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


Product Discussion

301 to 350 of 731 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
DM Wellard wrote:

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)

That is counter to my experiences as a gamer. I don't remember any of my friends complaining about new options coming out. Ok, I remember complaints about broken options coming out way down the line in 2E's player options books, but I remember the reaction to Oriental Adventures being: "Ninjas? AWESOME!"

Of course, that may be related to age. I was 8 when Oriental Adventures was released. Then again, I'm 33 now and I still think: "Ninjas? Awesome!" My complaint is still: Where's my pirate class?


Tambryn wrote:

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

The problem is that there seems to be those who assume the worst from Paizo despite the fact that they have been consistently releasing quality products. I personally want to see what they put out since I think they will do a good job. If they do make a mistake we, as a community, can come back and let them know. Chances are that won't happen until they stop things like open playtesting, those things that show that Paizo actually listens to their customers.

I've gone through several pages of this thread and some posters are coming across as: "You're doing what?!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!". This is something I've seen in other discussions on this forum about upcoming products and ideas, not just here.


deinol wrote:
Of course, that may be related to age. I was 8 when Oriental Adventures was released. Then again, I'm 33 now and I still think: "Ninjas? Awesome!" My complaint is still: Where's my pirate class?

Watch the movie "The Warrior's Way", pirates have been replaced by cowboys. To use a line that was actually cut from the movie but appeared in the trailler: "Ninjas... damn."

I think I just sold myself on UC.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Hey there Everybody,

I have, admittedly, not read this entire thread and I am far too busy to get pulled into this sort of debate, but I did want to make a few things clear.

We are not bloating the number of classes just for the sake of bloating. I feel very strongly that every class we make needs its own mechanical and story niche. Creating new classes just for the sake of creation is not on our agenda.

Next up, we are taking a very measured pace on our rules expansion. For a game that is going on two years old, we have only released one major sourcebook filled with character options. We have some more on the horizon, but we are being careful about it. We are very cognizant that rules bloat does not really serve us or you particularly well at this stage.

Finally, we try very hard to present rules to make your game more fun and enjoyable. We expect that GMs will pick and chose what works for their game.

Hope that helps to clear up our position.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Scarab Sages

Well, I hate that a reactionary few have given those of us who want to express constructive concern a bad rap.

I love new classes. New rules are fine. I just want Paizo to pace themselves for the long race. The Gunslinger would have fit fine in the Alkenstar supplement when they got around to it. The same for Ninja and Samurai in the Tian Xia material. UC would have been fine with archetypes.

I wonder if the "oooooooh shiny" new class effect could be encouraged if archetypes came with their own artwork.

Tam


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there Everybody,

I have, admittedly, not read this entire thread and I am far too busy to get pulled into this sort of debate, but I did want to make a few things clear.

We are not bloating the number of classes just for the sake of bloating. I feel very strongly that every class we make needs its own mechanical and story niche. Creating new classes just for the sake of creation is not on our agenda.

Next up, we are taking a very measured pace on our rules expansion. For a game that is going on two years old, we have only released one major sourcebook filled with character options. We have some more on the horizon, but we are being careful about it. We are very cognizant that rules bloat does not really serve us or you particularly well at this stage.

Finally, we try very hard to present rules to make your game more fun and enjoyable. We expect that GMs will pick and chose what works for their game.

Hope that helps to clear up our position.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thank you.


I asked this in another thread, but it fits better here. If the information presented is the same in most respects, why is calling something a class as apossed to an archetype so important to many of you? I am not being obtuse, I really don't understand, I see them as at best, fine distinctions of very similar things. You all seem very rile over something that I see as semantics. I get some don't like the classes in question, I disagree but I understand. But souring on something for the nomenclature blows my mind.


deinol wrote:
DM Wellard wrote:

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)

That is counter to my experiences as a gamer. I don't remember any of my friends complaining about new options coming out. Ok, I remember complaints about broken options coming out way down the line in 2E's player options books, but I remember the reaction to Oriental Adventures being: "Ninjas? AWESOME!"

Of course, that may be related to age. I was 8 when Oriental Adventures was released. Then again, I'm 33 now and I still think: "Ninjas? Awesome!" My complaint is still: Where's my pirate class?

I can remember pages of "Alaurms and Excursions" being devoted to moaning about the monk in particular. It was described back then as being the class for the 'Honourable Order of Bruce Lee Fans'

The point I was trying to make was that in every edition of the game there has been a vocal minority saying 'this is rules bloat'

As for myself I shall, as always, cherry pick from what is available to me.


As far as I'm concerned, Paizo has yet to disappoint once me in its whatever-year-old history. Why should this product be any different?


Vic Wertz wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Michael Miller 36 wrote:
see wrote:

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.

