roll up a character, I do think that most gamers, when creating a new character, are more likely to go for variety.

This is completely true for me. I try to play a different character class every time a new game starts. That's one reason why I'm happy that you guys are adding new classes :D

Scarab Sages

deinol wrote:
For those that are worried about rules bloat, what kind of rulebooks do you want to see?

I want to see the same kinds of books. I am in no way asking Paizo to produce less material. The APG is cool and the UC seems promising. Just please slow down the new class releases. Did the APG need 6 or 7 new classes? I don't think it did. It would have been fine with 3 or 2. And an APG 2 could have easily carried the next couple classes. Can we just take our time?

deinol wrote:

Paizo is responding to the desires of its customers. Since Pathfinder RPG has been announced, people have asked for more options. For example, as of now searching the messageboards I get this many results:

1,254 Gunslinger
3,460 Samurai
9,412 Pirate
11,482 Ninja

This can be misleading. You will find that many of the people that are asking for slower class glut are also in the playtest forums giving the UC playtest their all. Don't assume that slower class glut means "No more classes." Very few of us, from what I can tell, actually feel that way.

deinol wrote:
I understand the desire for some people to have a set system that doesn't change. However, people who buy "Core" and nothing else become non-customers. Paizo is going to expand the game, because they promised to support the game they were creating. So if Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat are not the sort of expansions you want, what are you looking for in a new book?

Again, there seems to be this huge misconception that we want a stagnant system. I cannot think of one person for whom that is true. I currently own everything, besides some cards, that Paizo has released. I support their continued growth and health as a company completely. Class glut is just something that a lot of us see as unhealthy for the game as a whole.

deinol wrote:
I certainly hope that the future holds Psionics, Epic levels, Divine levels, and Monstrous Races.

I agree completely. But other than psionics, do any of these really need to introduce new classes to Pathfinder? I don't think so. Archetypes can handle everything. Some would argue that they can handle psionics also, but that belongs in a different thread.

Tam

Liberty's Edge

lastknightleft wrote:


That's not true, this thread deals with one portion of the ruleset. This is not a post saying "Paizo stop releasing new books and new content". I want new content as much as the next person, I just don't want a ton of new classes and I'm expressing that. You're the one who's, what's the expression, "creating a strawman"

Your also not telling anything constructuve beyond don't publish new classes either. How many APs can they publish before they stop selling. Eventually imo the sales will drop because DMs will have enough Aps to survive without purchasing more. The PF companions how many sourcebooks can they do on races or areas od the world before the race books become redudantand the world areas and religions have been either mapped out or described They have to publish some sort of crunch. As someone pointed out 21 classes in 3 years is not that much.

Posters forget that this is a company and they need to make a profit. Too many had rose colored glassess spray painted black and Paizo forcibly removed those recently. Everyone was on board because they wanted to strike a blow against Wotc expecting Paizo to be completely different and not doing what most other game companies do which is produce new classes and release new rules. Which for some were dissapointed because they did just that. why would they stop. They have a popular rpg one which I assume is profitable. Who else beyond a few 3pp sourcebooks is really supporting PF as much as Paizo.

In the end they need to publish more crunch because other companies with other fantasy rpgs are doing so. It's nice to have tunnel vision and only see Wotc except Paizo has to compete with those companies too.

While some are not coming right out and saying it the impression I'm getting is that some are accusing Paizo oflying about rules bloat when they never promised anything about it. Post me a link to where any of the devs gave their personnal guarantee that their would be no new rules.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I searched the messageboards for "4th edition" and got over 10,000 hits. Clearly the desire for a 4th edition of Pathfinder exists.

I searched the messageboards for "death" and got over 50,000 hits. Clearly all Paizo customers want to die!

Ah, the time honored tradition of getting numbers to lie for you. :)
Numbers don't lie, numbers are used as weapons to beat your foes into submissions. Least that's what the internet has taught me. :)

Because on average there is a cataclysmic asteroid hit approximately every 50 million years in Earth's history and considering that the Earth's population is about 6 billion people. We can expect about 1 person to die every 3 days from cataclysmic asteroids on average. Would you like to buy some cataclysmic asteroid insurance for you and your children?


Tambryn wrote:
deinol wrote:
For those that are worried about rules bloat, what kind of rulebooks do you want to see?

