I'm not upset. I just feel the weight of Ultimate Magic's release bearing down on my campaign, and I realize that I've hit my personal limit.
I'd like to see Paizo return to providing material that can be used after character creation. For me, the game is about more than building PCs and building NPCs to fight those PCs. Adventure content is what brought me to Pathfinder, and I think that "rule" books can be more than just character options.
I understand we're locked in for Ultimate Combat. After that, please, let's get back to more expansive, campaign-based material.
New player options are not intrinsically a bad thing, but I would rather get them spread out in smaller books so that I can process them into my campaign. With these huge player option tomes, it really amounts to having another 300 page pile of rules to familiarize.
I don't even have adversarial players (although pity those who do when a book like this comes out) ... it's a simple matter that my players WILL read this book, and want the things in it, so I more or less have to read it also to keep them happy.
I know that James Jacobs has voiced a similar opinion, and so I am content in the knowledge that I'm not out in the cold on this issue. Still, I think feedback about the product lines is really important, so I created this thread for people to express their opinions.
Who feels as I do?
Who feels differently and why?
It's all opinion, so please state yours and leave other people to theirs.
I basically hit my limit with the APG. That's not to say that I have no interest whatsoever in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic, but it's certainly diminishing returns for me at this point. I don't really care about fifty new spells or fifty new feats (maybe 10% of which I'll find interesting).
I am cutting off additions to my campaigns after Ultimate Combat, at least in this size category. If there are setting books and the like, I'll allow new options on a case-by-case basis. But as for giant amounts of new spells and feats, Ultimate Combat is my cap.
I'll add one more question:
For those who feel as I do, what kind of books would you like to see instead?
I think a book that streamlined and fixed the treasure rules would be grand. I'm dying for a total redux of the treasure scene, maybe a new design that accounts for later expansion, and doesn't require hours of dead ends.
Or a book about towns and settlements.
I basically hit my limit with the APG. That's not to say that I have no interest whatsoever in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic, but it's certainly diminishing returns for me at this point. I don't really care about fifty new spells or fifty new feats (maybe 10% of which I'll find interesting).
+1. I'd be more interested in Guides to mid-level and high-level play - stuff that isn't a splat compendium.
Cheers
Mark
|
Even if I allow stuff on a case-by-case basis (cutting off some things from APG, and some others from the two Ultimates - even though I still don't own neither of them), I'd like to cast my vote along the lines of Evil Lincoln, hogarth and magnuskn.
There are a lot of areas to cover with crunch-heavy books (which I understand have their very special appeal for the market), such as a consolidated/generic template system for the "situational victory points" - the latest example coming to mind being the Trust Points for Carrion Crown #1 - more enviromntal stuff along the lines of the extreme altitude rules in the latest chapter of RotRL, naval and aerial combat (for those of us who long to recreate living in a Shory flying city), etc.
Also, seeing the Paizo development of concepts such as the action zones seen in Iron Heroes would be quite interesting, IMO. A book slightly more geared for GMs, with a toolbox of subsystems and situational rules to spice up adventures, combat scenes, and so on.
Right now, I feel that I have a player options overload syndrome in its early stages.
I guess I'll play Devil's Advocate. I'd rather have one big hardback with all the extra material in it than haul a dozen or more 32-page suppliments around.
I personally like having a new book or two per year to add in. Myself, and most of my group, have been playing "the game" for about 20~30 years and having a way to make your next fighter type or magic user different then the 50 you have played before is to have some new options when making a new character.
But this opinion could be based off how we play. We make new characters for every campaign, and that campaign runs about a year or two. We usually have two campaigns going at a time and swap out DM's. (With Paizo this is VERY easy as each DM picks an Adventure Path and runs it to completion. We may swap DM's every book or so letting us play in Legacy of Fire and Serpents Skull at the same general time as an example.)
So with our group of seven we will run through 12 to 24 characters in a year and a half on average. Everyone likes to have a "unique" character so people usually do not play something someone else has played for a year or two. Extra options allow this.