+1
+2

Dear Coca-Cola Company:

I only drink Coke, so there is no need for Sprite. Please stop making Sprite.
Thanks.

I realize the point has been made, but I came late to the party and had to say it...

Dear Dr. Pepper/7-Up Company.
I really like Dr. Pepper. But what's with this advertisement I'm seeing for Mr. Pickle, your new soft drink that has 24 flavors, 23 of which are in Dr. Pepper? Couldn't you have just branded it as Cherry Dr. Pepper?


This is why you have to have a new class instead of just an archtype.


pres man wrote:
This is why you have to have a new class instead of just an archtype.

Ironically, it convinces me of just the opposite.

Scarab Sages

Tambryn wrote:
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.

Let's call it 85.

Tam


Tambryn wrote:

Well, I hate that a reactionary few have given those of us who want to express constructive concern a bad rap.

I love new classes. New rules are fine. I just want Paizo to pace themselves for the long race. The Gunslinger would have fit fine in the Alkenstar supplement when they got around to it. The same for Ninja and Samurai in the Tian Xia material. UC would have been fine with archetypes.

I wonder if the "oooooooh shiny" new class effect could be encouraged if archetypes came with their own artwork.

Tam

Well, to me, the alternate classes are pretty much just archetypes with tables and pictures, so it doesn't make that big a difference to me.

Otherwise, I think that, with the way that Paizo is setting up their book lines, that putting the Gunslinger, Ninja, and Samurai in the Campaign Setting books would be a mistake.

The example that comes to my mind is the 3.0 Oriental Adventures by WotC (and hopefully I don't get details wrong here). It served as both tje Oriental book for D&D 3rd edition and a starting guide to the Legend of the Five Rings setting. It had a variety of classes and races in it. Some of those were made for a "generic" Oriental setting, but were not part of the Legend of the Five Rings setting. Throughout the book, they mark things as "part of the Legend of the Five Rings" setting.

I wasn't entirely happy with that because, as a campaign setting book, it was just filled with stuff that didn't have a place in the campaign setting. I get six races when the setting uses two of them.

As a rulebook for my own Oriental campaign, it automatically came with a lot of baggage attached to that setting. In most places this meant that the background given with the class referred really to how it worked in Legend of the Five Rings and not in a more generic setting. Some of the classes had you pick groups in the Legend of the Five Rings setting to determine which bonus feats were appropriate.

With that in mind, I would prefer the generic classes stay separate from Paizo's Campaign Setting books.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

The only thing I'll say on this debate, for those who object to the inclusion of alternate-class archetypes (not *better* archetypes, nor *better* abilities, but a more extensive swap of the class abilities than with a regular archetype (say, around 800 words instead of around 400 on average)) is this.

You may have seen the figure tossed around that 20% of the book is going to be spent on these. If you look at the size of these alt-classes in this PDF, you have 16 pages spent on them. The book is slated to be 320 pages, right. That's 5% of the book.

95% of it is anything and everything else mentioned in the promo text: archetypes, called shots, vehicles, armor as DR, feats by the truckload, even battle-oriented spells.

95% of stuff you might like
5% that you might despise

Whether that proportion is still too much is up to you.


Jason Nelson wrote:

The only thing I'll say on this debate, for those who object to the inclusion of alternate-class archetypes (not *better* archetypes, nor *better* abilities, but a more extensive swap of the class abilities than with a regular archetype (say, around 800 words instead of around 400 on average)) is this.

You may have seen the figure tossed around that 20% of the book is going to be spent on these. If you look at the size of these alt-classes in this PDF, you have 16 pages spent on them. The book is slated to be 320 pages, right. That's 5% of the book.

95% of it is anything and everything else mentioned in the promo text: archetypes, called shots, vehicles, armor as DR, feats by the truckload, even battle-oriented spells.

95% of stuff you might like
5% that you might despise

Whether that proportion is still too much is up to you.

Oh, believe me, I'll buy it for all that. But if the only signals the design team ever got were "this book sold, this book didn't" we wouldn't have nearly as good of content. When they know what we like and why, even if there are disagreements, it can only improve customer satisfaction, which is always better for business.

Scarab Sages

@OP: I read many replies but I don't have time to read them all... In Paizo's defense I have no problem with the planned offerings in Ultimate Combat -- and I wouldn't be surprised that we won't see any new classes afterwords for at least a year or so, if ever anymore. Why? Because they'll be done with 'em. See gobs of RPG gamers love Ninjas and Samurai and these class concepts dovetail perfectly in Paizo's tentative plans for campaign setting material on Tian Xia (sp?). Additionally, the concept of the mage-fighter has been popular since the days of AD&D and BECMI, so we get the Magus for our Pathfinder rules. And finally, black powder technology in a fantasy setting has a large audience and Paizo is in the perfect position to create something for us with the PF rules set. Magus, Witch, Cavalier, Samurai, Ninja, and even Alchemist and Gunslinger, are all long standing character concepts people have wanted/house designed for many, many years. It only makes sense Paizo would do their best to come up with answers to gamer demands/interest. (While the Oracle -- still not satisfied with the name -- and the Inquisitor fill "mechanical" holes, I still question the need for the Summoner. But hey, that's me.)