Spellbooks. More Bestiary Books. Epic rules that don't trample what Paizo has already said?

deinol wrote:
I understand the desire for some people to have a set system that doesn't change. However, people who buy "Core" and nothing else become non-customers. Paizo is going to expand the game, because they promised to support the game they were creating. So if Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat are not the sort of expansions you want, what are you looking for in a new book?

Something that keeps these fine people employed is my hope. Even with my status as Grognard in one of my groups, I feel like there are consumers of your fanbase that need a version of a psionics book, or a complete guide to designing great adventures and villans. There is always a need for more props. More NPC cards. And we need people like Eva and Wayne to illustrate them all.

deinol wrote:
I certainly hope that the future holds Psionics, Epic levels, Divine levels, and Monstrous Races.
I agree completely. But other than psionics, do any of these really need to...

+1


Beercifer wrote:
Tambryn wrote:
deinol wrote:
For those that are worried about rules bloat, what kind of rulebooks do you want to see?

Spellbooks. More Bestiary Books. Epic rules that don't trample what Paizo has already said?

deinol wrote:
I understand the desire for some people to have a set system that doesn't change. However, people who buy "Core" and nothing else become non-customers. Paizo is going to expand the game, because they promised to support the game they were creating. So if Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat are not the sort of expansions you want, what are you looking for in a new book?

Something that keeps these fine people employed is my hope. Even with my status as Grognard in one of my groups, I feel like there are consumers of your fanbase that need a version of a psionics book, or a complete guide to designing great adventures and villans. There is always a need for more props. More NPC cards. And we need people like Eva and Wayne to illustrate them all.

deinol wrote:
I certainly hope that the future holds Psionics, Epic levels, Divine levels, and Monstrous Races.
I agree completely. But other than psionics, do any of these really need to...
+1

I want to see some kind of epic book, mostly to see if they handle epic casting in such a way where you don't get things like a free wish every day before level 30.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

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.

Damn, I really, really still want a 20 level Swashbuckler from Paizo. And I don't mean the Rogue archetype. :(


memorax wrote:

Posters forget that this is a company and they need to make a profit.

Hey, you're right -- I forgot! I also blanked out on all those undergrad econ classes. And on the 500 times it's been said in this thread so far.

Alternatively, you could imagine that wanting to see fewer base classes can co-exist with a desire to see Paizo continue as a going concern. But then again, I'm probably a socialist.

Scarab Sages

memorax wrote:
While some are not coming right out and saying it the impression I'm getting is that some are accusing Paizo oflying about rules bloat when they never promised anything about it. Post me a link to where any of the devs gave their personnal guarantee that their would be no new rules. rules

It actually seems that you are inferring much more than is being implied.

Who has forgotten that Paizo needs to make a profit to continue publishing the game we love?

Who has accused Paizo of lying?

Who said they want the publication of crunch to cease?

Who said anything about rules bloat? This thread is about class glut. The only class in UC that really has any new rules is the Gunslinger and then just barely.

We are simply a group of customers that are giving our feedback and criticism, hopefully constructive, to the company that we support.

Tam

Liberty's Edge

Maybe I am not seeing it. Yet how on one hand some might say they do not want the system to remain statci yet at the same time ask for it oto remain static. Want to see change and development and at the same time want the opposite. My conclusion the minoirty want change but only change that they are comfortable with. Which I hope Paizo ignores. Catering to that type of thinking imo will sink the company

As to what I want to see Epci rules with at least an AP that incorporates them. Maybe a revised shackled city updated to PF. Psionic support with archtypes and/or new classes. A Savage species book which options to play races. Every edition except 1E allowed you to play a limited amount of monster races. Why should PF be different. Nor will it cause Rules Bloat Ragnerok.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Tambryn wrote:
Again, there seems to be this huge misconception that we want a stagnant system. I cannot think of one person for whom that is true. I currently own everything, besides some cards, that Paizo has released. I support their continued growth and health as a company completely. Class glut is just something that a lot of us see as unhealthy for the game as a whole.

No, I know that not everyone is asking for that. On the other hand, I saw several people in this thread who were asking for it. They saw the Pathfinder reset of core to a few books as a good thing.

The main thing I was asking is for those opposed to new classes to define what they do want in a rulebook.


memorax wrote:

Maybe I am not seeing it. Yet how on one hand some might say they do not want the system to remain statci yet at the same time ask for it oto remain static. Want to see change and development and at the same time want the opposite. My conclusion the minoirty want change but only change that they are comfortable with. Which I hope Paizo ignores. Catering to that type of thinking imo will sink the company

As to what I want to see Epci rules with at least an AP that incorporates them. Maybe a revised shackled city updated to PF. Psionic support with archtypes and/or new classes. A Savage species book which options to play races. Every edition except 1E allowed you to play a limited amount of monster races. Why should PF be different. Nor will it cause Rules Bloat Ragnerok.