Now as to the comment that a DM has to memorize the entire book, I feel this is a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, the DM does have the lions share of the learning curve. But you only need to know what your players are using right now. So you may need to learn the magus and three archetypes for the next campaign plus a couple of spells and feats. A couple of spells and feats will creep in as the characters level as well, but "bathroom reading" can usually keep ahead of that. ;)
Anyway, I like the new books and one or two per year of crunch along with one or two of flavor is about right. Three to Five big hardbacks per year is good IMHO and I believe that is about the number that the Paizo folks put out there back in Beta as a targeted number.
The main point is to have fun and play nice with others... at least that is what Grandma always said.
I'll add one more question:
For those who feel as I do, what kind of books would you like to see instead?
I like the towns and settlements idea. More material for post-level 20 play. Anything non-Golarion specific. I hadn't heard of Pathfinder or Paizo before PFRPG came out, and I don't play PFS or within the Golarion setting at all, so while I see your point about the impact of these big books, I also think their one biggest strength is their nigh universality. I understand that PFRPG game out in big part so that Paizo could continue their Golarion line of material with a game to support it, but you have to admit it has very rapidly evolved beyond that to be THE go-to gaming system for a lot of us who had been playing 3.x in other settings, both canonical and homebrewed.
I like the towns and settlements idea. More material for post-level 20 play. Anything non-Golarion specific. I hadn't heard of Pathfinder or Paizo before PFRPG came out, and I don't play PFS or within the Golarion setting at all, so while I see your point about the impact of these big books, I also think their one biggest strength is their nigh universality. I understand that PFRPG game out in big part so that Paizo could continue their Golarion line of material with a game to support it, but you have to admit it has very rapidly evolved beyond that to be THE go-to gaming system for a lot of us who had been playing 3.x in other settings, both canonical and homebrewed.
I agree. I guess my point is that Non-Setting-Specific does not equate to player options.
And I'm sure UM and UC have a lot of material that isn't player options. But a LOT of it is, right? It could be that the early reports are simply biased to player options.
In any case, I'm happy to hear peoples honest opinions, whether or not they align with mine.
I personally love more options but maybe that's cause I'm a player and not a GM.
I think that Ultimate Combat will be my cutoff point on the player options, although I would like epic level and Psionics books. I feel like that is an expansion in a different direction though.
As for what I would like to see instead; I would rather those four hardbacks a year go toward setting material. I realize that this isn't within their current model, but it doesn't really change my opinion on it. As awesome as The Great Beyond is, a 64 page book about the planes is really only enough to make you want to know more about the planes. Same thing with Into the Darklands. That is my favorite source book that Paizo has released, but if I wanted to run a game there, I don't think it would be enough.
To the OP: Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. In fact, I was there with the APG.
Sadly, I expect to see it continue.
Well, I understand how you feel, but you /are/ a minority in this.
Maybe... but until I see statistics, I'll just declare that you don't really know what you're talking about. That's just the way things go on the internet when talking about "majorities" and "minorities". You just don't know, so you shouldn't blab about it in the first place.
I'm with Evil Lincoln. All the character options in the world are useless if you don't have something for them to do. This is, obviously, the far more critical part.
It'll especially be a pain seeing all this stuff over time end up infesting the APs. Way more rules stuff to learn, understand, and have to play with (or waste valuable time changing), with questionable benefit to the AP and possibly negative consequences for the game and game group.
The point of diminishing returns is approaching... quickly.
I do like things such as towns/cities (otherwise hard and time-consuming to create), and I'm always interested in adventures.
Location guides (with MAPS) are also valuable - especially if they are easily transportable to other settings (like most - but not all - of Paizo's stuff).
I know James Jacobs (and probably others) have said that they wanted to front load all of the Player's option near the beginning of the game's life cycle. So UM and UC should be the last big 'player option' books that we see.
What will come next? Besides Bestiary 3+ of course. I'm hoping for post level 20 play, monsters as PCs, and psionics. Although psionics are less of a priority since Psionics Unleashed is a well done conversion already.