But once UC is done, I see very little left in the way of popular character concepts crying for class treatment in PF. So, except for a Shaman, maybe a Wu Jen caster, and perhaps psionics material many years from now, I think Paizo will be done with making base classes -- all the niches begging fulfillment will be covered. No?

When I buy RPG material, I don't expect to use everything -- especially when it is clear the material is optional to the core rules. I think some people's reaction is overdone. We've given Paizo many chances to get things made and done right, and I believe most of us are very pleased so far with what we've bought into. IMHO it's no time start wringing hands.

@Paizo, please continue with your great work -- even if I a pick a nit or two now and then! :-D


Jason Nelson wrote:

95% of stuff you might like

5% that you might despise

Whether that proportion is still too much is up to you.

So does this mean the booked rolled a nat. 1?

Back on thread, I think the classes are very interesting. The Samurai relies very heavily on the cavalier, but there is enough difference between the two to warrant a full presentation as a class. The ninja and gunslinger are even further from their original class.

Now, as presenting them as alt. for classes instead of base classes? Do people realize the actual difference between the rogue, monk, and ninja? If you were to propose the ninja alt. for either of those classes you would end up taking nearly as much room as a full class write-up takes. Why not make it an actual class? Making them alternative class features will save 3-5 pages in a 320 page book.

Paizo staff, I already like what I see, though there are a few changes I'll suggest in the right threads. Your products have lived up to a standard of quality and substance others rarely match. Even if I hate the classes themselves, I do not see a terrible 5% of a book with destroy the possibilities of the other 95%.

Grand Lodge

lastknightleft wrote:
Mage Evolving wrote:

It's been said by others but I think that it bears repeating.

If you don't like the material being put out then you can choose not to use it. I think that is the very best way you can make clear to paizo that you are not happy with the "bloat". Personally, my group only uses the core rulebook and the APG. Throw in the beastiary and your imagination and you have everything you will ever need.

If you want flavor add it if not then don't.

and no the best way to tell paizo you don't like it, is to tell paizo you don't like it. The worst way is to just not use it and let paizo guess why it is that their sales are down.

You seem to think though that their sales will go down based on your own single opinion though. You have to speak for yourself when stating an opinion. Speaking for myself, I will say that I will buy the books, both Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat. This is my choice and because of that my vote seems to be in the positive :)


memorax wrote:
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.

They told us no new base classes, at least for a good long while, after the Magus. Then they stuffed three new base classes in Ultimate Combat under the fig leaf of calling them "alternates".

(And no, merely relabeling them archetypes won't cut it. Get them down to less than a page each, then they're archetypes.)

deinol wrote:

These new classes are going to take up what, 20 pages at most? That's around 6% of a 320 page book. Isn't it possible that the other 94% of the book will contain material that the "no new classes" crowd will like?

(snip)
So my question for the people who don't want new classes is, what do you want in new rule books?

The other 94%. But I'll take it off the Internet, thanks; I don't intend to encourage class bloat with my gaming dollar.

If Paizo segregated the new classes into their own book, I could buy the stuff I wanted without having to support their unnecessary new classes. They aren't doing that. They're putting cans of Sprite in the Coke 12-packs. I was willing to hold my nose one time (APG) because they said they weren't going to do that anymore. Now they're rules-lawyering their way around that statement.

Now, if base class bloat is what Paizo needs to do to stay in business, well, hell, I don't actually expect companies to cater to my whims at their own expense. If Paizo had forthrightly said, "Well, we heard those of you that don't want new classes, but we're going to put new base classes in future product anyway," I'd simply have avoided the books with new classes, and bought other Paizo products that met my needs.

But, now? After they told me that they weren't going to do new base classes for a while, they announce three such for Ultimate Combat with a mere fig leaf to hide behind? I'm not exactly happy with Paizo.


Tambryn wrote:
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

Yep. I can't control anything else except my home game. Any company from car makers to RPG publishers need to grow or they die. Hence my point..as long as the work is quality..the world won't end, and the books will keep flowing


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).