I'm always wary of Savage Species style books. It's ok if it only allows certain monsters to be PCable, but if they provide broad rules for templating anything in the bestiary, something's going to slip through the cracks.

Scarab Sages

memorax wrote:
Maybe I am not seeing it. Yet how on one hand some might say they do not want the system to remain statci yet at the same time ask for it oto remain static. Want to see change and development and at the same time want the opposite.

The problem seems to be that you have somehow wrongly inferred two different things. That people want no new classes. And that if people did want no new classes, no new classes would equal static.

These two assumptions are simply not true. I don't know anyone who is advocating this.

Tam


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
I can be glib and dismissive, too. The problem is that it really doesn't add much to the discussion. :/

I wasn't trying to be dismissive. I was saying that a fair number of people are interested in ninjas and pirates and samurai. I also asked what people in the "no new classes" group wanted instead.

bugleyman wrote:


Edit: In an attempt to be more constructive, what do I want to see?

1. I want to see rules elements added in the least impactful fashion. Core classes that are added should be mechanically AND thematically distinct. Ninja fails this test, as it steps on the rogue. Cavalier steps on the fighter. These should be feats or prestige classes -- the system was designed to be modular for good reason.

2. I want to see additional rules elements kept out of the Adventure Path. Both because it's better for me personally and because it keeps the barrier to entry low. I believe the longer the answer to "what do I need to buy to play this" becomes, the worse the problem of building the fanbase gets.

But I'm repeating myself. This has all be stated up thread if you're really interested in an answer.

Except those are mostly things you don't want. Can you give me an example of what you do want to see? I do appreciate that you have given more feedback than just "NO!"

I do plan on letting rogues take ninja talents and vice-versa. I don't personally feel the need to segregate some of those abilities. On the other hand, my game already had a cowboy previously. We used a fighter and a set of gun related feats. Most of them stolen from Etherscope I believe.

Liberty's Edge

Where did Paizo give an iron clad promise to not release any new classes. Nowhere. They said an attempt would be made to keep material of new classes down to a minuum if possible. I'm all one for feedback yet everytime one of their new products is aoounced and it has either new races or classes or both RBR (Rules Bloat Ragnerok) is seem just beyond th horizon. Even when they tell everyone ahead of time it's assumed the worst will happen. Fans are faithful to the company whenever it suits them and respect the talent of the devs just as much too. It's all good to give credit and praise to them when they do exactly what you want if not RBR around the corner. Even when a product is suggested from a fan they samething happens everytime.

From what I am seeing Paizo imo pretty much i going to keep producing more crunch and good for them. As long as it's quality stuff the more the better. In the end what are some going to do boycott the company that publishes PF.

Scarab Sages

deinol wrote:
On the other hand, I saw several people in this thread who were asking for it. They saw the Pathfinder reset of core to a few books as a good thing.

I just reskimmed the entire thread. I don't see anyone saying "Ok Paizo, thats enough, the books you've published so far will do, Pathfinder is complete, find some other way to make money."

If I am wrong please show me.

Tam


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And since this is turning into the "Should Paizo publish more base classes?" thread, in the case of these three classes I can say unequivocally "YES!". And please a Swashbuckler base class. :p
Just so the developers don't get swayed by the ginormous rants about how this is ruining someones childhood. In fact, the new classes are what sold Ultimate Magic + Combat to me.

Also, the Ninja is fine, buff Rogues, kthxbye. ;)


Tambryn wrote:


I just reskimmed the entire thread. I don't see anyone saying "Ok Paizo, thats enough, the books you've published so far will do, Pathfinder is complete, find some other way to make money."

If I am wrong please show me.

Tam

I'm actually fairly certain I said I'd be happier with Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat if there had been something like a Epic Rules or Unearthed Arcana style book to have added some distance been mainly player option books. Not that they shouldn't exist.

Scarab Sages

memorax wrote:
Where did Paizo give an iron clad promise to not release any new classes.

No one said such a promise was made. The message I hope Paizo gets from this thread and the concerns of those like myself is this. . .