Oh, and a Planar handbook would be great. As would an exploration of other planets.
Well, I understand how you feel, but you /are/ a minority in this.Maybe... but until I see statistics, I'll just declare that you don't really know what you're talking about.
We can't know, really. I think people should just speak to their own opinions, and let Paizo make the decision.
In the end, it isn't really a binary problem or a binary solution. It's a balance that they will find based on people's desire to pay for certain products.
I don't think any of us are calling for the abolition of all new character options — just that we'd like to see more room given over to non-character option material in these huge books.
Im going on strike to protest this board... MORE PLAYER OPTIONS MORE PLAYER OPTIONS THERE IS NEVER TO MANY!!!!
surzly though i love more character options i like ever character being unique and to be able to play exactly what they want. however i do think after ultimate combat we could probably go with a diffrent route for a bit (still would like to see a new epic and new psionic) however i enjoy reading the stuff that some of yall are complaining about reading.
I like new content for rule. The APG was great and the Ultimate Magic/Combat books look promising. What they will do next year though I'm not sure. Epic rules would be nice. I think though the game from rules perspective has gotten to point where it can stand on it's own for some time. Maybe a new Game using the PF rules a PFSF (Pathfinder Science Fiction) style game. Or maybe add in a Steam Punk edition of PF.
I like what I see in Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat will be good to cover the non casters, but beyond that, I'm good for a while on that type of book. Other things that would be nice would include: their version of Unearthed Arcana, with all the new rules from the various APs, as well as other optional rules like the words of power and hero points, consolidated; a book that looks at creating towns and running town adventures; environmental type books that focus on the desert, sea, arctic, etc; a book that expands the kingdom creation rules.
|
I agree, I don't need any more player's option books. I might not get Ultimate Magic or Ultimate Combat. (I probably will, down the road, but... not right now).
I never, ever play at high level, so I'm not interested in high-level stuff. I rarely play or GM above 5th level, and never above 8-10th. Prestige classes? Never seen. High-end magic? Completely avoided.
Unfortunately, I am fully aware that this isn't good business. So, what would I like?
More campaign world ideas. I love the GameMastery Guide. The Inner Sea World Guide is great as well. Expand Golarion, have new ideas for locations. A book containing miniature-scale maps for iconic dungeons throughout Golarion would be awesome. What's great about dungeons is that if I'm not using Golarion, I can still use the dungeon.
More bestiaries. More templates, specifically. In essence, give me more GM's option books. Redo the 1e Random Creature From The Lower Planes table.
Better treasure determination. Advice for running no-magic-mart or low-magic campaigns (I find it simple, but some have trouble with it). Keeping the low levels interesting. High levels bore me, to be honest.
Better treasure determination.
This this this. As time wears on, it is creeping up my priorities list. Pretty soon I'll start a thread about it.
I guess I'll play Devil's Advocate. I'd rather have one big hardback with all the extra material in it than haul a dozen or more 32-page suppliments around.
I have no interest in 32 page leaflets, either; I like big collections of rules stuff like the APG, just not every 3 months or 6 months or whatever. Once a year is more my speed.
As noted by Estrosiath, I like my new rules material to feel like it's filling a gap. Unlike Estrosiath, I thought the APG did a decent job of that: the Inquisitor filled a gap of "skillful divine character" (sort of -- I guess you could have just used a cleric/rogue or cleric/ranger before) and the Alchemist filled a gap of "artillery character who's less of a spellcaster than a wizard/sorcerer" and the Summoner filled a gap of "character with a pet who's not a druid".
On the other side, we have stuff like the Magus; I'm sure there are people out there who have an infinite appetite for new medium BAB/medium spellcasting classes, but that's not for me. And there's stuff like the Cavalier or the Gunslinger: leadership-style feats or firearms rules might be a good thing, but the thinking behind those classes seems a bit backwards to me (i.e. "Let's think up a brand new base class to go with these rules instead of allowing existing classes to excel with them").