I was just thinking this earlier tonight and posted a comment about it in General Discussion. Class Saturation and Dilution. With so many new classes/archetypes/builds it is starting to get a little crowded, especially when you introduce guns! You're gonna have all the fanboys want to convert their Shadowrn characters and create more gun wielding junk. First pistols, then rifles, then repeating pistols and before you know it you've gone from fighting goblins to re-enacting the Civil War. That's my rant on guns in fantasy. Too many classes, to much clutter. WotC turned me off by putting out 15 books a year with WORTHLESS material. Couldn't keep up and it got aggrevating. I love Pathfinder. It doesn't need more. I fear change, ok, I admit it. Only because what we have is good enough. Let the other create homebrews for ninjas and maguseseses.

I also know you have to make money. So...there's that too.

Liberty's Edge

CourtFool wrote:

"Paizo would never kick¹ my puppy like WotC did."

¹In my opinion, adding more classes is not equivalent to kicking puppies…but then I do not think 4e is equivalent to kicking puppies either. My perspective is obviously skewed.

Adding classes is not kicking puppies. Kick Puppy is a feat, however, that will be appearing in Ultimate Combat.


Deanoth wrote:
Tom S 820 wrote:


Base Core
Classes 11
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rouge, Sorcerer and Wizard

APG 6
Alchemist, Clavier, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner and Witch

UMB 1
Magus

UCB 3
Sharp Shooter, Ninja, Samurai

That is 21 Classes in roughly 2 years. These folks make money by selling us ideas that there job. That roughly 10.5 per year

WoTC did 52 in 5 years roughly 10.4 per year.

Let me correct you on this. Well let me corect you it been 1 year and 5 month to date since path core book came out. Also it will be 2 year on nose when Advance combat guild come out. Core book came out at Gen con 2009 and by Gen con 2011 there will be 21 base class.

That is 21 Classes in roughly 3 years (not two years). These folks make money by selling us ideas that there job. That's roughly 7.33 a year and not 10.5 per year

Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic are not even out yet.

Liberty's Edge

see wrote:

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.

That's one opinion. I've come to really like the APG classes, especially the Alchemist, Inquisitor, Oracle, and Witch classes. Four out of six classes that I really like, and two that I can take or leave. That's not much worse a ratio than the Core Rulebook, in my case.

While I've yet to really warm up to the Magus, it could still happpen. As to the Gunslinger, Ninja, and Samurai, I think that the Ninja and Samurai classes were to be expected sooner or later as Paizo prepares to further develop the "Oriental Adventures" part of Golarion. Plus, I already like the Ninja alternate class.

My vote is for Paizo to keep the crunch coming. If some folks don't buy every new book, I certainly will.

Liberty's Edge

see wrote:


They told us no new base classes, at least for a good long while, after the Magus. Then they stuffed three new base classes in Ultimate Combat under the fig leaf of calling them "alternates".

Who would anyone really beleive them though. If Wotc were unable to do it why would Paizo be any different. I knew going into PF that their promises to keep any type of riles bloat down was an absurd one. Just as I knew they were setting themselves up for a lot of grief by doing so.

The questions which no one really seems to want to anwer is why invest in PF in the first place because rules bloat is ineviatable in most games. The evidence was right their before everyones eyes. The Aps alone have new feats and monsters and classes. Why would they limit it to the APs. Some chose to ignore it. Easier to thumb your noses at Wotc Then see that in the end Paizo will do what it needs to do to make PF profitable. Along with catering to the majority. While doing what they want with the game as they please. Which is their right because while we buy it they created it.

In the end they made no major promises. They said they would attempt to keep new classes, feats and races to a minimum. Not to stop producing them entirely. Any rpg company imo that publishes no crunch is doomed to fail. For the simple reason that some gamers like myself would rather buy a book with more classes, feats and monsters. Less time consuming and easier to prepare a game.

The only games imo that do not suffer rules bloat are generic systems like Gurps or Hero System. Those are set up so that you can pick and choose exactly ehat to allow and disallow.

Liberty's Edge

Heymitch wrote:


Adding classes is not kicking puppies. Kick Puppy is a feat, however, that will be appearing in Ultimate Combat.

Agreed and the Kick Puppy feat requires you to take Dirty Rotten Scoundral Feat as a prequiste.

Shadow Lodge

I'm fine with adding new classes, but if they do so, I want those classes to receive support. The more classes they add, the less support the new classes will receive. Let's face it, they won't be lessening support for the core classes, so you end up with the same problem that plagued WotC: they introduced dozens of classes, only to never have them mentioned again in another product.

Another thing is the tenancy to make classes out of concepts that could very easily be represented through the existing classes. The ninja is a great example. Many people have posted rogue (or rogue/assassin, rogue/shadow dancer, or rogue/master spy) builds that make great ninjas.

Alternate classes: If you present the full class writeup, then it's a base class that's just remarkably similar to another class, with a restriction on multi-classing. Which is why I think that at most, the ninja and the samurai should be presented as APG archtypes. Gunslinger, I would make it more different from the fighter and make it a full-on base class.