"Paizo, we trust you, we have for years now, but there are a few things that look a little concerning. I'm a little worried. But not so much that my faith is you has been shaken. Just please be careful and be doubly vigilant to avoid WOTC's mistakes with 3.5. And oh yeah, see you at PaizoCon."

Tam


I want more classes. I love all the new classes. I am not alone. Please make more.


One upside to releasing many new classes early on, rather than trickling them out slowly, is that all of the new classes can receive virtually the same amount of support in future supplements.

If they're released one or two every year, then those that are released last will presumably receive less support from other supplements, since most of those supplements will have already been released.

Of course, this upside vanishes if new classes are released at the same speed every year, or if there is little support for the new classes.

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons WotC didn't provide much support for non-core material in supplements beyond the original one was because they couldn't expect buyers to have bought the original book (and since the material was non-OGL, they couldn't reference a website either).

Since Paizo makes almost everything available in the PRD, this won't affect them to the same degree, so they should be able to support all of their new classes and rules systems in future books.

Liberty's Edge

Tambryn wrote:


No one said such a promise was made. The message I hope Paizo gets from this thread and the concerns of those like myself is this. . .

"Paizo, we trust you, we have for years now, but there are a few things that look a little concerning. I'm a little worried. But not so much that my faith is you has been shaken. Just please be careful and be doubly vigilant to avoid WOTC's mistakes with 3.5. And oh yeah, see you at PaizoCon."

Tam

Than explain to me the sudden panic I have seen in the last few months about their being too many classes. Paizo could easily turn around and go "dear customers we have listend to your feedback yet we will progress with adding more classes to the game At a slower pace because for the moment it sells. We ask that you stop comparing everything we do to Wotc and assume we will make the same mistakes. Have a little faith. See you at Paizocon".


Every time I see a debate like this I can't help but think back to the early days of the hobby.

We had three books in a box..3 classes of PC

Then they added the Paladin ,Druid and Thief..and people complained..

Then they added the Assassin and the Monk..and people complained...

Then we got psionics..and people complained(probably rightly so)

This is just another round in the debate that's being running since 1975 and will run until the last RPG publishing company goes under.

Nuff said

Sovereign Court

memorax wrote:
Where did Paizo give an iron clad promise to not release any new classes.

Probably around the same place where you see us claiming that we want there to never be a new class ever.

But I'm going to play it your way, your argument is that this new stuff is fine, so I'm going to take that and form this argument

How can you say you want them to produce 30 books a month with 18 new classes each and sit there and say that there will be no rules bloat, how can you make such a claim and why aren't you being productive and actually telling them what each 18 classes are to be in all thirty books. Why can't you understand that that level of saturation isn't attainable by paizo's current staff?


jreyst wrote:
CunningMongoose wrote:

Yes please Paizo - use the same presentation you used for archetypes (even if it means slightly longer word count for those new archetypes).

Why?

First, it's easy to understand the relation between an archetype and it's class and the effect on multiclassing.

Second, it reduces the page count, making the book cheaper or leaving room for other things - we already have the progression tables - do not print them again.

The problem now is that I suspect they've already allotted X number of pages for each of these three classes in the book. If they suddenly changed them in some large degree that altered the number of pages they occupy, but reducing them to archetype size, or by removing them entirely, they've suddenly got a 30 page hole in the book and nothing to put there.

I am not quite sure how you got the number of the "30 page hole." Even if there was five pages of content for these classes they were going to add and they made the decision to completely remove the gunslinger, samurai, and ninja, that would still only leave a gap of twenty pages.

I would estimate, if that they reduced the three alternate classes to archetypes, they would leave a hole of about five pages at most, probably a bit less than that. I am basing this off the fact that the difference between the archetype and alternate class (seems to be): repeating the class abilities that were not removed by the alternate class/archetype (I think this ranges about a quarter page to a full page through the Ultimate Combat archetypes), the class progression table (about half a page), the picture of the character (a bit less than half a page).

But as for Cunning Mongoose, I do not believe that reducing the page count by even ten pages would make the book cheaper to produce. I believe that the way that printers are set up, you can't reduce a book by five pages and just save the money from not including those five pages. I think that they print sets of pages in things call signatures (which I think are 16 pages) but I am not entirely sure if I am explaining that well.

They could certainly replace those pages with new content, but that would increase the cost of producing the book for them (because the stuff removed by turning them into archetypes is easier stuff than any new content they would be adding, they might be able to four more archetypes to the book, but I believe that would require more work writing and editing).