"More spells" and "more feats" isn't a niche that needs filling, IMO; not even something more specific like "more bard/ranger/paladin spells" or "more metamagic feats" at this point.
I know James Jacobs (and probably others) have said that they wanted to front load all of the Player's option near the beginning of the game's life cycle. So UM and UC should be the last big 'player option' books that we see.
Maybe. But I also remember hearing something along the lines of "we won't churn out Pathfinder rule books just for the sake of selling a new rule book every X months", which doesn't quite fit with the Pathfinder rule book subscription.
I personally love more options but maybe that's cause I'm a player and not a GM.
I also love more options; I just hope they don't go back to the well too much, too quickly. I would just prefer not to see PFRPG end up like 4th edition ("Did you like Arcane Power 6? Good, because Arcane Power 7 is coming out next month!") or 3.5th edition ("We're branching out from Complete Arcane and Complete Mage with our new Magic of Incarnumatious Truenaming, which is sure to be a big hit!").
+1 to OP.
Like Deinol says, JJ says this Ult. Combat WILL be the last in the series of big player crunch stuff for the forseeable future, so hopefully we will all be ´whew!´
Personally, even starting with APG, 1/3 was great, 1/3 wasn´t SO bad but seems pointless, 1/3 i really don´t like. I expect Ult. Magic to be the same, though I have higher hopes for Ult. Combat. Essentially, APG+Ult Magic/Combat could have been boiled down to 1 book or max 2 as far as I´m concerned.
More info on other planes and extra-planar types would be great. Shadow Plane, hello?
Those are bordering on setting in a way, but I think can be in addition to normal setting books.
I DO think there is developing a need to collect some of the setting-specific crunch, which is all scattered around. I would even be OK with adding slightly more crunch that is setting specific, tying in with new APG / Ultimate X material... This could be in place of setting-specific crunch that isn´t deemed worthwhile to re-print/collect. THere is also the problem that alot of that material isn´t being re-printed, and thus isn´t seeing Errata based on Paizo´s current Errata model. Being re-printed in another product with a note that it supersedes the version in XYZ product would at least be something... Ideally, an Errata sheet could be issued for products so affected, even if they are not re-printed themselves.
I´d definitely like to see more in-depth treatments of Golarion proper, though I don´t know how well what I want fits into Paizo´s format/pacing for that stuff. Maybe they could do a History of Golarion book, which can allow an approach to giving info on current nations, powers, etc, that is different than one focusing on their current state... Not revealing EVERYTHING of course, but it seems an interesting approach. Also, I´d like to see thematic explorations of Human ethnicities, e.g. Varisian, Azlanti and descendants, Kellid, etc. That maybe needs more of Golarion firmed up, though.
Rules wise, I personally feel the Core Rules, not to mention APG, really need some TLC re: Errata, it seems like too many issues have been discared as ´not worth fixing´ even though they are glaring errors or bad decisions of presentation, INCLUDING 3.x legacy stuff. Seriously dealing with those makes a new Core Rules purchase justifiable for MANY players, so such a project is just as viable as any NEW rules product IMHO.
I am going to post a dissenting opinion here and say that I want more APG/UM/UC style books. I have never understood the concept that just because a company has made a product that product HAS to be used in every game and HAS to be allowed.
I DO understand where too much at once can be overwhelming but one good player option book a year with some well thought out classes, PrC's, spells, feats and what have you would be great.
But more options, to me, is always better than less, even if I never get to use all of them or even most of them. More options is more idea's that can help fuel my imagination and that is always a good thing.
So no, I do not feel as you do and I do not want them to stop producing interesting and well balance player option books, maybe just slow down how often they do them slightly.
I like you folks but in the interest of counter point. After playing for 30 years I have played a handful of non-starter Forgotten Realms games like 6-7, and Planescape for 6 years.
Other than that I and every group I have run into moving around the country uses homebrew settings.
So unless the book is community construction, world/society building, class options, and similar generic type materials. It dosent get bought by some portion of the market. In the same way churning out modules that will only sell to A section of the market.