Liberty's Edge

Vic Wertz wrote:
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.)

+1000.

And please make use of the new classes (where appropriate) in the Adventure Paths and other products. I'd be a shame to produce new classes, and never see them used anywhere else.

Dark Archive

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.
James Jacobs wrote:
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.

If you include a summoner in a module, I'd hope that you do a write up for them like a monster, in that: "Everything I need to run this NPC is right here, I don't have to go referencing various books to do it."

This does point to one thing I have a problem with for Pathfinder though: the stuff is being printed in various books all over the place, and it's getting hard to know what classes have what options, or which books have which ones.

More and more, the players and GMs I know are relying on d20pfsrd for everything, because well, they don't have to memorize what's in each book, and trying to remember "which 32 or 64 page book was this in" can be pretty difficult, and often we don't have whichever book we're looking for at the game table, and can't afford the 30 minute trip home to get it mid game.

I've been asking for compiled stuff from you guys:

You guys put out good books, and I have some decent shelf space filled with them.

I think you need some better official online support though. Most definitely the area youre most lacking. I'd like to see a compiled website that has all the stuff from the PDFs. Like an online PDF.

You'd have to avoid the pitfalls that WotC bumbled into with DDI, such as a small monthly fee for unlimited access.

Liberty's Edge

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


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 :)

Actually, those thousand posts are from one guy who's obsessed with dying.


see wrote:


(And no, merely relabeling them archetypes won't cut it. Get them down to less than a page each, then they're archetypes.)

If you take a look, as an example, to Ninja Samurai, you will see that a lot of things are a copypaste from another book.

Quote:


If Paizo segregated the new classes into their own book, I could buy the stuff I wanted without having to support their unnecessary new classes. They aren't doing that. They're putting cans of Sprite in the Coke 12-packs. I was willing to hold my nose one time (APG) because they said they weren't going to do that anymore. Now they're rules-lawyering their way around that statement.

The book is about combat. Those are class variants of ranged or melee combatants. Why should they belong to another book? I just don't get it.

If you don't use Exotic Weapons in your games, you will are not likely to use those in Ultimate Combat. Nevertheless, I guess the book is the good place for exotic weapons.

Am I wrong?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there Everybody,

I have, admittedly, not read this entire thread and I am far too busy to get pulled into this sort of debate, but I did want to make a few things clear.

We are not bloating the number of classes just for the sake of bloating. I feel very strongly that every class we make needs its own mechanical and story niche. Creating new classes just for the sake of creation is not on our agenda.

Next up, we are taking a very measured pace on our rules expansion. For a game that is going on two years old, we have only released one major sourcebook filled with character options. We have some more on the horizon, but we are being careful about it. We are very cognizant that rules bloat does not really serve us or you particularly well at this stage.

Finally, we try very hard to present rules to make your game more fun and enjoyable. We expect that GMs will pick and chose what works for their game.

Hope that helps to clear up our position.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Swashbucklers! :p

Grand Lodge

Tambryn wrote:
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

Tambryn why do you have to act like this when someone says something that you don't agree with? It does boil down to the fact if you do not like it you don't have to buy it. The fact that you are trying to make change for the better in your opinion are wiped out when making comments like the one above. Some people actually DO worry about their own home game and that is the true import to them and them alone. Why is this a problem for you? You alone can not make a change to Paizo and the way they publish or choose to publish their rules and how many classes they think they should release and the timeline as to when they do. As much as you like to think that you can, all you can do is to sway others opinions to your way of thinking. Acting like the above... gets you no where in that regard other then showing the ones who don't believe the way you do that you are not acting very mature and thinking that the internet is a place where a bunch of people come and say what ever they want and hide behind the cloak of anonymity.


see wrote:


deinol wrote:

These new classes are going to take up what, 20 pages at most? That's around 6% of a 320 page book. Isn't it possible that the other 94% of the book will contain material that the "no new classes" crowd will like?

(snip)
So my question for the people who don't want new classes is, what do you want in new rule books?

The other 94%. But I'll take it off the Internet, thanks; I don't intend to encourage class bloat with my gaming dollar.

If Paizo segregated the new classes into their own book, I could buy the stuff I wanted without having to support their unnecessary new classes. They aren't doing that. They're putting cans of Sprite in the Coke 12-packs. I was willing to hold my nose one time (APG) because they said they weren't going to do that anymore. Now they're rules-lawyering their way around that statement.

That's asinine.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Darkholme wrote:
This does point to one thing I have a problem with for Pathfinder though: the stuff is being printed in various books all over the place, and it's getting hard to know what classes have what options, or which books have which ones.

You do not have to remember because Paizo has always told you were everything is. For example, (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 250), so no worries there. Moreover, the information is available for free through the PRD.