As for new content, I am more certain they could do that, but I don't think that it would open that much room. I think it would let there be about only two to five pages of new content.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Do I understand correctly that you're saying that it's industry wisdom that most players of D&D/PFRPG 'type' games play them principally to have the experience of using a character which does mechanical things which no character that they've used before does?

Well, I wouldn't equate my own opinions with "industry wisdom," first of all.

While there are certainly people who prefer to play the same class every time they roll up a character, I do think that most gamers, when creating a new character, are more likely to go for variety.

Ahhh, natural modesty. ;) (On the industry wisdom front.)

That obviously comes as something of a surprise to me, but thanks for clarifying. It seems to raise various questions and possibilities, which are wildly beyond the scope of this thread, and so I shall go away and think about them for six months or something...
But thanks again for posting, Vic. :)
Hah hah! Back to the Superstar forums!

Scarab Sages

memorax wrote:
Than explain to me the sudden panic I have seen in the last few months about their being too many classes

Do you mean the last few months, or the last couple days? I was cool with APG and Ultimate Magic. I realize the game needs a foundation of classes. But only with the release of the UC playtest document did I become aware that the direction I thought Paizo was going with Pathfinder might vary significantly from where they are actually heading. Until this document was released I was under the impression that the Magus would be the last class for a while. Then, before the Magus is even published, there are three more.

There are probably quite a few others who were under the same impression.

Tam

Sovereign Court

Are wrote:

One upside to releasing many new classes early on, rather than trickling them out slowly, is that all of the new classes can receive virtually the same amount of support in future supplements.

If they're released one or two every year, then those that are released last will presumably receive less support from other supplements, since most of those supplements will have already been released.

Of course, this upside vanishes if new classes are released at the same speed every year, or if there is little support for the new classes.

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons WotC didn't provide much support for non-core material in supplements beyond the original one was because they couldn't expect buyers to have bought the original book (and since the material was non-OGL, they couldn't reference a website either).

Since Paizo makes almost everything available in the PRD, this won't affect them to the same degree, so they should be able to support all of their new classes and rules systems in future books.

This is the first post you've made that I can actually take seriously and doesn't come across as conflating our argument. In fact the bolded part is pretty much all I'm trying to get across as a worry. And yeah I titled the thread way more bombastically than I really feel, but that got people here and discussing. For the record 10 new classes isn't problematic, 10 in 2 years and right at the start however is worrysome. Honestly as far as I was concerned I was satisfied when James came in and said that they take peoples concerns about oversaturation seriously, and I hope that they don't release any new base classes after this till 2012 and even then only 1 or 2 at most.

but just because these arguments pop up every time paizo releases something is a good thing.


bugleyman wrote:


I searched the messageboards for "death" and got over 50,000 hits. Clearly, all Paizo customers want to die!

Please, 40K of those are from my campaign journal, 9K from various threads about the domain, Pharasma, and the save-or-die discussions. Only 1K are Paizonians who want to actually, y'know, discuss dying :)


I'll be totally honest. In the short time I've played this game, I haven't run through a single AP or Module, nor have I even bothered to read about Golarion's lore, besides Gods and Magic.

Everything I've GM'd and played in has been 99.9% custom, with a campaign setting that we just make up on the fly (these mountains lead into a... *scribbles on map* a great forest!). It's something that could make a lot of roleplayers roll their eyes, but it's the way me and my group roll. *What is this I don't even...*

Anyway, I guess I'm biased in favor of this "class bloat" because I have never had to deal with it before. Pathfinder is my first d20 game, so I have only heard the stories regarding 3.0 and 3.5's ten thousand splat books and 30 classes.

I don't have that "not this crap again" that a few people here seem to have; I find these new additions to be a pleasant surprise. Maybe one day in the future, when I'm playing Pathfinder 60K Future Perfect (new plasma gun rules and everrrrything!), I can better relate to some of the vets here.

To each their own, I suppose.

Liberty's Edge

lastknightleft wrote:


Probably around the same place where you see us claiming that we want there to never be a new class ever.

I admit I am esaggerating somewhat yet everytime a book any new book has new classes posters assume the worst. Granted some such as yourself are not saying not to release classes yet to often the same topic of no new classes pops up. Awhile a fan suggested making an equivalent to the Savage Species and a few posts into that thread we had someone worried about monster class bloat. It just gets annoying to see posters be so negative about classes in everytime a new book is released. If it's not the classes its the feats. Not the feats equipement. The only product so far that imo everyone wants are the bestiraries.