I know that there are people who play strictly setting based or PFS but as you begin to churn out only books for that market you loose out on the % of the market who has no interest (it could be a small % I will admit freely).
Should setting specific stuff be made? Of course it should. Should Paizo expect its print run to be as large as non setting specific stuff? No. If I was making buisness decisions I would likely prioritze towards things that will draw the largest possible portions of my potential market.
I am going to post a dissenting opinion here and say that I want more APG/UM/UC style books.
[..]
So no, I do not feel as you do and I do not want them to stop producing interesting and well balance player option books, maybe just slow down how often they do them slightly.
Ironically, I feel exactly the same as you do, but I consider myself basically in agreement with the original poster!
I am going to post a dissenting opinion here and say that I want more APG/UM/UC style books. I have never understood the concept that just because a company has made a product that product HAS to be used in every game and HAS to be allowed.
As I mentioned in the OP, it has more to do with peer pressure from players than anything. I want them to be happy, and they don't always think about the balance of a campaign as much as the GM does.
I DO understand where too much at once can be overwhelming but one good player option book a year with some well thought out classes, PrC's, spells, feats and what have you would be great.But more options, to me, is always better than less, even if I never get to use all of them or even most of them. More options is more idea's that can help fuel my imagination and that is always a good thing.
So no, I do not feel as you do and I do not want them to stop producing interesting and well balance player option books, maybe just slow down how often they do them slightly.
More options is good. Options coming out in 300 page books of options is overwhelming.
I could deal with one a year. The APG, UM, and UC are starting to feel like too much a good thing... especially in the absence of other good non-character-centric rulebooks to space them out a bit.
I need to reiterate, I am not asking them to stop publishing character options altogether.
I'm not upset. I just feel the weight of Ultimate Magic's release bearing down on my campaign, and I realize that I've hit my personal limit.
I'd like to see Paizo return to providing material that can be used after character creation. For me, the game is about more than building PCs and building NPCs to fight those PCs. Adventure content is what brought me to Pathfinder, and I think that "rule" books can be more than just character options.
I understand we're locked in for Ultimate Combat. After that, please, let's get back to more expansive, campaign-based material.
New player options are not intrinsically a bad thing, but I would rather get them spread out in smaller books so that I can process them into my campaign. With these huge player option tomes, it really amounts to having another 300 page pile of rules to familiarize.
I don't even have adversarial players (although pity those who do when a book like this comes out) ... it's a simple matter that my players WILL read this book, and want the things in it, so I more or less have to read it also to keep them happy.
I know that James Jacobs has voiced a similar opinion, and so I am content in the knowledge that I'm not out in the cold on this issue. Still, I think feedback about the product lines is really important, so I created this thread for people to express their opinions.
Who feels as I do?
Who feels differently and why?
It's all opinion, so please state yours and leave other people to theirs.
I can't really agree with your opinion here. The book is there to be used or not used. Completely at the discretion of the DM. If your players want things from the book, and you don't want to have to worry about it... then just tell them no.
As a DM and a player, I personally love this book. I think it gives a lot of really awesome options for casters, and includes a few things that my players have wanted for a while now. Nothing is too clunky to learn in a matter of 5 minutes (aside from the Words system, which I'm completely ignoring for now.) In the middle of a campaign, I expect that people will use a few feats and a few spells. And if someone eventually dies, or decides to start anew, they have a whole new tome to go to for options.
In the matter of 10 small 30 page books vs 1 big 300 page book: I'd rather have one big book. The big book is always going to cost less for the same amount of content, and hardcovers stand up so much better to wear.
I'm fine with having other options for books. The towns/cities book is a good idea. Cities are time consuming to create, but I think doing so is one of the more fun parts of being a DM. As for post-20 stuff. Meh, I've never been a fan. I think hitting level 20 is close enough to being a minor deity anyways.
|
It's a catch-22 for Paizo. A player will buy a book that gives new options for player characters. A GM will also buy a book that gives new options for player characters (to use with NPCs).