Perhaps it would be useful to have the info in one place, but in a way it already is, because you can use the Search field.

Just sayin'

Dark Archive

Elorebaen wrote:
You do not have to remember because Paizo has always told you were everything is. For example, (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 250), so no worries there. Moreover, the information is available for free through the PRD.

That's great when I'm sitting down between games looking something up or building npcs or whatever, it's a different story when it's 30 minutes before game and I have a player saying "I need a spell that does X, and there isn't one in the core book" and I have to try to remember which book/pdf had X. It's usually doable, but sometimes I have to tell them I dont remember what book that spell/rule/whatever was in and will have to get back to them between sessions.

And if youre only using stuff from the hardcover books that's one thing. What about when you're wanting to remember which AP something was in. It's happened at least a few times for me.

Elorebaen wrote:
Perhaps it would be useful to have the info in one place, but in a way it already is, because you can use the Search field.

My computer may be searchable, but if I need to tell it to search the text of all the pdfs in a folder, it takes a while. And again, it's not always an option at the table.

If we could get the rules all in one place it would be awesome.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tambryn wrote:

Well, I hate that a reactionary few have given those of us who want to express constructive concern a bad rap.

I love new classes. New rules are fine. I just want Paizo to pace themselves for the long race. The Gunslinger would have fit fine in the Alkenstar supplement when they got around to it. The same for Ninja and Samurai in the Tian Xia material. UC would have been fine with archetypes.

I wonder if the "oooooooh shiny" new class effect could be encouraged if archetypes came with their own artwork.

Tam

The issue is that a fair amount of people dont use golarion. Thus they wouldn't pick up an Alkenstar or Tian Xia Supplement. My game for instance is only superficially in golarion (basically for the awesome map and names of places). But those people may still want similarly themed material in their RPG products. Paizo needs to serve those customers as well as they are now with the rise of PFRPG part of their fanbase.


There is no "bloat" not as far as I see. I do intend on getting both UM and UC eventually. Some of you forget one very simple rule when it comes to all of these things and that is Rule Zero (0): Have fun, the guy or gal behind that screen and everyone at the table is there to have fun. If a new class or feat or spell makes the game less fun, don't use it. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I look at all of this as pieces that I can use as sparingly or as frequently as needed. Personally, I am a big fan of Science Fantasy in general so something like Gunslinger is a class I like seeing. I'm also a big fan of Japanese animation so having the option of ninjas and samurai in my game is appreciated. After Carrion Crown we're taking a trip to the Asian inspired area of Golarion, so Paizo absolutely NEEDS ninja and samurai in place before this happens. I don't expect Paizo to redo Oriental Adventures for Pathfinder as a book but I do expect a smorgasborg of Oriental material in that AP. One thing I learned in 2nd Ed AD&D that I have carried forward is something that was put into at least one of those books that these "rules" are really just suggestions, guidelines on how one can run the game with a minimum of fuss. Each and Every GM is responsible for what goes on at his or her table. I made up around 20 new races to offer players when I run Pathfinder the way I want to see it run. I buy Golarion material as a set of models for my own campaigns. These are options people, I am going to consider everything carefully BEFORE I implement them or not. Just like I get a lot of stuff from Genius Games and other Third Party companies. I like having options. If you don't, fine, then you can live in your own little world but please, let me live in mine.

Dark Archive

I have never played 3.5 - I ran a long campaign that started in 1998 (I think) and lasted till 2007. I used 2nd. Ed. in combination with Skills & Powers supplement, which was sort of 3.0 before 3.0. My players loved the ability to use class point buy to create individually and mechanically different characters of the same class, such as fighter who can not use armor, but has more skills or spell immunity, or whatever. Now, for all that time we gamed in my home brewed world. When 3.0 came, I didn't like it, but I was swayed by 3.5 and I bought each and every book from my local gaming store. I never used them, but I've read them from cover to cover, and most of them several times. Since 2007 I've been DMing Pathfinder using FFG's Midnight as default setting and I've been working on version 2.0 of my own home brew. And I was extremely surprised when Paizo anticipated my needs almost to the letter. All right, I needed Psionics support, but DSP has created a ruleset that perfectly matches everything I need, so that's OK. Still, I needed classes like Magus and Alchemist and I really needed fire arms rules and some class that uses them, since some parts of my world are designed to be at different stage of technological or magical advancement. I am not thrilled with Samurai, but I can easily use it to represent some aspects of - if you can believe it - elven culture. Same goes for Ninja. But Magus and Gunslinger were sorely needed.