Scarab Sages

Mahorfeus wrote:
so I have only heard the stories regarding 3.0 and 3.5's ten thousand splat books and 30 classes.

I have zero desire to count them all. But according to this there were 175.

Tam

edit: I should probably count them. There seem to be quite a few duplicates. The end number might not be nearly as dramatic as 175.

Scarab Sages

It is easy for some of us 3.5ers to over react. 3.5 was handled so poorly. And for many of us, class bloat had a lot to do with it. But as long as we keep voicing our opinions and Paizo keeps heeding them as much as makes sense, we will continue to have a good middle of the road game that has something for everyone.

Tam

Liberty's Edge

Tambryn wrote:


Do you mean the last few months, or the last couple days? I was cool with APG and Ultimate Magic. I realize the game needs a foundation of classes. But only with the release of the UC playtest document did I become aware that the direction I thought Paizo was going with Pathfinder might vary significantly from where they are actually heading. Until this document was released I was under the impression that the Magus would be the last class for a while. Then, before the Magus is even published, there are three more.

There are probably quite a few others who were under the same impression.

Tam

Then I think a mistaken impression. One of the few things that sold me on PF was that they were honst and upfront about trying to keep rules bloat down. An attempt would be made but no guarantees. In the end how can one not expect new rules in general in a rpg that is at most 3 years old. I saw going into the rpg that you would see a similar set of release like Wotc except better quality and at a slower rate. In terms of new rpgs it still new. To think that PF would be treated differently than most other rpgs in the market by the fans comes as a surprise to me at least. They usually follow the same pattern. Core book plus sorucebooks with new rules along with monster books, npc sourcebooks and more equipement and usually modules. The way Paiz pushed and marketed the game told me that.


As long as new classes are QUALITY, then I am not sure what the issue is. As both a GM and player, i want more choices, which is why I allow any decent 3PP classes in my games. And even thought its not "mature" it still comes down to dont buy it or use it, if you don't want it. Nobody expects you to buy EVERY product, and I am sure most home games can go along just fine without MOST of them. Wait for the next one you think is worth 100% of your time and cash.


Quote:
Because on average there is a cataclysmic asteroid hit approximately every 50 million years in Earth's history and considering that the Earth's population is about 6 billion people. We can expect about 1 person to die every 3 days from cataclysmic asteroids on average. Would you like to buy some cataclysmic asteroid insurance for you and your children?

I didn't know fox news was hiring...

Scarab Sages

Blackerose wrote:
As long as new classes are QUALITY, then I am not sure what the issue is. As both a GM and player, i want more choices, which is why I allow any decent 3PP classes in my games. And even thought its not "mature" it still comes down to dont buy it or use it, if you don't want it. Nobody expects you to buy EVERY product, and I am sure most home games can go along just fine without MOST of them. Wait for the next one you think is worth 100% of your time and cash.

I agree, that would work, for someone whose only concern was for their home game.

As a side note, a small point of curiosity for me, did you read this thread before posting?

Tam


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Tambryn wrote:
I just reskimmed the entire thread. I don't see anyone saying "Ok Paizo, thats enough, the books you've published so far will do, Pathfinder is complete, find some other way to make money."
pres man wrote:
Now it should be noted that a fair number of fans, liked the new system precisely because it was limited in scope. These fans have been fatigued by the overwhelming options and the optimization involved and saw this as a chance to reset the clock. To work with a smaller set, and despite the backwards compatibility, they whole heartedly abandoned all the previous material for this "slimmer" rule set.

Bugleyman has also been fairly clear that he would like to keep anything outside the Core Rulebook from being referenced inside Adventure Paths and other supplemental material.

I never said that everyone, or even that many, had expressed a desire for no new rulebooks. It may be that the tone of some other posters gave me an impression that more people are against general "rules bloat" when they are specifically against "class bloat".


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
Because on average there is a cataclysmic asteroid hit approximately every 50 million years in Earth's history and considering that the Earth's population is about 6 billion people. We can expect about 1 person to die every 3 days from cataclysmic asteroids on average. Would you like to buy some cataclysmic asteroid insurance for you and your children?
I didn't know fox news was hiring...

It would be nice to get a job where I can afford to eat more than ramen and koolaid.

251 to 300 of 731 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.