However, players are less likely to buy new monster supplements (which are usually the purview of GMs) and are less likely to buy new Adventure Paths (which are usually used solely by GMs). They may buy setting-material (Golarion campaign books, etc) but GMs are more likely to show interest.
While there are many players who also GM and vice-versa, the number of people who solely play probably outnumbers the number of people who solely GM by a good margin.
Personally, I think the Golarion fiction series that Paizo has started is a smart move. That has a broad appeal.
I think a few more one-off adventures might be a good idea. Players who have an interest in GMing will be more likely to buy them, whether they actually get used or not, and Gms who don't use the Golarion setting will find it easy to incorporate them into their own games.
As it is, I'm already feeling the rules bloat. I still don't know all the ins and outs of the APG classes. Our group has had its share of oracles, and a trial run at a summoner, a witch, and an inquisitor. I just get tired of having to jump back and forth between books to get all the rules down.
I'm reminded of the way my gaming table used to groan under the weight of myriad 2nd edition books and how I had to make a rule that any character sheet had to have book and page number marked for anything on it that didn't come from the PHB. Then rinse and repeat for 3.0/3.5.
Does that mean I don't want Paizo to produce any more big rules-heavy books? No. If that's what is bringing in the income and keeping the company solid, then keep doing it. My voice on what I want will come from what I buy or don't buy.
I like the towns and settlements idea. More material for post-level 20 play. Anything non-Golarion specific. I hadn't heard of Pathfinder or Paizo before PFRPG came out, and I don't play PFS or within the Golarion setting at all, so while I see your point about the impact of these big books, I also think their one biggest strength is their nigh universality. I understand that PFRPG game out in big part so that Paizo could continue their Golarion line of material with a game to support it, but you have to admit it has very rapidly evolved beyond that to be THE go-to gaming system for a lot of us who had been playing 3.x in other settings, both canonical and homebrewed.I agree. I guess my point is that Non-Setting-Specific does not equate to player options.
Agreed. Just saying, if you ask what I want to see, for me, the answer is the more generic the better.
While I would love to continue seeing big books o' options, I'd also like to see books more tuned to world building, treasure generation, and those neat rule sets like mass combat, kingdom building and so forth.
Well, I understand how you feel, but you /are/ a minority in this.Maybe... but until I see statistics, I'll just declare that you don't really know what you're talking about.We can't know, really. I think people should just speak to their own opinions, and let Paizo make the decision.
In the end, it isn't really a binary problem or a binary solution. It's a balance that they will find based on people's desire to pay for certain products.
I don't think any of us are calling for the abolition of all new character options — just that we'd like to see more room given over to non-character option material in these huge books.
I think that those who are not interest in more character options will always lose that fight. Character options sell books. There is little question about that. And honestly, I dont want to see character options spread out over lots of products, because that means someone who wants more character options has to buy all of them. I would rather wait to see another big book of character options for a year or two, and get them consolidated in one source then to see them spread out over dozens of books in something like the player companions.
Me, I like options, I like an ever expanding list of options. I have been playing 3.x for more then 10 years now. I have played dozens of characters with all sorts of options. I dont like repeating them, as for me a characters personality and background come out of their character options, and thus, if the options stop comming I lose my inspiration for new characters, both as a player and as an NPC.
And I dont feel the need to keep track of everything that comes out, i only look at what interests me, and if i need or want something later I look it up. As a DM i have a very simple rule, show me first. If a player wants to use something from UM or UC or even the APG they have to run it by me first. I normally dont reject it, but by them telling me what they want, and having to explain why, I now know which portion of the book they are using.
I dont need to know everything about alchemists, or even anything about alchemists, and then only what the players want to be. If you insist that your players show you each extra option they plan to use before they take it, then there is very little effort required to accept new material. After all there are only so many options any single party can take. You only have to know those, and those your monsters/npcs use. I think dms run into the problem of thinking if they allow a book they need to know everything in it. Its a trap that drives a wedge through the community that doesnt need to be there.