Now, what I'm trying to say is that Paizo gave what is essentially new life to my gaming. Although I do not game in Golarion, I mine it for ideas. I have now bought almost everything published by Paizo because a) I want to support this company; and b) I want to support my local gaming store - even if it costs me more money (example: I've recently bought Core Rulebook as a present for a friend and payed it 6000 dinars, which is around 60 euros, which is, I think 65 dollars).

So, I really don't mind new classes. In fact, everything published so far has been great, even if it didn't interest me at first glance. For instance, Cavalier was of no interest to me - until Hound Master archetype from Superstar.

Paizo, just bring it on.

Sovereign Court

Deanoth wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Mage Evolving wrote:

It's been said by others but I think that it bears repeating.

If you don't like the material being put out then you can choose not to use it. I think that is the very best way you can make clear to paizo that you are not happy with the "bloat". Personally, my group only uses the core rulebook and the APG. Throw in the beastiary and your imagination and you have everything you will ever need.

If you want flavor add it if not then don't.

and no the best way to tell paizo you don't like it, is to tell paizo you don't like it. The worst way is to just not use it and let paizo guess why it is that their sales are down.
You seem to think though that their sales will go down based on your own single opinion though. You have to speak for yourself when stating an opinion. Speaking for myself, I will say that I will buy the books, both Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat. This is my choice and because of that my vote seems to be in the positive :)

Oh for gods sake no I do not. I'm saying it's better for their customers to express their damn opinions, not saying that my opinion is right or that I drive their sales. People not buying a book/not using material in a book tells paizo nothing. The books do not come equipped with a friggen camera that monitors are games and tells them "this group isn't using this section of the book." You may not like that threads exist telling paizo I don't like this or that etc. but they do serve a purpose because if enough people don't like this or that, paizo can get a sense of it and stop releasing as much this or that. I may disagree with posters that think the words of power rules are terrible, but I want those people to come here and express their opinions, then I'm free to disagree. If enough people agree with them, then maybe there is something wrong with words of power, no matter how much I love it. If not, then the thread will die down and no harm no fowl. Dismissing people complaints and telling them that the best thing to do is ignore it and shut up is no more helpful then someone posting a post that says pathfinder sucks, stop making anything to do with it.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there Everybody,

I have, admittedly, not read this entire thread and I am far too busy to get pulled into this sort of debate, but I did want to make a few things clear.

We are not bloating the number of classes just for the sake of bloating. I feel very strongly that every class we make needs its own mechanical and story niche. Creating new classes just for the sake of creation is not on our agenda.

Next up, we are taking a very measured pace on our rules expansion. For a game that is going on two years old, we have only released one major sourcebook filled with character options. We have some more on the horizon, but we are being careful about it. We are very cognizant that rules bloat does not really serve us or you particularly well at this stage.

Finally, we try very hard to present rules to make your game more fun and enjoyable. We expect that GMs will pick and chose what works for their game.

Hope that helps to clear up our position.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Operative words: "...pick and [choose]...." PCs can't get psionic powers in my campaign. I chose that. My players are okay with it. Done. I don't see us using the Gunslinger. Done. Treat new classes that you don't like just like food in a buffet that you don't like: don't eat it. Done.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tambryn wrote:

Well, I hate that a reactionary few have given those of us who want to express constructive concern a bad rap.

I love new classes. New rules are fine. I just want Paizo to pace themselves for the long race. The Gunslinger would have fit fine in the Alkenstar supplement when they got around to it. The same for Ninja and Samurai in the Tian Xia material. UC would have been fine with archetypes.

I wonder if the "oooooooh shiny" new class effect could be encouraged if archetypes came with their own artwork.

Tam

+1

I gotta agree with Tambryn on this one. I actually like the concept of Archtypes but it does feel like rules bloat. All of these classes is alot of rules to remember. We've got another book on undead coming out in April as well as a book on Ustalav. Some of these things should be included in the Bestiary 3. Lets use what we've got now.

I understand that Paizo is a business and that its products should be tied to one another but it does seem like TOO MUCH is coming out TOO FAST. Just like WOTC when 3.5 came out a rush for products and then there was a glut of books on everything and it really started to turn people off.

Paizo please pace yourself, I love what your doing, but perhaps you guys need take a step back and look long term. I think growing the game and player base is great but long-lasting fans/gamers are better bred slowly.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Remember that with the Edition War system limbo Paizo didn't publish any rules supplements for 3 years. And their fluff books were very crunch light. Now they got to catch up.


[That is 21 Classes in roughly 2 years. These folks make money by selling us ideas that there job. That roughly 10.5 per year

WoTC did 52 in 5 years roughly 10.4 per year.

Let me correct you on this.

Well let me corect you it been 1 year and 5 month to date since path core book came out. Also it will be 2 year on nose when Advance combat guild come out. Core book came out at Gen con 2009 and by Gen con 2011 there will be 21 base class.