Like I said I am happy with a slowdown in the big book of options, and would much rather wait a year or two for another big book of options and let paizo have time to come up with good ones then get watered down versions, but I do not want them to stop.
I Really dont want to see 'normal' options scattered in smaller pockets across lots of books. That would make using them much much harder and more difficult for a dm to keep track of. With the 'big book of options' like the APG, UM and UC you have a consolidated place to look at these things. I dont want to have 10 smaller books open at character creation when I can have 2 or 3 bigger ones.
In the end character options are what drive an RPG line. The RPG line shouldnt have setting books (though possibly setting building tools), and many of us dont use setting stuff, and only a portion of the community is interested in setting building tools. So if you cut out options books entirely it would mean the death of the rpg line in fairly short order. There is a reason why the APG sold better then the GMG, and it isnt a matter of quality, its a matter of demand.
My group does exclusively Homebrew campaigns. Setting specific items are mostly useless to us, unless we find interesting traits or feats on the d20pfsrd site.
Other than bestiaries and the Goblins of Golarion book, I don't see my group spending all that much on Pathfinder if Ultimate Combat is the last book of its kind.
I'm not upset. I just feel the weight of Ultimate Magic's release bearing down on my campaign, and I realize that I've hit my personal limit.
Who feels as I do?
Who feels differently and why?
It's all opinion, so please state yours and leave other people to theirs.
I do -- I'm not even keen on anything past APG. The swelling in the number of base classes is getting to me, for one thing. [There was a reason for prestige classes and, for that matter, archetypes...]
However, even with that, I worry -- I don't want to see a constant explosion of splatbooks and have to get into some sort of game-balance arms race (especially as new "cool" things get added - just because they're cool and for no other reason).
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of faith in the people at Paizo to keep an eye on balance and not churn out books just to make money -- but at the same time, I'm old enough to remember how power creep worked its way through the both cycles of 2e and 3e -- the first few books are generally well-balanced and thought out, but then as time goes by, later ones seem less and less balanced against the core material -- because power creep is an exponential growth function [you keep "balancing" to the new power level]. And, again, while I don't think anyone wants power creep, the "fun" unintended interaction of abilities effect is harder to keep track of each time something new is added -- it's also exponential growth. (Don't believe me? Compare the kits in Complete Fighter 2ed to those in, say, Complete Paladin or Complete Elves...)
Having said that, there are books that I'd love to see -- I second (third) the request for books on Epic Level Play.
I would love to see a Bestiary III (I'm a fan of new creatures, and I would love to see more templates, especially for things like undead types).
I think a deeper treatment of the Planes would be useful for adventures out there (the super-abridged treatment, not so great).
I have a player who would disown me if I didn't ask for Psionics (even if I don't personally care that much..)
I can't be the only one who has players who ask about the whole "How do you become a god?" thing, considering the mythos.
A book of new, cool magic items (and artifacts) would be excellent [and yes, I *can* make them up myself, I know, but as I said, older player (which = day job and wife, both of which can really cut into one's gaming)].
Should setting specific stuff be made? Of course it should. Should Paizo expect its print run to be as large as non setting specific stuff? No. If I was making buisness decisions I would likely prioritze towards things that will draw the largest possible portions of my potential market.
There are already 4 subscription lines (5 if you include novels) that generate a ton of setting specific material each year.
I assume this thread is talking about what direction the Pathfinder Rules Subscription should take. That one, by definition, is intended to be generic and used in any campaign setting.
So the real question becomes, what generic books do we subscribers want to see?
Like I said above I think the rules are done.
My PCs can't become gods yet, there is work to be done.
Seriously, I want an Immortals book.
Who feels as I do?
I disagree sorta...As in I have not reached my cap for it...but I think they should slow it down after UC...maybe one such book every two years.
Personaly I have reached my cap on Bestiaries...or will shortly after the third one.
Who feels differently and why?
A couple of reasons why I think there is 'room' for more.
1) As a GM I don't views these books as a Player only resouces. Heck with some of the witches hexes(I E the one where it turns people into potions) screams GM use only to me. My favorite monsters to run are ones with class levels...so a option for 'players' is infintie more useful to me than say a Bestiary every year.
2) As a player asnd a GM I loved that mechanics support the 'fluff' and vice versa...one of the reasons why I did not get into 4th ed by the way and loved 3,5/Pathfinder...so I love lots of options.
But saying that I won't mind seeing them come out with other books with maybe a little player options in them...but dealing with other things. Sorta like the Book of seris ( The Book of Battle) and the Enmviromental seris from WotC.
I understand we're locked in for Ultimate Combat. After that, please, let's get back to more expansive, campaign-based material.
Who feels as I do?
Who feels differently and why?
It's all opinion, so please state yours and leave other people to theirs.
I'd like to preface my post with the statement that all you guys' opinions are just wrong and that only I know the Real True Way. ;-P
To be seriously for a moment:
I agree that after Ultimate Combat, we don't need that many more "More of the same" books that expand on the more or less generic material we have so far (there are new classes and archetypes and so on in the books, but they're still concepts that have a very wide application).
So what to do with the 2 (or sometimes 3) PFRPG slots a year that are not a Bestiary?
One thing would be a huge NPC Gallery. There are already inquiries (and threads) about that in general, because Paizo is apparently wondering whether Bestiary 3 should be replaced by a book full of NPCs. I'd say that people probably won't be too upset if we'd get both - the Bestiary as that year's monster book and the NPC Gallery as one of the two other books for that year.
After that, branch out! There are many topics to explore that deviate from the generic core experience. Some include:
This could be one book containing several different locations with appropriate material or even a series of books that contain a single kind of location, or maybe a small set of thematically linked ones.
Rules wise, I personally feel the Core Rules, not to mention APG, really need some TLC re: Errata, it seems like too many issues have been discared as ´not worth fixing´ even though they are glaring errors or bad decisions of presentation, INCLUDING 3.x legacy stuff. Seriously dealing with those makes a new Core Rules purchase justifiable for MANY players, so such a project is just as viable as any NEW rules product IMHO.
+1 -- I'd love to be able to rid myself of all my 3.x and stick with PF books only, personally.
Like I said above I think the rules are done. Let them breathe and lets see what you (Paizo) can do with them.
Well said. As has been noted by Paizo before, they're in the business of telling stories with their Adventure Paths, and the rules are there to support the storytelling.
Well said. As has been noted by Paizo before, they're in the business of telling stories with their Adventure Paths, and the rules are there to support the storytelling.
Unfortunately, that model seems to have fallen by the wayside since the Core Rulebook sold as well as it did.
|
|
I'll add one more question:
For those who feel as I do, what kind of books would you like to see instead?
I think a book that streamlined and fixed the treasure rules would be grand. I'm dying for a total redux of the treasure scene, maybe a new design that accounts for later expansion, and doesn't require hours of dead ends.
Or a book about towns and settlements.
For any who have had a chance to see UM there is a section which fascinated me - the spell creation/breakdown rules (chapter 2: Designing Spells). I have seen some of this data before and I understand the metrics behind spell design, what got me was the overall presentation and thoroughness (from what I have read) of the material.
I would love to see (and was hoping to see) something like this for DM related issues in the AGG. I would like to see some DM related topics covered with this level of attention (and crunch) in another product.
Here are some topics that could use the same level of detail, or expansion
-Creature Design/Template Design (not just a book of templates)/Encounter Design
-Specifics on Magic and impact on Campaign: low to med magic and crunch considerations to make those work. Item Creation/Custom magic to fit playstyles.
-Community/Econ systems. Out of adventure info (could be folded into above)
-Dungeon/Adventure ecology and Design
I would love to see these topics covered in a "Designing Spells" format from UM. I won't hold my breath since these are GM related content as such may not sell as well as other player focused material.
I think that — done properly — NPC Gallery books could be as sustainable over multiple volumes as Bestiary books are.