Gorbacz wrote:
Remember that with the Edition War system limbo Paizo didn't publish any rules supplements for 3 years. And their fluff books were very crunch light. Now they got to catch up.

Fisrt off the company has only been alive for about 3 year. And in that time As crunchy rules they was the starting August 2009 CORE RULE BOOK, ADVANCE PLAYER GUIDE, GAME MASTER GUILD all cruchy heavy goodnest. Each and every Splat book they put out has nice mouth full of cruch about 9 page of Crunch per book. But how many splat Path finder book there are I do not know I have not bought them all cause there is way to to many and I just do not need them. All Most are in my circel of friend but I do not need to own them all. The other part is that 85% or 90% of my 3.0 or 3.5 stuff still work fine with Path Finder with littel or no real change. And I have 2 huge book shelves full of it.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
see wrote:
memorax wrote:
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.
They told us no new base classes, at least for a good long while, after the Magus. Then they stuffed three new base classes in Ultimate Combat under the fig leaf of calling them "alternates".

Just to address this point they said no more base classes after Ultimate Magic for awhile, but they also said in that same sentence they were looking forward to exploring more sub-classes (what alternate classes used to be called) like the anti-paladin. They defined that as class built on the skeleton of an existing class.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Shivok wrote:
Tambryn wrote:

Well, I hate that a reactionary few have given those of us who want to express constructive concern a bad rap.

I love new classes. New rules are fine. I just want Paizo to pace themselves for the long race. The Gunslinger would have fit fine in the Alkenstar supplement when they got around to it. The same for Ninja and Samurai in the Tian Xia material. UC would have been fine with archetypes.

I wonder if the "oooooooh shiny" new class effect could be encouraged if archetypes came with their own artwork.

Tam

+1

I gotta agree with Tambryn on this one. I actually like the concept of Archtypes but it does feel like rules bloat. All of these classes is alot of rules to remember. We've got another book on undead coming out in April as well as a book on Ustalav. Some of these things should be included in the Bestiary 3. Lets use what we've got now.

I understand that Paizo is a business and that its products should be tied to one another but it does seem like TOO MUCH is coming out TOO FAST. Just like WOTC when 3.5 came out a rush for products and then there was a glut of books on everything and it really started to turn people off.

Paizo please pace yourself, I love what your doing, but perhaps you guys need take a step back and look long term. I think growing the game and player base is great but long-lasting fans/gamers are better bred slowly.

None of the Undead in Undead revisited aren't in either the Bestiary or Bestiary 2. Rule of Fear is the standard campaign setting book that they put out at the start of a new AP.

Liberty's Edge

Tom S 820 wrote:
Well let me corect you it been 1 year and 5 month to date since path core book came out. Also it will be 2 year on nose when Advance combat guild come out. Core book came out at Gen con 2009 and by Gen con 2011 there will be 21 base class.

I think it's kind of fuzzy math. 11 of those classes were the very same base classes that existed in 3.5 (albeit re-imagined). It's not like they would have had a playable game if Paizo chose not to include those in the Core Rulebook, and they're certainly not new.

After the initial 11 classes that made the game a playable game, WotC produced 41 more in 5 years for 3.5 (about 8 a year). Paizo produced 10 more in two years (more like 7 more, plus three fleshed out archetypes that are being referred to on the boards as base classes), and they've said that they have no immediate plans for additional base classes.

If Paizo continued to produce new base classes at the rate of 5 a year, then I think that there would be some cause for concern regarding class bloat. I think that's unlikely, though. In reality, in the year and a half(?) between the APG and Ultimate Combat, Paizo has produced one new base class (Magus), plus a Fighter archetype (Gunslinger), Rogue archetype (Ninja), and Cavalier archetype (Samurai). I call them archetypes, and not alternate classes, because I'm afraid that the word "class" is setting some people off unnecessarily.

When we talk about the APG, we generally refer to six new base classes, not seven, because we recognize that the Antipaladin isn't a base class. It's an alternate class, which is essentially a fleshed out archetype. They could have listed the Antipaladin in archetype format, and it would still be the very same class. It's the same with these three new alternate classes.

Sorry for the ramble. Just my two cents...


TriOmegaZero wrote:
pres man wrote:

A thought to consider:

The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long. (Tyrell in Blade Runner)
And an oil lamp will burn forever so long as you continue to fuel it. :P (Never saw Blade Runner.)

Sorry I had to bring that up, and it's been a while since I last wrote, specialy regarding TOZ... but all I can say is WHAAAATTTTTT!?!?!? What kinda of RPGist are ya that never saw Blade Runner!?!? DUUUUDE, what are you waiting for!? Please, please, please watch it for your own sake and sanity!!!

Ok, back to your usual programing...

301 to 350 of 731 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.